Radeon HD 5770 And 5750 Review: Gentlemen, Start Your HTPCs

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm still chewing on this, but I'm a little disappointed. Oh, not in the review, that was very informative. Perhaps my expectations were a little unrealistic. I was hoping for HD4870-level performance with no auxiliary power needed. So, this card doesn't look like a good upgrade. It might make a nice "side-grade" for those who are running 4850s on dicey PSUs, but the better idea for them is to bite the bullet and replace the PSU, not go on living on borrowed time.
For a new build though, a 5770 looks like an excellent budget choice. Most people don't need even 4870 level graphics, although they aren't juice-limited to a 4670.
Is a 5670 coming? Where will it fit? I'm really looking forward to the next GPU hierarchy chart, and to the holiday season price drops.
 
Yes I am serious. I know most of todays cards can render HD and transcode h.264. The problem is the amount of time that transcoding takes, and the fact that some don't properly render HD video. Those are important points to most HTPC enthusiasts. In many cases transcoding takes an ongodly amount of time. That's why you always see that benchmark when an HTPC oriented video card is reviewed. It IS important to the HTPC enthusiast who plans on using that feature most of the time. I know I do!

My point stands. If the review is supposed to tout this card as an HTPC godsend, then it should at least have a few of those benchmarks in it and not 100% gaming benchmarks. That's all they were! Gaming, gaming, and more gaming. The only benchmark that was preformed that an HTPC builder would be interested in was the Power/Heat tests. I found it lacking.
 
Question: Why do the new cards say they suppport 3d stereo glasses: "3D stereoscopic display/glasses support" (from AMDs page)? Is this any different from the previous ones (requiring 3rd party drivers/glasses, etc.)?
 
[citation][nom]niknikktm[/nom]Yes I am serious. I know most of todays cards can render HD and transcode h.264. The problem is the amount of time that transcoding takes, and the fact that some don't properly render HD video. Those are important points to most HTPC enthusiasts. In many cases transcoding takes an ongodly amount of time. That's why you always see that benchmark when an HTPC oriented video card is reviewed. It IS important to the HTPC enthusiast who plans on using that feature most of the time. I know I do!My point stands. If the review is supposed to tout this card as an HTPC godsend, then it should at least have a few of those benchmarks in it and not 100% gaming benchmarks. That's all they were! Gaming, gaming, and more gaming. The only benchmark that was preformed that an HTPC builder would be interested in was the Power/Heat tests. I found it lacking.[/citation]

Check out some of our CPU reviews for transcoding tests :) As of now, we still don't have drivers that support DirectCompute for GPU-accelerated transcoding on these cards.
 
nvidia eat your heart out. nvidia is going to have a hard time regaining momentum after the slew of releases by ATI which has pretty much released the whole price range of cards in less than a month. and seeing as nvidia's Fermi is more focused on GPGPU tasks than gaming i foresee a very big uphill battle for nvidia.
 
I think it’s our second-to-last page that’s the most telling here, though. Stepping from a 2.66 GHz Core i5-750 to the same chip running at 3.8 GHz makes almost no difference to the gamers running at 1920x1200. If it means saving a few bucks on a less expensive CPU so that you can step up to a Radeon HD 5850, that’s the move I’d most likely make.
Click to expand...

Thanks for throwing that test in. I would love to see a cpu/gpu scaling test done using some older processors in comparison to some new ones.
 
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]Thanks for throwing that test in. I would love to see a cpu/gpu scaling test done using some older processors in comparison to some new ones.[/citation]

I'll be sure to keep this in mind for the future. Adding a couple of different architectures wouldn't take very long and it'd add some good comparison data. Thanks for the feedback,
Chris
 
Chris, no offense, but your choice in words at the end of a lot of those charts are misleading. A lot of the games used to test showed a difference in framerate of about 2-4 FPS, yet you insisted this was a huge difference between the 4870 and 5770. Granted, there were a few titles used that showed a difference of 10+FPS, which is a visible and significant difference. Probably should keep in mind that unless your nitpicking and going entirely by the numbers, 2-4 FPS is not that big or noticeable of a difference in game until it's under 24 FPS. Granted, yes, the 4870 is the more powerful card (by the numbers). It'd be interesting to see how these two cards compare in the next "Best Card for the Money" article.
 
Guess there are more 4800 series cards still out there than I thought. My guess is that's what forced (or in this case gave the excuse to) ATI to start with a poor price/performance on these cards. They had to price them high to start out with or else vendors would be stuck with old 4800 series cards. Oh well, just means more profit for AMD and less money in the wallets of idiots who don't realize that these will drop fairly quickly to about $130 and $100 -- the relative price range of the cards they are replacing, the 4850 and 4830, respectively.
 
kinda wondering, since i did'nt see much talk about the mem bus, other then it hurts the cards performance alot. but i was wondering
say you had a 1920x1200 monitor resolution and in the future you wanted a second monitor to spand the game out, or if they made a tripple paramic view type monitor useiing 3 1920x1200 was wondering since thios card dont realy have issues at that resolution would it be a whole different story if it was dual monitor setup playing a video game? x2 1920x1200 ? or would that not change the benchmarks any?
just wonderin cause i think theres gonna be alot of new stuff come 2010 and it may even be suprising
 
[citation][nom]tikrjee[/nom]Chris, no offense, but your choice in words at the end of a lot of those charts are misleading. A lot of the games used to test showed a difference in framerate of about 2-4 FPS, yet you insisted this was a huge difference between the 4870 and 5770. Granted, there were a few titles used that showed a difference of 10+FPS, which is a visible and significant difference. Probably should keep in mind that unless your nitpicking and going entirely by the numbers, 2-4 FPS is not that big or noticeable of a difference in game until it's under 24 FPS. Granted, yes, the 4870 is the more powerful card (by the numbers). It'd be interesting to see how these two cards compare in the next "Best Card for the Money" article.[/citation]

No offense--you're absolutely correct. Perhaps the biggest surprise for me here was that the 4870 was winning at all, really. That, plus a lower price gave the 4870 the advantage. But, at the end of the day (as I hope came through in the conclusion), it'd be silly not to spend the extra $15 and get the value-adds tied to 5770--that is if you're drawing a direct comparison between these two cards only. I still think the 5850 is a smarter buy, even at $100 more.
 
Another issue with a 4870 vs 5770 is the ability to Crossfire later on. For people looking to do system upgrades (or build new machines), the ability to add "a 2nd or 3rd card" for improved graphics peformance is another factor. (I am one of these people.)

As a result, despite the 4870 seemingly being the best bet now, how many 4870s will be around at decent prices in a year? (Probably few) That leaves 2 options, your recommended 5850... or the 5770.

If you have the extra $100 to spend, your i5 comparison shows the need to upgrade to the 5850 over the better cpu. (Thank you for that comparison.)

But, if you don't have the extra $100 at all, the 5770 shows the most "bang for future 2/3 card Crossfire-ability" buck. Further, since most systems spend a good deal of time at idle instead of load, the power saved between the 4870 and 5770 would be money "saved," even for a gaming computer.
 
Excellent article! The performance of the 5770 appears to be between the 4850 and 4870. Most compelling is the power consumption. However, with winter around the corner, I'll keep both my trusty 8800 GTS and HD 4850, as they will keep my house nice and warm. In the Spring I'll look forward to either a discounted HD5770 or a new Nnidia solution.

Rick
 
[citation][nom]jtt283[/nom]Question on the power consumption: If you've got Windows 7 with the Aero interface, will these cards run at their idle loads, or do they "think" they need to be powered-up for 3D?[/citation]

My tests were run in Win7 with the Aero interface--you get true idle numbers, no problem.
 
[citation][nom]cangelini[/nom]Greg, we switched testing methodology for power consumption earlier in the year--I suspect this is where the gap comes from. The GTS 250 has a maximum board power of 150W. Given the 5850's revised board power of 151W, I suspect you'd be in great shape if you upgraded to that one at some point without a power supply problem (so long as you have something in the 450W range?)[/citation]

Well, I don't have something in the 450W range, but I do have 25A on my 12V rails (300W/12V). In the "How Much Power Does Your Graphics Card Really Need?" article, it was mentioned that 20-25A is sufficient for a common machine with an HD 4870...

Anyways, if the maximum board power is 150W for the GTS 250 1 GB and 151W for the HD 5850, then why does the 5850 need 2 PCI connections when the GTS 250 only needs one? The 5850 said it needs 2 x PCI express, 75W (for the 150 total), but would it work if you only plugged in one PCI express that supplied 150W+ (like mine does)? Thanks for the replies and help!
 
liked the inclusion of the i5-750 OC comparison.

didn't like the conclusion that the GTS 250 is faster than the 5750. there are 16 game graphs, not including Vantage and the joke graphs for physx. the GTS 250 had a mentionable lead in 3, the 5750 more like 8. almost every time you enabled AA, the 5750 took the lead. the commentary just doesn't really match the results...
 
[citation][nom]greglouganis[/nom]Well, I don't have something in the 450W range, but I do have 25A on my 12V rails (300W/12V). In the "How Much Power Does Your Graphics Card Really Need?" article, it was mentioned that 20-25A is sufficient for a common machine with an HD 4870...Anyways, if the maximum board power is 150W for the GTS 250 1 GB and 151W for the HD 5850, then why does the 5850 need 2 PCI connections when the GTS 250 only needs one? The 5850 said it needs 2 x PCI express, 75W (for the 150 total), but would it work if you only plugged in one PCI express that supplied 150W+ (like mine does)? Thanks for the replies and help![/citation]

Greg, just tried the 5850 with one PCIe adapter for you--doesn't work. High-pitched squeal is all you get there. Beyond that, hard for me to tell why one card needs two while the other needs one when they're so close in the actual power measurements.
 
ATI rocks my nvidia fanboy world again.
57** or 58** = sale here will buy it gladly and for $129 = Will eat out once or 2 times less for 2 persons this month so fits in my budget = sale.

Imaging that it is not just a rebranded oc'd 4890 = you go ATI.

Nice to see ATI actually listening to their customer base and their wallets.
 
I think that FoShizzleDizzle is right about big 4xxx card stocks. So it is guite easy to predict that the prize of these cards drops when 48xx series stocks tryes out. At this moment 4870 and 4850 are in good position when competing with Nvidia cards. We need Nvidia DX11 cards or time to have these cards at more affordable prizes.
And as it has been said, even with this prize they are not too bad. Low energy -> good HTPC card, that support the next gen DX-standard.

Nice to see the situation after the christmast. More potential DX11 titles then, and hopefully some competition from the Nvidia side... And maybe less 4xxx series cards around.
 
[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]i'm confused...http://www.tomshardware.com/galler [...] -jpg-.htmlon that shot, shouldn't PowerDVD send off TrueHD audio track via HDMI in uncompressed format so your receiver can decode it?why is it sending in compressed audio track?[/citation]

Ice, if PowerDVD were doing the decoding and sending uncompressed LPCM across the interface, it'd read as uncompressed eight-channel audio. However, the TrueHD format is compressed, and the new capability here is sending the bit-for-bit stream over to let the receiver do the decoding.
Hope that clears it up!
Regards,
Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom