Wow i have a time machine, tomorrows 5770 review today


Jun 17, 2009
Not too shabby. 4870 performance w/ less power consumption, eyefinity and DX 11 support. Decent mid-range card. I do agree that the 128-bit bus needs to go, but I guess thats what you get for a non-high end GPU.
Dont see the logic in this even if they had gone 192 bit like some of the reviewers thought it might then it would in my opinion have been a suitable replacement for both the 4870 and 4890. the 4890 was basically a rehash to help get better clocks from the 4870 engine as far as i can see so calling it a product line is a bit much really.
I think they have missed the mark a bit here and cant justify the cost of what is basically an upgrade to get DX11 on to my PC, not at that price/ perf anyway. :(
Hopefully we will see a differance when these cards are tested in a DX11 runtime enviroment. Still its early days and i guess we cant write the card of just yet based on 1 review.

Just checked as i thought i remembered something similar happening a while ago. Turns out that HIS made a X1650XT with a 256 bit bus(I had one) instead of the 128 bit bus the standard card had, so there is hope that it might happen.

Mactronix [:lectrocrew:5] (Me praying to the god of memory buses)
Yea well i guess a lot of it depends on what you have now and what you are looking to upgrade to and to do what with i guess. Im sure it will be a better card when tested under W7 anyway and as i said its early days but for me at least its looking like im waiting for either the refresh or the board partners to work some magic :D If i didnt just get a new card a while ago it would be a shoe in but i did so cant justify the expense :(

As you say based on that..... Hopefully its not the same for other reviews, somehow i doubt it could be that far out though. I really think AMD have dropped the ball on a seriously good chance to convert most if not all mainstream gamers over to AMD/ATI cards here. If they had given this card a realistic bus size,(I still think 192 bit would have done it) and released a decent test platform, personally i would have gone with a section from an upcoming DX11 game to wet the appetite for the card and the new tech. Well if they had done that then people would be all over each other to get the cards in thier machines.
As it is im not that bothered any more.


So as I see it, barely even 4870 performance? This is no upgrade card for many. If you already have a 4870/GTX260, you don't really want this. I was thinking with the better/bigger back end and higher clocks, it would do better then the 4870. I guess that little memory bandwidth holds it back to much. At $160 its ok, but cheaper would have been a lot better. For people who still use older cards like the 8800GS/GT, this isn't bad. But as said, its not great either. I guess we'll have to see what lower end card Nvidia can come up with.

Is this the $200 card AMD was supposed to come out with? The 5850 is $260, while this is $160. I thought AMD was aiming for a $200 card and I thought the Juniper XT was supposed to be it. Is there a Juniper XTX coming now?

Exactly so if the people with these cards are not the ones they wer aiming at who were they aiming at

Id hold off on deciding on these cards perf. Its been shown that they arent BW limited, so, its either drivers, or a bad preview, which then , you can remember the source.
Not sure how itll fare at this point. Its winning in FC2, so it could be drivers, with a boost here, it could surpass the 4870 and be close to the 4890 in perf, and its what Im looking at, somewheres in between the 4870 and the 4890
Just to let everyone know, the bus cannot be changed, and going with a 192bit memory configuration would've meant either more or less RBE/ROPs and thus either a castrated card or a card with alot more transistors (and likely a less balanced configuration compared to their top->bottom line-up).

And Mac, remember the X1650XT was a different chip than the X1650Pro, it's not up to the AIBs to determine bus-width above the top end for a range, it needs to be supported, and usually it's supported downwards in that they either disable parts or else they reduce the interface to chip ratio and thus make 64bit or 32 bit (for the very low end) configurations without having to change the chip.

As JDJ mentions FartCry2 shows even with 8XAA it hangs well with the others that have more memory bandwidth, and it looks like it'll be an interesting situation as we see more tests because it has more back-end power than the other HD4Ks, and the shader power should be slightly better than the HD4890 also, so I have a feeling this is only the early performance of a card that will likely hang well with the HD4870 and then win some lose some with the 4890 over time.

This review is a little too brief and limited for my tastes, promising for the laptop sector though if they build something based on this (I think 700/1000 would be a good balance, heck even 700/700 would likely do well in most older games including Oblivion and allow easy 1920x1200/1080 on mosty laptops, especially if paired with the mobile core i7/i5 solutions).


I do believe that the drivers are off by quite a bit yet. Compare this to a 4770 and I can't see any good reason why it would have such a small increase in performance.


I guess it makes sense that way, and the 4850 was a high end card just over a year ago. That is probably why the 5770 seems less than spectacular now.

It is also easy to forget that the 4870 is still a very powerful card. It's on a different level from the 4850 so i guess the 5770 really is a step forward.


Feb 21, 2009
The 5770 should be a pleasant surprise once all the benchmarks are said and done. Everything I've seen regarding it make the card a solid value, and not just with DX11, over the last generation.

It isn't meant to be a world-beater, I think people forget that sometimes.


Mar 2, 2009
AMD was going to charge $200 for this card, and romours said it would have a 192-bit memory bus and like 1120 stream processors.
I think those specs are more likely to be reserved for a future 5830, maybe?
Still, it would have been nice for the 5770 to be on-par with the 4890.... especially since it's like $10 more expensive than the 4870.
Good thing is, heat and power consumption has gone way down (which were major problems for the 4870), and it has yet to be seen how DX11 will perform in these cards.
I guess yesterday's high-end is today's mainstream, which is good, considering improvements and price.
I'll get a 5770 for xmas probably, and I'm upgrading from a GF 8600 GT, so I'll see a great performance increase and I think it's just better to pay the extra over the 4870 for its features and reduced energy consumption and heat.
Well, I think (assuming these numbers are correct/not held back by drivers) some came into this with a little too high hopes, expecting another 4770. This card will be a good value once it is priced where it should be (right now prices are probably kept high to sell 4800s) but it is a x7xx card, not an x8xx card. The 4770 was more of a test card they decided to produce and just assigned a random number to, and although it performed like a x8xx card all the numbers were gone, so it was called an x7xx. The 5770 was planned from the start so it should have a more logical market segment - clearly below the enthusiast cards. Hopefully something like a 5830 will come out in time to fill the cheap low-high end slot that the 4770 oddly claimed last round (that rightfully belonged to the 4830).