http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/22/9...dfdb22641f.jpg
http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/22/b...8841def013.jpg
http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/22/d...faa6777a8b.jpg
http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/22/3...d738c00eee.jpg
Printable View
that looks like a nice card but why is the power consumption so high at 175, do they have to power the cut sections that much
Yeah thats odd. are there any actual leaked photos yet??
That's not power consumption, that's maximum board power. I'm guessing that's how much power that one is allowed to feed through the board, and it may be higher than the 5850 due to VRM inefficiency, etc.
16 rops? sounds more like a HD5790 than a HD5830 IMO
Also, if you buy an HD58xx series you're an enthusiast. But why be that when you can be an Ultra Enthusiast by buying an HD59xx series! :rofl:
I Agree on the ROP count, should be 24 or such. Then again it's aimed to be the bastard child of the 5xxx series so 16 should help it meet that goal. So far I'm not liking what I see. I'm pretty damned sure the HD 4830 didn't launch at $200.
In comparison the 5830 is aiming to be more seriously neutered compared to the 5850 than the 4830 was to the 4850.
feels like the 5830 is just whatever left over broken 5870s that are about to make a one way trip to the dumpster. i cant even tell if a 5770 is going to be faster
the 5770 with still slower than the 4890 (right below the 4870 normally) and at the same price point with this at the same price point as the 4890 and 5770 was it should be a nice card for the price especially once the ferni is out and it drops in price a little
Its looking more like a 5790 to me too, but the 256 bit memory would put it into the 5800 category as thats the main difference, though a 5770 with 1120 shaders for less cost would have been awesome.
I dont reckon the extra performance from two of these would be worth the cost or power consumpsion over a pair of 5770s @ 1 Ghz, but individually they fit the gap between 5770 and 5850 nicely.
I'd still rather pick 5850s instead for 'enthusiast', or 5770s for 'price to performance'.
The problem with the 5800 range this time around is the vastly reduced number of shaders, whereas 4800s just differed with clock speeds I think.
Ive been converted to crossfiring the *770 cards from now on anyway, I'm waiting for the 6770 later this year :).
Also, according to Ati, Im no longer an enthusiast, but rather a performance something ... A perthusiast, or enthusimence maybe???
I hate confusing charts.
Wow take it ez with the laser ati. I thought this thing would have more shaders, that makes the 5850 the value leader for cypress
http://i50.tinypic.com/2dtngb4.jpg
edit: damn, and they cut the rops in half? WEAK. This thing sux, for 5800 series, but i bet it still sells...
they are taking otherwise dead gpus and using them, it seams like more of a tsmc problem that they have to do this instead of underclocking parts for the lower cards
I have been waiting for this card , but it looks disappointing .
24 rops and 1200 stream processors would have made me buy this card . Now I will just aim for 5770 :)
It is better than a HD5770, so if you were waiting for a card between that one and the HD5850 you should consider getting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimInalA
over time due to the extra power consumption, i bet can end up costing more than a 5850. that would be sad
Well, lets see how much the reduced ROP's affect performance before jumping to conclusions i guess
While disappointing, pricing will ultimately determine its value
Are there any good GPU's for comparing ROP count and related performance? Honestly I would like to know the eirect impact on ROPs with recent games. Can someone do a bios mod on a 4xxx or 5xxx series to shut down some ROP's without touching shaders and give us all a good comparison to see if the neutered ROP count on the 5830 or any card makes much of a difference?
It would seem on paper that the 5830 would be closer to the 5770 in perfomance than the 5850 but I'm hoping ATI thought this one thru and I'm wrong.
I think the 175w thing is a big ol typo, maybe they mean 125?
I have a feeling this is the perfect card for the 1680x1050 crowd.
Once you up the res to 1920x1200/1080 the 5850 should pull ahead due to the ROPs but the extra shading power at 1680x1050 should keep it ahead of the 5770.
Edit- I too was hoping the ROPs wouldn't be cut this drastic but it makes sense to make sure it stays under 5850.
The overclocking ability of this card is fantastic though that is due to the fact that the cards from AMD are on a highend PCB, as some have already pointed out.
http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/22/0...e7d0e85cac.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by overclocking101
http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/22/4...086b5f1c17.jpg
http://image3.it168.com//2010/2/22/f...13593334c3.jpg
Wow, that's retail cards with 5870's PCB. That's fantastic!
As SKYMTL said in this post, there's no reference PCB by ATI and all cards sent ro reviewers have 5870 PCB and clock like a bat from hell:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1266787133
If this is a trend, 2 of these 5870 PCB'ed 5830 in CF for around $400 will be really sweet, 16 rops or not.
if thats the toxic pcb like the cooler looks then i doubt that it will oc without a hard mod as the voltage is normally non variable on non reference cards that arnt advertised with it
well, I think the 16 rops makes sense.
probably ATI don't want people buying HD5830s and getting HD5850's performance overclocking it a bit.
It needs to sit between HD5770 and HD5850, something like GTX275/HD4890 performance, with this specs it will do the job. :up:
So how does that fit in with unlocking 550s into X4s. Maybe we'll see a similar sotfmod...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokinhow
specs are dissapointing hoped for more rops damn you ati
I think the TDP is rated for the Whole chip to be loaded at 100%. And they did not take in to account what huge parts of the chip are disabled.
Look at the stats:
VS HD5850: 75 MHz higher clock 20 Watt more
VS HD5870: 50 MHz Lower clock 13 Watt less
It would not surprise me if the reviews show that the HD5830 consumes less in furmark and games compared to the HD5850.
And the ROBS who say's they can keep 24 active ? Maybe they only have 2 clusters of 16 ?
HD5830:
- Higher power consumption than HD5850
- Only 16 ROPs, and has lower pixel fillrate than HD5770 at stock speeds
I don't think it will be much faster than HD5770, and at the same time it will consume more power than even HD5850. Thats really dissapointing
Owh yes it will. You dont even know what the impact is of those robs. You dont know what the load is on the 5770 that also has 16 rob's. And offcource AMD whants you to buy the 5850 or 5870 rather then the 5830.Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
I think the performance will be closer to the HD5850 compared to the 5770. I dont think those ROB's will bottelnek it a lot.
lower pixel fillrate but 31% higher compute power, 40% more stream processors, 31% higher texture fillrate and 66% higher memory bandwidthQuote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
Too bad I can't see the OP pics at work (filtered by the firewall).
Somebody care to post the official specs??
I can see this pic, though.... Are those the official specs for the 5830?
Thanks in advance :p:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Core clock: 800MHzQuote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
Stream Processors: 1120
Compute power: 1.79Teraflops
TMUs: 56
Texture fillrate: 44.8 GTexel/s
ROPs: 16
Pixel fillrate: 12.8 GPixel/s
Z/Stencil: 51.2 GSamples/s
Memory Clock: 4GHz GDDR5
Bandwidth: 128GB/s
Maximum board power: 175W
Idle board power: 25W
:)
Stream Processors: 5830 = 1120, 5850 = 1440Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
Texture Units: 5830 = 56, 5850 = 72
ROPS: 5830 = 16, 5850 = 32
With Transistor count staying the same as with the 5850, so its cut down and no new chip.
Memory: 5830 = 5850
In return for the cut down you get 75mhz higher gpu clock.
BingoQuote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astennu
It's ROP ffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Astennu
1120 sp @ 800 MHz, 56 Tex, 16 ROP, 256bit @ 1GHz GDDR5, 25-175WQuote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
Some extra info. The HD5830 had way higher clocks then the 5850. You know how "small" the difference between the 5850 and 5870 is.Quote:
Originally Posted by dartaz
According to some the HD5830 "only" has 1.79 Gflops. And the 5850 has 2.09 Gflops. Well time to wake up ? the HD5870 has 2.72. The high 800 Mhz clocks for the 5830 really help.
Next Mem Bandwith. HD5850 has 20% less compared to the 5870. With the 5830 its the same as the 5850. So no loss there.
As for the shaders and texture units its the same drop as from 5870 to 5850.
Then the "Major" issue the ROB's they went from 32 to 16. Well i dont think that will give a big performance hit. AMD doubled them with the RV870 because the rest also doubled.
And i dont know the design but i think they grouped the ROPs somehow so they can only disable 16 at a time. But i can be wrong.
But still i think the 16 rops are fast enough to power those 320 extra shaders. You might see a small hit in 8x AA performance but i doubt it will be mind blowing.
Overall the 5830 will be closer to the 5850 in terms of performance compared to the 5770. So you guy's worry to much.
TDP is a absolute maxium. I think it will use less or the same amount of power that the 5850 uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
Yees sorry. I'm only human :s
Some interesting info:
- Some AIBs will be using HD 5870 PCBs but with revised (budgetary) power distribution sections. This also makes them slightly longer than a HD 5850.
- Cards sent directly from AMD to reviewers use a carbon copy of the HD 5870 PCB + PCB components + heatsink which is likely why the card can clock so high. It may also contribute to the higher power consumption listed in AMD's documents.
- Other board partners are using HD 5770 PCBs
- Every card I have seen has a different cooler
- Price isn't listed as $200. Rather, AMD only lists a price of UNDER $250. That can mean $249 and below which I am guesisng will be dictated by the board partner's component choices.
:down: to all of them...Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Guess only 5850 is really worth buying out of the whole 5xxx line up, sadly, at least if you're looking for optimal price/performance ratio.
Fermi will determine prices this summer.
Thanks Lokinhow, naokaji and Frank M for the answers.
5830 sounds like fail lol whatever seems ati got lazy and greedy again :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Preferably not lazy, but unwisely greedy, they could make one 8800GTish. All because there ain't a pressure to make one though, not yet.:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Before passing judgement, wait for the reviews. ATI wanted something that slots into the large gap between the HD 5770 and HD 5830 and I think they will achieve that. In the end, it all comes down to pricing and I am sure some board partners will be pretty aggressive on that front.
the difference here between 5770 and 5830 is 256 bit vs 128 bit. fill rate seems slightly lower then 5770, but textures are higher, 50mhz lower core speed too. Also thought this card was going to have 1280 shaders :/
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Let's wait to see what kind of performance this part will deliver.
That's what all of you guys that already have the 5830 in your hands are hinting and that's what I expect from reading the specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
A really nice card to fill the gigantic gap between 5770 and 5850 for ~$220'ish. Closer to the 5850, I believe. And like you said, the market will be flooded with dozens of simplier PCB designs and cooling that will sell for $199.
Depending how it goes, this can be the perfect card for replacing my "old" 4890. I don't game a lot anymore and for the games I play (Silent Hunter 4 and race sims) the 4890 is hardly breaking a sweat @ 1920x1080 except with 8xAA
5830 seems fail, although I'd like to see what ASUS, Powercolor and XFX have up their sleeves when it comes to it before buying the 5850.
1GHz a la carte and it might be worth looking forward too.
I wouldnt bother with judging or comparing clock speeds on the 5000 series cards. They are all 40nm and most can reach up to 1 Ghz on stock cooling using MSI Afterburner.
I dont think using a 5870 PCB is good, they should at least be shorter than a 5850 since they are lower specified.
My only concern is voltage control. Most of the non-reference designs use a cheap voltage controller without software control, that will make 1Ghz core clock almost impossible.
I love ATi reference designs, including the cooler, I'll chose a HD5830 with any ATi PBC over any non-reference, in most cases cheap, Sapphire or PowerColor design.
The thing is at least in paper its not between 5770 and 5850, but 1/4 up from 5770, and between in price?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pontos
I'd wait for proper reviews before passing judgement. Since when is ATI in the business of putting out cards without any idea of what it's capable of.
I think it's quite possible AMD might not want this card to become too popular as they might be forced to laser cut large numbers of working chips to fulfill demand. In any case let's see where this card lands before we start dissing it.
The things we know about this card thus far at least make me not regret buying a 5850.
I doubt it. No sense in butchering working cores when the 5850/5870 are still selling incredibly well.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Don't you mean to say you agree with him? He's basically saying the same thing as you are....Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
+1 I was thinking the same thing. This card's value is based on resolution and final retail price.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
That just looks...wrong
I mean, with an extra 320 shaders over the 4890, slightly lower clock, it should pull ahead of the 275 when the 4890 more or less matches it in warhead @ 1920...
I see ~GTX285 performance, but lets just wait and see
not bad results btw anyone noticed superior nvidia card performance in far cry 2 no wonder they choose far cry 2 bench for fermi lol
I found a nice review:
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...ting_qualitaet
But i stand corrected. Performance was lower then i expected. Power Consumption is higher compared to the 5850.
But it uses a HD5870 PCB and cooler. (i bet the core runs on 1.16v instead of the hd5850's 1.09v). Anyway its a nice tweak card because you can adjust the memory voltage aswell. (not possible with a 5850 PCB)
But the performance is lower then i expected. Its performance is closer to the HD5770 then the HD5850.
I guess those ROPS would be good for 5-10% extra performance. But still if the price is good it can still be a nice card to own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astennu
GTX285 loses the tests across the board to 5830,yet costs a lot more then 250$.
NV should drop their prices,before ATI does - it's just common sense to me.
Are we looking at the same review? Those graphs seem to show the gtx 285 is faster across all resolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by SocketMan
Most of these reviews are showing this card is slower than the 4890 which can be found for 200 dollars or less. The 5830 needs to lower its price.
4890 for 200 where lol product is eoled
No matter whats the 5830 performace, its slower than the 5850 for sure. And it costs 2 euros more here in Greece. LOL!
"ATI stumbles with HD 5830"
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...0-1gb-review/1
Quote:
As the HD 5830 delivers performance almost perfectly between that of a HD 5770 and HD 5850, even if we account for the apparent price rise in the HD 5850 to £250, the HD 5830 should surely split the difference between the two existing Radeon cards. This would place the HD 5830 at £182.50, a more reasonable price for the comparative level of performance.
At £200, the HD 5830 is pitched at being a high-performance graphics card, and that claim is hard to fathom from our testing. Both the GTX 275 and the HD 4890 deliver similar, and in some cases superior performance to that of the HD 5830, and it’s something of a symptom of mid-range Radeon HD 5000-series cards that absolute bang-for-buck hasn’t moved on much since the DX10 era. If you’ve got a high-end GeForce GTX 200-series card or a fast Radeon HD 4890, the £210 for this card gets you only lower power consumption and DX11 support.
ATI has a DX11 monopoly, and so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the company is charging a premium for its cards. Indeed, we're not against companies wanting a return on their investment in new technology - but quite simply, the pricing of this card just isn't fair, and if you spend £200+ on a HD 5830 you are getting a product that is very poor value.
This isn’t just a case of wishful thinking on our part. The performance of the HD 5830 is mid-way between that of a HD 5770 and a HD 5850 and yet its price isn't. Perhaps partner cards can sweeten the deal with excellent cooling, overclocking wizardry or generous bundles, but we’ll wait till we see those cards before getting our credit cards out.
ati should drop their 5850 prices their original msrp of $259. When I see prices like $339 for a stock 5850 from XFX that just pisses me off.Quote:
Originally Posted by SocketMan
Bit-tech and Legit definitely my fav reviews for the 5830.
WHAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by SocketMan
From what I've been reading, even a GTX 275 is faster than 5830
Erm, let me get this right:
ATI 5770 - £119
ATI 5830 - £205
ATI 5850 - £229
Why the heck would anyone want the one in the middle?
The best thing going at these price points is still a dual 5770 setup.
Marc and Damien bring good enlightments about low perf compared to 4890 in their Hardware.fr's preview. Interesting.
Its even more interesting to read that the 5830 still performs worse than a 4890 for over £200??? How does that happen when the 5830 is a little higher specified?
I feel sorry for anyone that buys one of these because they wanted something better than a 5770. Dont do it and just pay the extra for a 5850 or xfire 5770.
At its current asking price, it really should have been 32 ROPs and 1280 shaders, 256 bit, and then if possible, a 5790 could have been 1120 shaders, 16 ROPs, 128 bit to perfectly fill the gap between 5770 and 5850.
It's all about ATI price gouging DX11 hardware, but when will we get the first DX11 only game? I'm thinking it's at least 6 months to a year away and please don't come in here screaming DIRT 2. Any "DX11" game right now is just DX10 with a few added features from DX11.Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
Stop trolling! How many DX10 only games are there? I just said this in another thread. Why not just buy a DX9 only card? It's not like these things are slower in DX10. DX11 is an added feature and is a plus any way that you look at it. 99% of DX10 games are just DX9 with a couple of added features at a massive performance hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
I agree that this card is a little pricey for what you are getting but the rest of the line up isn't too bad imo.
I'm not even an ATI fanboy, I thought that the 4xxx series was way over rated and even I'm tired of your trolling.
I think ATI Just wants to flood the market some before nvida's release date and to see what price nvidia's cards will be and then drop the prices of the 5xxx cards and maybe 2x5830's will preform better than than nvida's offering for a cheaper price:shrug:
Who's going to develop DX11 games anyway if hardware is non-existent? Would it please a certain fanboy more if the green team was first to put out DX11 parts? It would be hilarious if we have DX11 games and no hardware.
I for one wish that all new games could now be made with DX11 features.
Dirt 2 isnt the only DX11 game, theres also Battleforge which gains significant performance benefits on DX11 hardware (nothing bad about more performance), and I am also waiting for the DX11 update to DDO which should be out soon, as well as for Lotro.
And DX11 came out 3 months ago, exactly how many DX11 games can you make in 3 months?
If new games dont have any DX11 features, then that is due to nothing more than lazy development teams, but DX11 is easier to code than earlier versions, and it can be switched off in the options for older hardware (e.g. Heaven benchmark), so why is there any problem at all with implementing DX11 support in new games?
Oh, Guild Wars 2 is also going to support DX11, but will be backwards compatible too, this was mentioned by their CM on some forums.
Just to add to this, DX10 was poorly supported because Vista was crap, and optimising games for DX10 made them slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
But windows 7 is actually very very good and definately worth upgrading to from XP now, and DX11 optimisation can actually be used to improve performance like Battleforge has done.
I dont understand why people who own capable PCs for playing up to date and modern games should have to settle for poor support for modern features in new games just because game developers are trying to appease the stubborn gamers who refuse to move on from win XP and think that higher quality graphic options are bad just because they dont want to play games with any features turned off on Win XP.
Win XP and DX9 is so outdated, can we please move onto DX11 like nowish?
I would like that very much :). I mean, imagine making games which dont have AA or high resolution support with WoW graphics, just so people who still have a Geforce 2 MX can run them ^^.
It's hilarious how everyone misses the simple fact that ALL games are written for consoles, consoles are DX9 (with some DX10 features) and nobody cares about the PC.
Unless someone with a Crytek-like vision (I will make the best looking game ever, and so it has to be PC exclusive, period) comes, invests a lot of money to build an amazing looking game from scratch for DX11, you are going to have to wait until the next generation of consoles come, and by then we might be talking about DX12 anyway
I have seen that one aswell. There is something wrong with the drivers. ROP performance is way to low. Its almost 50% slower then a 5770. And the 5770 only had a 50 mhz clock advantage. I expect that the HD5830 performance can be fixed with a driver optimization for the ROP's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
AMD is not price gouging. The stores and retailers are. They both put 40$ (total of 80 up to 100$) extra on the price. And thats why are are so expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
As for DX11:
-Dirt 2
-Aliens VS Predator
-Battleforge
All those titles can use DX11. This is way faster compared to DX9 and DX10. We already have DX11 titels that we can play. And there are more to come.
Just let the prices stabilize first. In my country there is no shop that can supply a HD5850. They are all out of stock (same goes for the 5870 and 5970).Quote:
Originally Posted by B-Shot
And they can supply a HD5830 at the moment. For prices that are 15-20% lower then the 5850.
I agree that with the current performance you can better buy a 5770. But i have some hopes that they can fix the performance with a update. Current drivers for the RV870 are optimised for 32 ROP's. If you look at that frensh website you can see the ROP performance is terrible low 50% slower then a 5770. Thats just not right.
those are all DX9\DX10 titles (based on the engine used) with a few DX11 features
I won't bother with Dirt 2 because everyone knows that is DX10 with a few DX11 features.
Alien vs Predator 2 is running on a 7 year old engine called Lithtech Talon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_versus_Predator_2
Quote:
However, for use of Monolith, LithTech Inc. developed a different engine to be used specifically for the company's newest title, Aliens versus Predator 2. This release was called Lithtech Talon and was based on Lithtech 2.2, rather than Lithtech 2.4. Because of this choice, Lithtech 2.4, RealArcade Lithtech, and Lithtech Talon became largely incompatible with each other. However, reviewers still thought of it as inferior to Unreal or Id Tech[1][2][3].
Lithtech Talon's biggest selling point lay in its reasonably good multiplayer support, more efficient when compared to prior versions of Lithtech multiplayer that featured poor networking code. However, Talon was intended as only a partial step towards the true next-generation version of the Lithtech engine.
By 2003, Talon had become outdated, but was still being licenced[4].
You really don't have clue what you're talking about! Do you? There's no such thing as DX10+aded DX11 features! In order to use DX11 game must initialize DX11 at the startup, and there's nothing DX10 used after you double click on the icon!Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
LOL dude, you've mixed AvP 2 with AvP 2010!!! :clap:Quote:
Alien vs Predator 2 is running on a 7 year old engine called Lithtech Talon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens_versus_Predator_2
AvP 2010 uses proprietary Rebellion's engine!
AvP 2 was crappy title based on crappy LT engine
Is AMD fubarbing their own drivers to get people to upgrade to their newer cards?
http://www.techspot.com/review/249-a...830/page6.html
http://www.techspot.com/review/249-a...830/page4.html
I don't remember a gtx 260 being faster than a 4890 at call of duty MW2. Hell in the above review, the gtx 275 handles the 4890 way better than before. Before they were more or less equal, in this review the 4890 gets its ass handed to it for the most part(except direct x 10.1).
Look at some of the results, the 4870x2 performing below a gtx 285. Especially in farcry 2, was this the case before?
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-16.html
Look at this review, the 4890 handily deals with the gtx 260 at farcry 2. Although, they test with 8x AA in the techreport review, 8x AA usually when nvidia cards start sucking.
Considering this was one of the reviews that gave a positive review, maybe its just a fubarb review.
Ok name one Full DX10 engine then ? Maybe only Shattered Horizon. The rest are all DX9 and you know why ? Because if its not DX9 you cant run it on Win XP. And will be Vista / W7 only. And if you do that you wont reatch a lot of gamers because a lot of them are still in XP.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
+ Second because of the consoles. Most games are build on consoles if not 90% of then. And later they are ported to the PC. Xbox 360 uses DX9 like features so again DX9 engine with DX10 or DX11 features.
Same in the past. DX7 Engine with some DX8 and DX9 features. IF you are gonna look at it like that we might only have 3-5 DX10 titles rest are all DX9.
And the same when the first "DX9" games came. They where acutally DX7 or DX8 engines. With only DX9 features.
So i would not look at it like that. it wont be fair. If the game has some DX11 features you will use the features of the DX11 card. Its still way faster in adoption compared to DX10.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Just look here: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3750&p=5
Its faster then a GTX260. Maybe the reviewer made a error ? But i wont be surprised if all HD5xxx cards will get a nice 10% performance boost in all games in the future. I think there is still some extra power in those chips if you compare them to the HD48xx generation.