HD 5700s pictures & benchmarks

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

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.

[Farinorco]

So this is going to be slower than a 4870 when there's heavy AF? And it's about the same price? Don't get it.

edit: never mind it's gonna be slower than 4870 even without AF

I don't know.

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.

Anyway, until we get some real world data, this is only speculation... it might turn to be worse, or better.

[96redformula]

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.

[Farinorco]

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.

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.

[flippin_waffles]

Just read this over at BSN. Pretty cool, AMD.

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."

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...next-week.aspx

[annihilat0r]

I don't know.

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.

Anyway, until we get some real world data, this is only speculation... it might turn to be worse, or better.

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 numbers

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.

[Farinorco]

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.

So here's what we have: This card is about a 4870 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.

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 ...

[annihilat0r]

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

[Farinorco]

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.

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...

[annihilat0r]

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.

[LordEC911]

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

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.

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.

[96redformula]

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.

[Farinorco]

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.

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.

Anyway, we will see when we have real world data to compare.

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.

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.

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.

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

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.

[Farinorco]

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.

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.

[Jamesrt2004]

why are people complaining.. the mid range of this series matches the old top end card (no x2's dont count) ? :/

[ubuntu83]

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.

[eleeter]

If they want better performance at the same price point then they'll have to wait...

...for Nvidia to get their together to drive down prices.

[To(V)bo Co(V)bo]

...for Nvidia to get their together to drive down prices.

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.

[jaredpace]

Loupseul at OCAU has one, 48701gb / gtx260 level performance


Click to view full size!

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/sh...83670&page=219

[Chumbucket843]

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.

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.

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.

[LordEC911]

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.

What? Proof please.
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/53/12

[Farinorco]

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)...



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.

[pvhk]

Just got my hd5770:

[96redformula]

Just got my hd5770:

Is that a non NDA card?