Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTX 570 vs. HD 7850

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 10, 2012 10:10:35 PM

At first I wanted to buy something along the lines of HD 6850/6870/6950, but as my budget increased, I decided to go with GTX 560Ti/570. Another thing that made me change my mind was people talking how shady AMD's drivers are.

Then I stumbled upon HD 7850. According to most people/benchmarks, it's about as good as GTX 570 depending on the game, a bit slower overall, but at much lower price point and with newer technology and significantly less power consumption.

As of right now, the cheapest GTX 570 in my country is $395, while the cheapest HD 7850 is $314.

Can GTX 570's price tag justify 10% or less increase in performance over HD 7850?

Also, what can I expect from AMD's drivers for HD 7850?

I'm planning to buy GPU sometime this month, I was hoping that price of GTX 570 would fall thanks to release of GTX 600 series, but I don't see it happening yet.

Should I just go with HD 7850 or maybe wait for the release of GTX 660 (Ti)?

The rest of my rig is in my signature.

Bonus question: Is my MoBo/PSU capable of crossfiring HD 7850?

Thanks for input.

More about : gtx 570 7850

a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2012 10:30:21 PM

I personally haven't had any issues with AMD's drivers with my 7870. The GTX 570 is going to be a little faster in certain games (see link) but for the most part the 7850 is its equal (especially as drivers mature).

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/518?vs=549
April 10, 2012 10:33:18 PM

Yes, those are the benchmarks that I was looking at.

This review says that it's 13% slower than GTX 570, but to me it sounds like HD 7850 is better for future proofing because of newer technology, more VRAM and ability to maybe add another one later on.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
April 10, 2012 10:36:57 PM

If I had to pick, I'd go for the 7850. The performance per watt is great and the extra VRAM may come in handy depending on what display advancements we see in the near future.
April 11, 2012 4:37:22 AM

i downgraded my psu so i can get 7850, and with extra money i got better screen.
April 11, 2012 4:48:56 AM

The 7850 only gets better with Ivy Bridge too, seeing as how you have an Ivy Bridge ready mobo, I would say 7850 all the way. Then you can crossfire the 7850 later as it only requires a single PCI-E connector.

As long as your PSU has a 50amp 12v Rail, I would say yes. Toms Hardware does it all the time on that Corsair 650w PSU.
April 11, 2012 6:04:07 AM

Bolivious said:
The 7850 only gets better with Ivy Bridge too, seeing as how you have an Ivy Bridge ready mobo, I would say 7850 all the way. Then you can crossfire the 7850 later as it only requires a single PCI-E connector.

As long as your PSU has a 50amp 12v Rail, I would say yes. Toms Hardware does it all the time on that Corsair 650w PSU.

Yes, it has 52A on 12V rail. I wasn't sure because I saw it consumes nearly 300W under full load playing Metro. But that's great news, I can buy another one down the road (in a year maybe) because my MoBo is CF ready.
April 11, 2012 7:43:35 AM

Wait for the Gtx670/670ti or 660ti whatever. Those Radeon cards are not worth the money.
April 11, 2012 7:59:09 AM

The 570 is a better card but its not worth that price difference. I personally own a gtx 465 and it maxxes every game i own. Just saying, you might not have to buy such an expensive video card.
a c 291 U Graphics card
April 11, 2012 8:00:06 AM

I agree now that I saw the article from tom's that AMD has been sacrificing image quality for benchmark scores, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Even if it's fixable, it reduces card's performance by up to 10%, which would reduce their value and in the end nVidia cards maintain their, by comparison.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/image-quality-driver-opti...
April 11, 2012 10:16:47 AM

Sunius said:
I agree now that I saw the article from tom's that AMD has been sacrificing image quality for benchmark scores, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Even if it's fixable, it reduces card's performance by up to 10%, which would reduce their value and in the end nVidia cards maintain their, by comparison.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/image-quality-driver-opti...


if you read the article you would already know amd has the fix ready in the next driver release and it well not affect performance. also the testing show that amd was not trying to decrease quality for performance since the fix show performance at the same level as the pre-fix testing
April 11, 2012 10:20:48 AM

also both are great cards but the 7850 is at a very sweet price point and it would be difficult for me to spend an extra 100 extra for 10 percent better performance
a c 291 U Graphics card
April 11, 2012 10:23:54 AM

Right...

48.6 fps vs 52.8 fps. That's 8.64% increase in performance for sacrificing quality. And that's with THE FIX driver. 8.64% is no joke I'd say, it's not marginal.

Again, with "fixed" drivers: 70.0 fps vs 77.4 fps. This time AMD gained 10.57%!! That's around the difference between GTX 560 Ti and GTX 570! Come on, personally I don't buy this 'it won't hurt performance' thing.
April 11, 2012 10:29:45 AM








you even see improvement with the fixed driver, so how is it decreasing in performance
a c 291 U Graphics card
April 11, 2012 10:31:02 AM

Umm you still dip if you set the textures to look how they are supposed to look.
April 11, 2012 10:35:32 AM

both nvidia and amd have adjustable quality settings in there driver settings but in benchmarks they use the default setting on both. the nvidia cards are not set to the highest setting by default if that's what you're applying.
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2012 10:36:57 AM

Sunius said:
Umm you still dip if you set the textures to look how they are supposed to look.

Uhm, ok... what? the textures look almost no different. Of course your frames are going to go down if you raise image quality.... its new tech they are still fixing things and enabling things to give better performance. Honestly, an increase in image quality + an increase in frames seems like a win win win to me.

As with any graphics card you are supposed to go in and check everything to "application enabled or performance" if its not then you are getting lower frames with barely any noticeable increase in graphics.
a c 291 U Graphics card
April 11, 2012 10:47:15 AM

Sure nvidia has adjustable settings, but it's high quality by default. Anyway, believe what you want, but after this I'll won't even look at what AMD's got to offer for enthusiast gamers. Not only they always have lame drivers, but their default setting is to sacrifice quality..
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2012 10:50:42 AM

Sunius said:
Sure nvidia has adjustable settings, but it's high quality by default. Anyway, believe what you want, but after this I'll won't even look at what AMD's got to offer for enthusiast gamers. Not only they always have lame drivers, but their default setting is to sacrifice quality..


HAHAHAHA, nice you refuse some nice options because review sites forgot to check what quality settings they had it set it to... well to each there own I guess.
April 11, 2012 10:56:43 AM

there drivers are not as well manage as nvidia that's true, but over all there great cards and they keep nvidia on there toes. we are not here to argue fan boy questions like nvidia vs amd, where here to figure the best card for the OP.

i suggest the 7850 for the fact it has more performance to be squeezed out with better drivers, much more power efficient, and has some serious overclocking room if you chose to do so.
April 11, 2012 1:37:06 PM

Yes, I think I'll go with HD 7850 after all.

Less power, less heat, lower price, newer technology, more VRAM, room for CF down the road... All of those outweigh ~10% performance increase. :) 

As for GTX 660/670 (non-Ti or Ti), they are out of the question because they won't be out in at least several months and they will be way out of my price range, probably well over $450-500 in my country.
a b U Graphics card
April 11, 2012 10:30:28 PM

Sunius said:
Right...
http://media.bestofmicro.com/U/Q/332882/original/Metro%207870%20FIXED.png
48.6 fps vs 52.8 fps. That's 8.64% increase in performance for sacrificing quality. And that's with THE FIX driver. 8.64% is no joke I'd say, it's not marginal.
http://media.bestofmicro.com/U/T/332885/original/Skyrm%207870%20FIXED.png
Again, with "fixed" drivers: 70.0 fps vs 77.4 fps. This time AMD gained 10.57%!! That's around the difference between GTX 560 Ti and GTX 570! Come on, personally I don't buy this 'it won't hurt performance' thing.


You're reading that completely incorrectly. Those settings are CCC AI settings and the real comparison is the fixed vs the non-fixed driver, not fixed high quality vs fixed high performance.

The correct comparison is:


vs



Where's that difference you were talking about?
April 2, 2014 3:03:14 PM

I think Nvidia GTX 570 is still better since It has two pci conectors and overclock is better. That 10% can be 20% because Amd 7850 doesnt overclock that well. Since it is more efficient in energy.
April 2, 2014 5:10:48 PM

You do realize this thread is 2 years old?

Also, HD 7850 overclocks like a charm, uses twice less power than GTX 570 and runs 15-20 °C cooler.
!