should perform like a highly overclocked 4850, given they are close in SPs, and ram GB/s, but only has a much faster core than a 4850
Printable View
should perform like a highly overclocked 4850, given they are close in SPs, and ram GB/s, but only has a much faster core than a 4850
Thats what Ive ben saying. 5770 will be a nice low budget bomber for sure. Its better than 4770 definately.We were all hopeing for a little more though. Hopefully Ati relases something between the desert of 5770 and 5850. I got my fingers crossed for a 5830 by christmas
5830 <~~~~My next red headed step-child
1280 Stream Processors
1gig GDDR5 1150mhz (128bit or 256bit)
725mhz core
It would be golden I say. Too bad it would cut into big boys 5850/70 profits at the moment. Oh' the harvested dies oh' my.
I don't know.:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
The core is faster than a HD4870. Indeed is as fast as the core of a HD4890. Plus any architecture optimization or improvement from R700 architecture to Evergreen architecture.
On the other hand, it has little more memory bandwidth than a HD4850.
So I suppose that in a 100% memory bandwidth limited situation it should be little more performant than a HD4850, and the more the processing power counts, the closer it should be to a HD4890.
Then it has DX11 support (including the full DirectCompute, which can be used not only in games), some improvements in GPGPU, some improvements in IQ (as the AF), a hugely reduced power consumption (therefore less heat, and probably less noise, from the card and maybe from the PSU)...
So probably it's a better product for a lot of people, even if it isn't for everybody.:yepp:
Anyway, until we get some real world data, this is only speculation... it might turn to be worse, or better.
All articles/leaks point to it being as fast as 4890 with high possibility of passing it overclocked by manufacturers. Not sure why it is being compared to 4850, it should blows the socks off 4850.
Because of the memory bandwidth. In every other regard, it should be at least as fast as HD4890, but its memory bandwidth is way closer to the HD4850 (little higher), which is little more than half the HD4890 one.Quote:
Originally Posted by 96redformula7
So in memory bandwidth bottlenecked situations, it might be closer to a HD4850 than a HD4890.
Anyway, this is pure speculation until we get some real world data.
Just read this over at BSN. Pretty cool, AMD. :D
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...next-week.aspxQuote:
However, when AMD launched the ATI Radeon HD 5800 series, 5850 was moved down to $259.99, while HD 5870 was moved down to $389.99, with some manufacturers even going down to $379.99 range. So, a 20-40 dollar discount from originally planned prices. After talking with several AMD people, we were told that with Evergreen series, AMD will show responsibility towards the present state of economy and get customers "as far as affordable [pricing] as possible."
Actually if you look at the raw computing power it's slower than even a 4870 if you look at the number of cores and the frequency they're operating at. edit: oops sorry, I looked at the 5750 numbersQuote:
Originally Posted by Farinorco
So here's what we have: This card is about a 4890 in the best case scenario, and is slightly better than a 4850 in the worst case scenario.
Price: $160
HD 4890 price: $185.
Sure it might be a better pick due to DX11 and lower power consumption, but are new generations of computer parts just consume less power at the same price point, or do they offer more performance as well?
I still don't get this launch.
Mmmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
RV770 -> 800SP, 40TMU, 32ROP.
Juniper -> 800SP, 40TMU, 32ROP.
HD4850 @625MHz; HD4870 @750MHz; HD4890 @850MHz; HD5770 @850MHz.
So... why do you say the raw computer power is slower than a HD4870? It's an equal match to HD4890 by numbers, and without taking into account any architectural optimization/improvement.
EDIT: I've seen you have edited at same time I was posting this. Little slip up, hehe, everyone has them from time to time ;)...
I looked at 5750's specs by mistake, sorry
so a 4870 is about 1.2 tflop, 4890 about 1.36 tflop, 5750 is 1 tflop and 5770 again 1.36.
Still it should be memory bottlenecked and when AF kicks in I doubt it'll perform anywhere near 4890.
About 4890 best case, about 4850 worst case: $160
About 4890 best case, about 4890 worst case: $185
Only, the former consumes less power, is DX11. This isn't what you get for a product that's newer by one year
On the contrary, I think that's exactly what you use to get for a lower end product that's newer by one year: similar performance to the old higher end, with the new features, a reduced power consumption and a similar price point to the devaluated (due to obsolescence) price of the old one at the time of the new one being released.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Think that this product is a year newer, but going a year back, the HD4800 series didn't have a price point around 160$ exactly...
I am sure than HD5350 will be even less performant, and it will be even newer...
Yes, you are right on that 4890 wasn't $160 last year (well it still isn't this year actually lol) but I'm saying that 5770 is still a dubious buy if it performs @4890 at best and slightly better than 4850 at worst.
If I'd spend around $150-200 it would mean that I'm at least somewhat serious about gaming - and then anyone serious with gaming is serious with AF since in most cases it makes everything look a WHOLE lot better. If when AF8x+ is enabled the performance hit is really big and it drops to 4850 levels, then essentially this is a worthless card for its price. If not, it can be a good pick.
But the matter is, to me, we shouldn't even be talking about whether the next generation is better at the same price point. It should be without question. But when the AF matter kicks in, the situation is going to be blurry and that's something I fail to understand.
Actually with AF turned on it should perform better than a 4890 since interpolation is done in the shaders now rather than the 32 units of 48x0 series had.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Remember both the 4870 and 4890 had more than enough bandwidth and the 4850 was the only chip that was limited by bandwidth. With these 5ghz chips that seem to be regularly overclocking to 5.2-5.3ghz, we are looking at +83GBps in an overclocked situation which is a +30% increase over the 4850's 63.5GBps. Cypress and Juniper also use their bandwidth much better than the 48x0 series thanks to improvements with certain compression algorithms and other such tweaks.
Brent over at [H]ardforums already mentioned talking w/ AMD about the memory bandwidth and they have stated that it is bottlenecked by the GPU before the memory, so 128bit is not playing a limiting factor on the card.
I don't think that AF8x/+ alone is going to saturate the 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth of the HD5770 until the point of making a 100% bottleneck situation, and HD4850 had a 64 GB/s and I'm sure that even with AF8x/+ you could see a performance improvement when overclocking the GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Anyway, we will see when we have real world data to compare.
I don't think so. IMO, the market doesn't work that way. If a new product is better at the same price point, or the price is lower when offering more or less the same, the old one lowers its price to compensate. That's exactly why the old products lose value.Quote:
But the matter is, to me, we shouldn't even be talking about whether the next generation is better at the same price point. It should be without question. But when the AF matter kicks in, the situation is going to be blurry and that's something I fail to understand.
The new products should, without question, be better than the old at the time of launch of each one. And it does it.
If this card would cost less, the old cards should go down in price to compensate (that's how the market works). So the relative situation between them would be exactly the same... if two products have a similar price, it's so because it's a tough decision about which one to buy... and you have to factor in the other improvements apart from performance, too.
Im with annihilat0r on this one. Whats the point in buying a new gpu if its slower than a same price older model. Sure some people wont tell the difference, but XS people like us do. Most GPU buyers want balls to the wall performance, with no substitute. I just think its a mistake to not at least match the older series performance, if performance was exceeded this would be a no brainer done deal. Truth is these 5700 cards are only here to put the squeeze on nvidia. Nvidia cant compete with their expensive to make boards. All the 5700's are is just a cutdown, dirt cheap, high profit, competitive card.
There's no point in changing an old card that now costs X by a new lower end that also now costs the same X. If both now cost X, it's because they are more or less equiparable, so no point in changing one product by the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by To(V)bo Co(V)bo
If you are a high end performance user (and you have a high end performance card, as the HD4870/HD4890), you should be thinking in buying a high end performance card (aka HD5800 series), not lowering your consumer profile to the value performance segment. And if you want to lower your consumer profile and even though buy a better card, you probably should have to wait till the lower end is actually noticeably better than the higher end.
IMO, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective: you're asking "why would I change my current HD4870 for a HD5770?". Instead, you should try to ask yourself "If the HD4870 was -today- a much worst performance to price option, why would I buy one of this instead a HD5770? Shouldn't this mean that the HD4870 should drop its price to match the new situation?".
Let me insist on this: the way the market works, it's balancing the prices to the product value that consumers perceive. If 2 different products are at similar price points at a given time, it's because they are similarly valuable. If 2 products of similar value have way different prices, the more expensive product have to drop its price to balance it again.
why are people complaining.. the mid range of this series matches the old top end card (no x2's dont count) ? :/
People are comparing the newer generation card's launch price with the reduced price of older gen cards highend hence the disappointment. If they want better performance at the same price point then they'll have to wait.
...for Nvidia to get their :banana::banana::banana::banana: together to drive down prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by ubuntu83
Exactally the point, their missing a big opportunity here. Give us something thats better than a gtx275 for around 200$ and Im sold! To me the 200$ mark is the real sweetspot. You could always just grab a xbox360 and get all the games that come with it for the money. Thats also a big competitor to nvidia and ati. Give me something that makes it a easy choice to go PC.Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeter
Loupseul at OCAU has one, 48701gb / gtx260 level performance
http://www.overclockers.com.au/pix/i...3t77u&f=1'
Click to view full size!
http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...83670&page=219
the new texture filtering algorithms definitely come at a high bandwidth cost. thats the main bottleneck in texture filtering anyways. fixed function would not have a been much faster. i dont think that these cards will have high binned memory either. it depends on the manufacturer in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
What? Proof please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/53/12
In this AMD slide about HD5770 performance, it doesn't seem to take a huge impact by using 8xMSAA and 16xAF @1920x1200 (at least compared to 4xMSAA and 8xAF configurations)...
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4556/87428019.gif
Note that they aren't comparing against any other card, it's a framerate measurement. The baseline is 30fps.
It seems like a pretty good performance @1920x1200 for a value card of 160$, but it's difficult to compare without other cards results.
Just got my hd5770:
:)
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/b...0619copier.jpg
Is that a non NDA card?Quote:
Originally Posted by pvhk
If they bundle that helmet then I'm sold.
If that graph turns out to be true..... that would be pretty great at $160 imho.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinorco
he was attempting to get maximum theoretical rates in his benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...re-analysis/12
the larrabee whitepaper also talks about this in the fixed function section.
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~dbrooks...e_manycore.pdf
I understand that but it also shows that it is not necessarily bandwidth limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Where in those sources does it show/say that texture filtering is "bottlenecked by bandwidth?"
Only reason that GTX285 is performing "better" is because it is doing less work and produces a lesser quality of AF.
its obvious that the quality is higher in rv870. i would expect fermi to have higher quality than the older nv algorithms. they have been using the same one since g80. its also BS that review sites bump up AA and res and make it look like a card is more powerful. there is a reason we use adaptive AF rather than .Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
the larrabee paper said that interpolation done through software is slower but the difference is negligible. calculation is not the bottleneck.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=55241
Correct, interpolation done through the shaders is slower but it also allows more than enough data to be fed to the TMUs to keep them at near peak performance, when needed. Compared to the 32 interpolators in RV770, RV870's peak theoretical interpolation is much higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Even still, the 5770 is really designed to be played at 1680x1050 resolutions and lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinorco
2x5770 would be same as 1x 5870 !!!!!!!!
it seems the core is the same 4890 ,more than 800sp would have been better.........................
NO! We are saying that given the choice, you can choose the same level of performance, but gain DX11 and effeciency..! Thus, to many, the 5770 is a BETTER choice than the 4870... ATi think so too, thats why it's one series higher!Quote:
Originally Posted by To(V)bo Co(V)bo
Okay so I am reaaaaaallly getting confused on this card by the reviews I'm reading. In some reviews the 5770 can't beat a GTS 250 in others its comparable to a 4890. Can someone tell me wtf is right?
Without seeing too many benchmarks, it seems to be similar to a 4870, give or take ~10% depending on the benchmark, so slightly less than a 4890 at times but above the 4850.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
alright thx, so essentially it will be the mid range price point card for ATI w/DX11? I hope they intend on getting rid of the 4870's so they aren't trying to sell a bazillion cards at a time. Like another company I can think of. If this card is $160 seems pretty reasonable for this. But what will be replacing the 4890? Or will this be replacing the $180-200 spot, I just find it odd if it isn't as fast. The 4890 is a great card after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
The 5770 is going to be ~$160 at launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
RV770/790 is already EOL, they are still working on clearing inventory.
As far as replacing the 4890, there are a couple different schools of thought.
One is to just overclock the 5770 to around 950mhz and just let that fill the gap, others are thinking that if they could use a lower binned Cypress, either a really slow 1440SP chip or maybe a 1120SP chip w/ decent clocks would fit in pretty well as a 5830. The last possibility is that they left some room for the 5850/5870 to drop once GF100 is released.
Ah, so it might be like how the 4890 is like the dirt cheap ones at stock then paying a premium for the higher clocked ones? When is the GF100 coming out? I wouldn't mind a 5850 for $180 heheheheQuote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glow9
The 5850 will be $199 all threw the Xmas holiday shopping season, most likely..
I forget is it after xmas that vid cards then shoot back up or drop?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
HD5770 benchmarked
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.ph...2&postcount=98
Yeah ive read over this whole thread and am a bit confused myself tbh. so the 5770 is basically the 4870 in disguise? like performance wise?? if so then why not get a 4870? any rumor on a 5770X2? these seem like great performers for the price but is there a reason why theres not many benches with them yet?
I don't think the 5770x2 rumor has any validity since the two 5770s would be the exact same thing as one 5870 and their prices would probably be the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by overclocking101
AMD really has a complete portfolio for their videocards, but that 5750 cooler is ugly as sin, is a dual slot and dumps heat back into the case.
4870 doesn't have DX11, nor a ~110w TDP.Quote:
Originally Posted by overclocking101
NDA doesn't expire until the 13th of October.
Not sure why everyone dislikes stock coolers that don't exhaust out. When ATi has a card that exhausts out the back people complain about the noise, when they have a good performing cooler that is quiet, people complain about the looks and the "heat dump."Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Most of us here are going to replace the stock cooler anyway and the highest performing aftermarket coolers do not exhaust out the back anyways...
Sapphire HD 5770 in stock
http://www.canadacomputers.com/index...namitedata.com
Just in case someone somehow misses it and goes off on a pricing rant, those are Canadian dollars.:p:
I can't wait to grab the 5770, I will be waiting for one to pop up to grab one asap .
Anybody have a clue as to how much availability will be at launch?
lol NZ has stock right now, we are normally last to get :)
I'm Turkish and we always get the parts quickly for some reason:DQuote:
Originally Posted by revogamer
WHO IS THE DEVELOPED COUNTRY NOW!!!!!
CIA world factbook: 0, me: 1
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Buy it and send to me, us poor swedes are always last on the list to get stuff, we're even behind the turks:eek:
I'm not sure why the card is doing so poorly; in specs it's better than the 4870, so why? Is the memory limiting it? It seems sort of counter productive for it to have more shaders, but have them not properly fed - it's like giving away unused potential.
Here at Spain we don't get stuff earlier than you, I think. I always watch a little annoyed how other european countries like Germany, UK and so, get the stuff a weak or more before we do. Heck, I even only know of one shop in Madrid where you can buy a HD5850 (HD5870 it's on many more) and at a price tag of... 269€!Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
Where did you see how it's this card doing poorly against a 4870? I haven't seen any single useful comparison yet, apart from meaningful 3DMark values, and an AMD paper with some data that only God knows in wich test system and conditions is made...Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Mini Review: HD4850 512MB vs HD5770 1GB
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33953894
If I feel like it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartidiot89
Not only we get the parts usually quicker, but they're almost always cheaper than other European countries. You guys get stuff for X Euros, it's usually X dollars here.
Looks about on part with a 4870..? Good, if you ask me. Not industry changing, but a good addition to AMD's arsenal.Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
i think it's higher than a 4870.
Far cry for example, 31.79 average for 4850, 42.43 average for 5770, that's a 33.47% increase in average FPS, i doubt that a 4870 is 33% more powerfull than a 4850.
If these cards will OC like hell (1100-5.3Ghz soft modded) then they will sell like cupcakes otherwise 4890 @ 180$ is the way to go,I won't mention the second hand market where you could buy a 4890 for the same price as a 5750...
killer card damn ati is humiliating nvidia in mid and low range als high now lolQuote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
Well, just initial results, and some people summed it up as being between the 4870 and the 4890, while on paper it should be superior hardware-wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Farinorco
Hmm, somewhat disappointing results, well at least to me.
Don't think this has been posted yet, it's probably one of the first few official reviews.
5770:
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles...036&cid=3&pg=1
5750:
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh...24&postcount=1
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh...33&postcount=3
1120 shaders was false, it does have 800.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
I really hope we finally see some reviews with a variety of hardware. With some down in the meat of the market too, where the vast majority of enthusiasts sit. An enthusiast doesn't mean people with an unlimited bank account. There's also people with dual cores that would be interested in these cards, and it really doesn't make sense for reviewers to completely alienate that large user base. The same is true for the 5800 series; there are many people with performance and mainstream class hardware that would be interested in them. So it makes little sense to have 40 reviews ALL SHOWING THE SAME THING!
I don't understand why there is so much resistance to using many combinations of different hardware, to accomodate as many people as possible. It would make things a whole lot more interesting, if not only for the fanboi wars alone! :D
There are 2 problems that keep reviewers away from using multiple/different setups.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
1> The time needed to make the benchmarks.
2> The fact that most benchmarks with very high end cards end up CPU limited, thus failing to show the actual performance differences between the hardware.
How sweet, NDA is broke allready. Ok then, prepare thyselves :D
5770 doesn't look impressive to me at all, card is too neutered.
Yes, I know that argument, but what i'm suggesting is not that each site have to do a million different combination of tests, but that each website write a review using only one set of supporting hardware, running at spec (and overclocked).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante80
It seems that all reviews written now, assume that everyone reading run their hardware at it's limits. I bet not very many do,
The Hardwarezone article doesn't look promising at all,the card has problems keeping pace with 4870 which can be bought for ~35$ less :mad:
I was really hoping to get this card to replace my 4850 but I'd rather buy a 4890 second hand than this,it will save me some money also.
ATi kinda failed with this card,too much inspiration from Nvidia.....:ROTF: now let's see some OC!
I think that...
800 SP + 128 bits + GDDR5 = bottleneck..
guess what 1600 + 256 bits + GDDR5 means... right... bottleneck..
I think that the 5770 shows exactly the problem of the 58xx series...
Gimme gimme :DQuote:
Originally Posted by revogamer
i think your rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
lets compare
4870:
Core 800 SPs and 750 Mhz
Ram 115 GBs
5870:
Core 1600 SPs and 850 Mhz
Ram 153 GBs
the Core is about 225% faster
the Ram is only 33% faster
what happened to the 7GHz GDDR5 i herd we already have. the 5890 better be fing leet and break 200GBs
i also think ATI should have gone with 384 bit ram, it would have cost a little more, but i think they would be much stronger, maybe too strong.
Only problem with your bandwidth hypothesis is that OCing RAM doesn't give the appropriate performance gain one would assume it would if it were bottlenecked.
then ill just say the drivers arent mature enough to let the ram be the bottleneck, it seems like the easy way to win this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
Uhmm u know that 4870 was 279 or smthng when it launched right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by XS2K
Who cares about pricing of the 4870 at launch?Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
According to Spain prices, this is what we have:
-4870 @ 120€
-GTX260 @ 125€
-4890 @ 160€
-5770 @ 150€
How am I supposed to buy a 5770 when all those cards are cheaper and/or better? It doesn't make any sense at all folks. DX11, less power consumption and all that stuff are just gimmicks and I would rather buy a 4890 or GTX260 for that money...
Seriously, it doesn't matter if this is low-end or high-end, what matters is that you have existing products that perform the same or better for the same or less money. Senseless...
Yes but from a buyers perspective you look at the competition your product is facing in the moment of purchase and 4890/4870 are some tough competitors if you ask me,also DX11 has yet to make a stand in games,by the time it will have a good install base like 5 titles 2 of them AAA then I will make it a must for my card to support DX11.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Heck by the time we see AAA dx11 titles ati will be on their new architecture. I see this series as a stop gap to something better.
no surprise actually....
The 8600 GT didn't beat the 7900 GTX,
the 4670 didn't beat the 3870
I don't think we will see a mainstream product beat the previous generation high end.
But the pricing, that's another issue.
all other products will eol :rolleyes: and 5770 soon will drop at even lower price point so be patientQuote:
Originally Posted by prava
HD 5770 benchmarked
http://www.insidehw.com/Reviews/Grap...n-HD-5770.html
HD 5750 pictures
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/sh....php?t=2531016
Well, I posted a lot of pages back when we thought it was 1120SPs. I still think that this has a place in the market for some. For myself, while it doesn't have the initial specs the performance seems to be better than a radeon 4850 that I own. Lower power consumption, heat output and a shorter card still make it worthwhile. Does this mean I will pick it up for the release price of $160? Hmm, maybe I probably won't buy it since I am short on money due to dental bills and hospital fees, but once I have more funds I imagine the price will decrease.
For this mini-itx owner, it fits perfectly.
ok so looking at the benchmarks, I'm screwed! my crappy little 4870's get smoked by the 5770's damnit!
i dont see any benches where the 5770 cant keep up with 4870 im confused. in most i saw 5770 beat them marginally.
they are probably adding 30-40$ just for the DX11 feature. cost wise, this is cheaper to make than a 4850 by quite a margin i think. let ATI soak in some profits while they can, not like you have any other option if you want DX11 and dont have 250$
Actually , take a look at those crossfire scailing numbers over at guru3d. It almost scales perfectlly double. It even beats out a 5870 fairly easily. 2 of 5770 ftw
This has to prove some kind of performance issues with 5870, way more potential.
i looked at afew reviews, in some cases the 2x 5770 does win, but it also quickly falls behind once you turn up the AA or resolution.