ATI Radeon HD 5570: Reasonable Gaming Performance For $80?

[hixbot]

I suppose that's true Cleeve, I just tend to get the impression from some articles, that 3 display gaming is a VERY desired feature (which Nvidia is lacking). Yet the same isn't done for 3d (which ATI is lacking).

I'm looking forward to your article on theatre style 3d for the home, sounds like a good read!

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]hixbot[/nom]I suppose that's true Cleeve, I just tend to get the impression from some articles, that 3 display gaming is a VERY desired feature (which Nvidia is lacking). Yet the same isn't done for 3d (which ATI is lacking).[/citation]

Having experienced both -- that is, active 3d (using LCD shutter glasses) and triple-monitor eyefinity, I personally find that the active 3d method is somewhat unpleasant over time, while the huge field of view offered by triple-monitor gaming really saturates the periphery and impacts gaming in a way I wouldn't have guessed.

I *am* a big fan of 3d however, and this is why I'm trying to emulate the passive type of setup (polarized glasses) that people see in the theatres, which is vastly superior to active 3d glasses in that it is far easier to watch for extended periods.

 

[ubercake]

Why aren't the same specs listed for each card in test setup section???

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]ubercake[/nom]Why aren't the same specs listed for each card in test setup section???[/citation]

They are.

If you're talking about shader speed, that's an Nvidia-only specification.

 

[hixbot]

I've yet to experience a game running on 3 displays, so I suppose I'm unfairly giving it a bad rap.

My experience with shutter glasses is mixed, so far I've found that using a fast CRT monitor works very well with active glasses, and I feel no fatigue after extended play.

But using a 120hz LCD monitor like the Samsung 2233RZ doesn't work so well with shutter glasses. I believe the response time of the 120hz lcd monitors do not allow for decent 3d with active glasses. The inferior motion of LCD displays combined with quick acting shutter glasses makes for very blurry and tiring 3d.

Try shutter glasses with a decent CRT monitor and I'm sure you'll notice a big difference.

 

[tmc]

As many already pointed out in other threads about the ati graphics lineup.. DX11 is just about the only selling point of these low end cards. The performance is bad because ATI seems to take overclocking into consideration when making a sizeable performance loss between differently priced products. That said, the gaming industry hasn't yet embraced dx-11 as a requirement since there is (I would say) a GLUT of DX 10 cards on the market so until those cards "DRY UP" they are best left to not biting the hand that feeds the "enthusiast market". Although we're talking about the budget end of the lineup, these low end cards reference the higher price point cards. Here's what I don't get (about the review test system).. if your going to be "budget limited" how on earth can you afford an i7 920?!? you should go with a low end X4 or the top X3 amd chips. Sure, we like to know how intel products work with amd products, but the going cheap idea on the graphics IMO doesn't make sense... you'd be better off getting and I7 board with on-board graphics if your THAT CHEAP-- there are a couple out there. BTW, Intel is going to be rather $TINGY on it's price cuts with the introduction of it's budget i3, i5, i7 lineup chips, and the mobo's pricing seems frozen for the winter season. A much more limited e-tailer selection as well only gives you a handful of legit choices to buy product from (in the USA) who will do their best to make it seem like they're not raping you on price (comparisons to B&M don't count anymore).

Also, one other thing.. as someone else pointed out.. there is NO real competition in graphics cards now.. not on price or innovation. Instead we're being bamboozeled by this shell game of "BUS SPEED" and "BANDWIDTH" to convince people to buy new stuff. While you'll get some gullable people with cash to burn (several million world wide), most of us are on a 5-10 year window on upgrades. Moreso due to the economy than ever before.

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]I would like to just say that one major point of this card was just barely looked at and barely mentioned. Its a LOW PROFILE card designed for a small niche market. This card isn't meant for high or even medium end gaming, its meant for those people who can't fit a normal size card into the pc they bought thats sporting some cheap intel GPU. For those few people this makes a viable option.[/citation]

That's just not true. The card hits the biggest part of ATI's market and appears to be made low-profile simply to save money by reducing PCB size. Yes, it fits half-height slots, and yes that's a niche market, but when you go to BUY on of these things chances are 50% or more of the sellers WON'T include the half-height bracket.

Therefore it's not designed for a niche market, it's designed to be cheap and fill the MASS market, which is also cheap. That it ALSO fits the half-height niche market is a wonderful outcome of having a reduced-cost PCB.

 

[Casecutter]

Don/Cleeve, This review surprised me in lots of ways... After reading a couple of others before yours I had come with more of a synopsis that the 5570 was coming up under the 4670, and that made no sense as ATI marketing had plenty of time to position this. My thinking before this release was ATI would slot right between the 4670/ GT240 DDR3 and the GT240 with DDR5 and that about what you’ve concurred.
What’s most enticing is the OC headroom that you and others have shown, I’m thinking at $50-60 this will be a budget OC that works like the GT240 with DDR5 while needing not much more power or heat. Sure there’s half-height 9600GT’s, but it not like you can stuff one in some OEM Slim Line 300W stock box and have it not have problems. And anyone who thinks that small form factor machines are a niche market aren’t looking around.

As to pricing I think there’s some unspoken collusion that after ATI got back the market share neither side wants’ the bleeding to continue. The last couple of year’s graphic card consumers have luckily gotten the unsurpassed deals and I see both Nvidia/ATI wanting to hold their pants up for a while. But not to worry its’ not an idea that will last.

 

[justchuck69]

my old 4670 beats most 9600gt so i think that the 5670is better than a 9600gt imho (a 9600 gso is a little better or equal to a 4670 with 512 mb ddr3)

x2 6000 amd dual core
4 gb gskill kit @800
wd blue 320 gb (16 mb cache) hdd plus a 250 gb seagate (8mb cache)for extra space
msi ati 4670 with 1 gb ddr3 ( most times i run with no over clock )
14 months ago i got it for 107 Canadian dollars when newegg.ca started up AND AT THAT TIME THE 4GB KIT COSTS ME 54 BUCKS now their 90 bucks or so

 

[justchuck69]

jes_pt 02/10/2010 10:04 AM
Hide
Insert quote. Report -1+

pei-chen :
I don't understand your reply. My 4850 didn't suffer from the blank screen problem so....



Sorry, I wasn't picking on you. I also work with ATI (and nvidia) cards. I recently bought the HD5770 because of the many reviews that I read and I was just pointing to a problem that has been plaguing some owners of 5xxx series cards (including me). The thread I linked to has over one thousand posts. And here's another:

http://forums.amd.com/game/message [...] erthread=y

My main point here it's the following: if AMD is trying to be ahead in the market by putting out poorly tested products, then it will might regret it in the long term.

But I find it interesting that here at Tom's and many other review sites they never reported any problem. Oh well, I guess that the cards sent to these places go through a better quality control.


only problems i have had in the last 3 years is with nvidia graphics card and not ati .... i think ati puts out better drivers than nvidia.

right now nvidia has not too much new products ( like 8800gts turned into the 9800gt then 2xx cards the hardware stayed the same but just new software and a higher price ... nvidia has got to start putting out something with a decent power to price ratio or something that is just off the charts if they want to stay in the lead and that would also mean ati cards prices will drop ( but they ALREADY CHEAPER and better power than nvidia)

 

[saran008]

Good card for Low end HTPCs!

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]saran008[/nom]Good card for Low end HTPCs![/citation]

I bet more of these will be purchased by mistake (wrong model) as gifts by people who don't listen, than will be purchased for HTPC.

 

[Guest]

Help for the 3 screen guy
Can I run 3 monitors with this thing?
Do I need any special monitors?
Do I need a or 3 Displayport monitor(s)?
I'm going to buy a low end PC like the gateway SX, can this machine run this card?
Thanks in advance for helping

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]supergreg[/nom]Help for the 3 screen guy[/citation]

1. yes, but you need a model that comes with a DisplayPort output
2. All the monitors should be the same resolution, size, and aspect ratio. If not, it might look strange because all the monitors are forced to use the same res in grouped mode (what you need for gaming)
3. You need a single DisplayPort monitor, or alternatively an active DisplayPort-to-VGA/DVI/HDMI adapter
4. Probably. If you just want three desktops it will be fine. If you want to game with it, that depends on the game and the gateway SX hardware.

 

[Reynod]

Nice article Don.

 

[HShin]

It's incredible what people are calling low end these days, when a card can more than adequately handle today's demanding games. Perhaps everyone are so rich now that they can all afford gargantuan plasma displays, and can't put up with any resolution even slightly lower than their display's native rez. Looking at all the tests, basically all the games are running at above 30FPS on this card. What more does the average gamer want? 300 FPS? So if this card is really "low end" by your line of thinking, then I guess you can tell all those people with G105M in their notebook to go take a hike, because their card is worth *** and they can't play *** with it.

 

[cleeve]

So if this card is really "low end" by your line of thinking, then I guess you can tell all those people with G105M in their notebook to go take a hike, because their card is worth *** and they can't play *** with it.

I wouldn't tell G105M owners to take a hike, but I wouldn't recommend gaming on their laptops, either.

These benchmarks were run at appropriately low settings to test this card, but a gaming enthusiast will expect higher resolutions and higher settings for a much richer visual experience.

You sound like perhaps you can't appreciate higher visual fidelity than a G105M can offer, but please don't assume others can't appreciate the difference.

 

[RB120]

This is not a card for the gaming enthusiast. It is, however, a good card for the average Joe who wants to game without spending excessive amounts of money to build a gaming rig. At the performance of close to or better than a Radeon 4670, this card ain't bad at all. Consuming only about 40'ish watts, even better; at least for those who would prefer not to swap out their power supplies. Plus, it fits in smaller computer cases. I'm impressed by this card. It ain't first class, but its better than economy class.

 

[PcVeteran]

I bought a 5570 and a 5750 and I'm very pleased with the performance it gives me relative to the 5750.I bought the 5570 for 55$ I say that is good pricing in my opinion.My little nephew absolutely loves gaming with it.

 

[Guest]

I Think the 5570 is great. I can play almost all my games at high settings with no problems... I don't know why you're all saying that it can only play at low