- Status
4745454b
Retired Mod
- Apr 29, 2006
- 29,241
- 445
- 93,590
I think I'm starting to be uninspired by the 5xxx line up. The 5870 and 5850 are ok mostly, but the rest of the cards are cut down to much. The 5750/5770 and now the 5670 are all "not enough" to compete. Losing to last gen in performance is not the way to go. Not only is it bad, but it leaves room for Nvidia to fight back. Unless Fermi is a bigger hit then I think it will be, I believe this will be a generation to skip.
recently in your nvidia 240 review.....
it was all ++++ superduper card..... for 100$....
now... ati is priced high......
buaaah..........
it was all ++++ superduper card..... for 100$....
now... ati is priced high......
buaaah..........
"Nvidia is due for some good news. Does the new GeForce GT 240 provide that? I think that it does."
cleeve????? remeber......
cleeve????? remeber......
They aren't losing to last gen.
The 5670 has 627m transistors, that falls in between the 9600gt and 9800gt. The important thing is, they are much smaller chips.
ATI are asking too much for this, but they are in such a commanding lead and Nvidia have no answer. Nvidia have *no* answer to these gpu's except to lose more money. ATI could half the cost of these overnight and still make cash on each.
The 5670 is 100mm^2, the gt220 is 120mm^2. This is horrible for Nvidia, they are losing massively at the low end and they cannot continue to sell gpu's at a loss in order to 'compete'.
The 5670 has 627m transistors, that falls in between the 9600gt and 9800gt. The important thing is, they are much smaller chips.
ATI are asking too much for this, but they are in such a commanding lead and Nvidia have no answer. Nvidia have *no* answer to these gpu's except to lose more money. ATI could half the cost of these overnight and still make cash on each.
The 5670 is 100mm^2, the gt220 is 120mm^2. This is horrible for Nvidia, they are losing massively at the low end and they cannot continue to sell gpu's at a loss in order to 'compete'.
notty22
Distinguished
- Oct 8, 2009
- 2,958
- 0
- 21,160
Its pretty sad when a 9800 is superior to a "new" dx11 card and thats dx9/10. Heres what the end user will encounter, if he goes to play a dx11 game, it will be unplayable unless he learns how to hack the configs to FORCE dx9. This is a dx11 paperweight.
ATI have no real competition at the moment, they can charge the prices they are charging, yet the 5750 and 5770 remain very popular, not so much because of their great performance, but surprisingly because of low heat/power usage, I would say 90% of non-enthusiast gamers have a 400 watt or lower power supply, a 5770 will run no hassle and is quite a powerful card in comparison. This is a big market in itself.
In an almost identical situation, nVidia released the GT240 awhile back and as far as I can remember Tom's were about the only site to praise this card, yet when this 5670 is released (which, in my mind, is overpriced) then we quite rightly see the criticism. Seriously, what is with all the bias on this site toward Intel and nVidia, its like Fox news 'fair and balanced' reviews.
In an almost identical situation, nVidia released the GT240 awhile back and as far as I can remember Tom's were about the only site to praise this card, yet when this 5670 is released (which, in my mind, is overpriced) then we quite rightly see the criticism. Seriously, what is with all the bias on this site toward Intel and nVidia, its like Fox news 'fair and balanced' reviews.
Wow.... Ok... so when the Nvidia GT 240 was released @ $99 they get this: "The GeForce GT 240 serves up just what the doctor ordered" and other praise. Fast forward 2 months later and ATI releases a SUPERIOR card when compared to the GT 240 @ the same price point and THG craps on it.
The 4850 was $99 in mid November too... what gives fellas?
That said, this was a good review, but, we could use a little less bias around here. Had this review been about yet another renamed Nvidia card, THG would have been singing it's praise.
The 4850 was $99 in mid November too... what gives fellas?
That said, this was a good review, but, we could use a little less bias around here. Had this review been about yet another renamed Nvidia card, THG would have been singing it's praise.
JohnnyLucky
Glorious
- May 30, 2007
- 10,902
- 10
- 44,315
nforce4max
Splendid
- Sep 9, 2009
- 8,337
- 0
- 31,460
Fill rate is what is holding this card back and should have been equipped with an optional 6pin connector for those who like to nuke their cards. Isn't a full upgrade compared to a 9800gt or a 4770 so unless what you got is crap or dead then go with a higher performing card or hold off till prices drop but that will take quite some time.
Until Nvidia releases GT 350, 340, 320 in quarter 2, AMD/ATI will continue to ask a premium on their "DX 11" cards (really, like most first gen card after DX change, they are all too slow and by the time more games came out, they are obsolete)
I will only consider 5870, 5850, GT 380, GT 360 & GT 350 as future proof DX 11 cards. The lower end cards are the 8600GT of this generation.
I will only consider 5870, 5850, GT 380, GT 360 & GT 350 as future proof DX 11 cards. The lower end cards are the 8600GT of this generation.
caamsa
Distinguished
- Apr 25, 2006
- 1,830
- 0
- 19,810
I am more interested in this card.
"It looks like AMD plans to release the ATI Radeon HD 5830 on January 25th, 2010. This new card will offer Radeon HD 4890-like performance, but at a lower price."
Now that card should be a hit performance and price wise.
"It looks like AMD plans to release the ATI Radeon HD 5830 on January 25th, 2010. This new card will offer Radeon HD 4890-like performance, but at a lower price."
Now that card should be a hit performance and price wise.
[citation][nom]Ciuy[/nom]no need for a 4850 in the review, its clear that the card is a 9600GT with dx11 stuff. 4850 is over it. Take the 4770 and put 10% more to it if u want a 4850 bench included.[/citation]
See, here is the fault in the logic. Compared to the 9600, the 5670 is roughly 12-20% faster. Compared to the 9800, its within 5% trading blows a couople times, yet the conclusion is that its similar to the 9600. Truth is its extremely similar to the 9800 with more features.
[citation][nom]notty22[/nom]Its pretty sad when a 9800 is superior to a "new" dx11 card and thats dx9/10. Heres what the end user will encounter, if he goes to play a dx11 game, it will be unplayable unless he learns how to hack the configs to FORCE dx9. This is a dx11 paperweight.[/citation]
and again, 5% max difference is hardly superior.
See, here is the fault in the logic. Compared to the 9600, the 5670 is roughly 12-20% faster. Compared to the 9800, its within 5% trading blows a couople times, yet the conclusion is that its similar to the 9600. Truth is its extremely similar to the 9800 with more features.
[citation][nom]notty22[/nom]Its pretty sad when a 9800 is superior to a "new" dx11 card and thats dx9/10. Heres what the end user will encounter, if he goes to play a dx11 game, it will be unplayable unless he learns how to hack the configs to FORCE dx9. This is a dx11 paperweight.[/citation]
and again, 5% max difference is hardly superior.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]nvidia in your ss[/nom]recently in your nvidia 240 review.....it was all ++++ superduper card..... for 100$....now... ati is priced high......buaaah..........[/citation]
In the GT 240 Review, I said the GT 240 had the potential to allow Nvidia to bring the fight in the 4670's price range... but they kept the prices too high.
Read the conclusion page of this review, it'll make more sense to you.
In the GT 240 Review, I said the GT 240 had the potential to allow Nvidia to bring the fight in the 4670's price range... but they kept the prices too high.
Read the conclusion page of this review, it'll make more sense to you.
megamanx00
Splendid
- Sep 3, 2008
- 8,216
- 3
- 31,465
Considering the GeForce 9800 series and the Radeon 4000 have been all but discontinued, I think the value picture would change in favor of the 5670 once the inventory of older cards is gone. Even so, lower 5750 prices would probably force it down rather than competition from nVidia at this point. Also, I believe that with decent yields AMD is able to afford to sell this card for the same price as the 4670, if not lower.
- Mar 7, 2003
- 12,012
- 0
- 40,790
[citation][nom]Lavacon[/nom]That said, this was a good review, but, we could use a little less bias around here. Had this review been about yet another renamed Nvidia card, THG would have been singing it's praise.[/citation]
No.
I've explained this before. I've explained it in the forums back then, I even explain it in the last page of this review, and I'll explain it again to make it clear:
When the GT 240 was introduced we were told it would be sub-$100 and weren't given much more than that for pricing detail. After seeing the performance, I assumed the price would drop to where it makes sense in the market - it seemed obvious that the cheaper-to-produce GT 240 would give Nvidia the flexibility to compete on price where the 9600 cards were expensive to produce. It honestly never occurred to me that they'd keep it priced against the vastly superior 4850. In fact, prices have dropped, and probably will continue to drop - but they're not even close to where they need to be for the GT 240 to make sense.
In any case, that assumption was a mistake, or premature at the very least. I'm not perfect, never claimed to be. But that mistake is not bias. And I'm not willing to make that mistake again regardless of the manufacturer. So I am a bit more cautious about the conclusion this time.
I acknowledge this on the last page of this review, actually I devoted a good paragraph to it. If this was biased, I'd be extolling the virtues of the GT 240 - I am not. It's a bad buy at the current price and I don't think I'm saying otherwise. This review makes it clear that the GT 240 is redundant at current pricing. If this review was biased against AMD, I wouldn't be steering people to the 4850, would I?
No bias here dude, just caution to not repeat the same mistake. The 5670 has the potential to be a great card for the $, and if it drops to $80 I'll be extolling it's virtues from the rooftops. Even if it comes down to $90 I'll give it more props. That's common sense, not bias. Would it have made you feel better if I had recommended it over the 4850 at the same price?
No.
I've explained this before. I've explained it in the forums back then, I even explain it in the last page of this review, and I'll explain it again to make it clear:
When the GT 240 was introduced we were told it would be sub-$100 and weren't given much more than that for pricing detail. After seeing the performance, I assumed the price would drop to where it makes sense in the market - it seemed obvious that the cheaper-to-produce GT 240 would give Nvidia the flexibility to compete on price where the 9600 cards were expensive to produce. It honestly never occurred to me that they'd keep it priced against the vastly superior 4850. In fact, prices have dropped, and probably will continue to drop - but they're not even close to where they need to be for the GT 240 to make sense.
In any case, that assumption was a mistake, or premature at the very least. I'm not perfect, never claimed to be. But that mistake is not bias. And I'm not willing to make that mistake again regardless of the manufacturer. So I am a bit more cautious about the conclusion this time.
I acknowledge this on the last page of this review, actually I devoted a good paragraph to it. If this was biased, I'd be extolling the virtues of the GT 240 - I am not. It's a bad buy at the current price and I don't think I'm saying otherwise. This review makes it clear that the GT 240 is redundant at current pricing. If this review was biased against AMD, I wouldn't be steering people to the 4850, would I?
No bias here dude, just caution to not repeat the same mistake. The 5670 has the potential to be a great card for the $, and if it drops to $80 I'll be extolling it's virtues from the rooftops. Even if it comes down to $90 I'll give it more props. That's common sense, not bias. Would it have made you feel better if I had recommended it over the 4850 at the same price?
There are two factors here that hurt the Radeon 5000 series cards:
1) Yields at TSMC - if things were going according to plan AMD would have enough chips to meet demand, which means that 5x00 prices wouldn't be as high and AMD would be able to quickly kill off the Radeon 4000 cards. Nvidia has the same basic problem, along with some others we won't go into. Pull the all of the "old" cards out of the results and things stack up where AMD wants them to be.
2) Stream is late - Stream is optimized for the 5000 series Radeons and the latest Catalyst hotfix drivers will take advantage of Stream if it's installed. A 10-20% boost in performance would make the 5670 a justifiable replacement for the 4770.
1) Yields at TSMC - if things were going according to plan AMD would have enough chips to meet demand, which means that 5x00 prices wouldn't be as high and AMD would be able to quickly kill off the Radeon 4000 cards. Nvidia has the same basic problem, along with some others we won't go into. Pull the all of the "old" cards out of the results and things stack up where AMD wants them to be.
2) Stream is late - Stream is optimized for the 5000 series Radeons and the latest Catalyst hotfix drivers will take advantage of Stream if it's installed. A 10-20% boost in performance would make the 5670 a justifiable replacement for the 4770.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News TSMC founder says Intel should focus on AI, not advanced process technologies- Started by Admin
- Replies: 27
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
News Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger retires, effective immediately — also steps down from BOD, two co-CEOs step in
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 124
Latest posts
-
-
Question What GPUs do you want to see compared with the Arc B580?- Latest: JarredWaltonGPU
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram