Wow i have a time machine, tomorrows 5770 review today

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I agree in the sense that the 4770 was most likelt miss named, and would have been better the 48xx something.
The fact it was on the smaller process made it outperform something similar on 55nm tho, but if it was done on the 55nm, its perf wouldve been lower.
Yea, therell most likely be a 5830 of some type, but only after theres enough stock to do so, or yields get better

 

[WINTERLORD]

5830 with a 192mem bus would be kool, just wonderin though i wonder how this thing would fare on a resolution higher then 1900x1200 . after all you never know what the future holds and maybe resolutions higher then that on a flat screen will become affordable in the near future. then im wonderin how would this mem bus affect it. but at this piont i think 1900x1200 is no problem.

also as far as i can tell, it seems like it can do better then 4870 the higher the graphic settings where. also the higher the higher the resolution, on crysis and far cry2. makes me wonder if that review was accurate or if its just drivers. they said that with higher resolution the performance dropped alot.

but it looked to me like on the crysis and far cry2 page, the 4870 dropped more, and this is how i figured that. on max settings the difference for the 5770 from 1200x1000 res to 1900x1200 res was 11fps. but the difference in frames per second between resolutions of 1200x1000 to 1900x1200 on the 4870 was far more drop in FPS of 16-17 fps. so with improved drivers and more complex games, it looks to me that the 5770 is a great deal better, and thats just gonna scale with dx11 and newer games

 

[mactronix]

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).

Ah the voice of reason speaks again, yea guess i did get a bit carried away with being dissapointed about the bus.
Now you mention it i think the X1650 XT was basically a cut down 1950 so that makes more sense as well. Im going to get stuck into some reviews now but am hoping some will include a W7 machine to see how MT and any other possable optimisations may make a differance.

Mactronix

 

[rangers]

ATIs low end card just about keeps up with the 4870, i dont know what all of you where hoping for, plus DX11 its a good card

 

[randomizer]

I think the issue is that while the 5770 is between the 4850 and the 4870, the 4770 is well ahead of the previous generation 3870, not just under it.

 

[jennyh]

I think the issue is that while the 5770 is between the 4850 and the 4870, the 4770 is well ahead of the previous generation 3870, not just under it.

That is an unfair comparison though. The 4770 was created right at the end of the main 55nm phase, and is why it looked so good 5 months ago.

I like to compare chips on a transistor vs transistor basis. There is almost nothing between the 5770 and 4870 in that regard with both coming in ~1 billion.

What the 5770 gains in optimisations, it loses on memory bandwidth. This is the real difference between the cards, but dont forget that the 4870 is *still* an incredibly powerful card. 16 months ago the 4870 just blew away everything, it was only later that we realised how power hungry and hot/loud it was.

Look at these new 5-series. My new 5850 draws much less power, and I can hardly hear it above the noise of my case fans.

Improvements are being made on a lot more fronts than just plain fps.

 

[randomizer]

I was kind of responding to rangers' question of "what were we hoping for?" I know it's not a very good comparison (not exactly apples and oranges, more like Red Delicious and Royal Gala).

It's good that power consumption and noise reductions are back on the agenda. My GTX275 is silent unless I play games, then it gets up to 80C and roars. Well, roars a bit less than my X1950 pro did 24/7.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But as Ive said before, the 4770 was somewhat misnamed, and could have been the 4830, if ATI hadnt already had plans to make that card as well, and of course the fishing with the new node etc.
I say, give em a break for misnaming 1 card, at least it was only 1 that was somewhat confusing, not their whole market profile heheh

 

[andy5174]

I agree with most of you guys that HD5770 is disappointing. I would pick up a HD5830 if it is to be released in two weeks. Otherwise, HD4890.

 

[mactronix]

But as Ive said before, the 4770 was somewhat misnamed, and could have been the 4830, if ATI hadnt already had plans to make that card as well, and of course the fishing with the new node etc.
I say, give em a break for misnaming 1 card, at least it was only 1 that was somewhat confusing, not their whole market profile heheh

Just don't see where you are coming from JD, they could have called the 4770 what they liked and it still wouldn't alter the fact that when it was released it was a good fast card at a reasonable price point.
The 5770 has 1 quarter more SP's that the 4770 did has double the Ram and some different outputs. Yes i know that's being very simplistic about it and i know there are other differences as well. The thing is though the differences, in my opinion don't add up to a 66% price increase.(Based on UK pricing) Sure i was expecting to pay more for the card but its just priced too high for what it is.
I'm not saying its a bad card far from it but I'm not buying it at that price is all. Either AMD decided to make a loss or just about break even on the 4770, which i find hard to believe, or they are bumping up the prices on this card. I see no reason why anyone could think based on whats come before (4770) that the vast majority of the people who are disappointed are wrong to be so.
AMD priced the 4770 where they did knowing the performance of the card and so creating this expectation that the same or very similar would happen again this time around, so they created this what is to my mind totally understandable expectation in the market.
I have said elsewhere on the forum that its to be expected that they would start bumping the prices up some point. Just a little to soon and too steep is all. If this card had been just that bit more affordable people would have swallowed it without a word.
So are AMD being to eager with the price rises or did they under price the 4770 ? Either way its their doing and i for one completely understand peoples responses.

Mactronix

 

[EXT64]

Yeah, I agree. I think the card is great and where I would expect, but as DX11 has yet to show its worth and ATI is not forthcoming with the evidence, the card's performance alone does not justify the price. I can't help but get the feeling that ATI is "fishing" like both companies did in the old days. In other words, putting the cards out priced somewhat high, especially when they have low quantities, just to see what people will buy them for. If they don't have a ton yet, I could understand pricing them high, since they are in no rush to sell them. However, like matronix pointed out, the question is if this is too soon. Most everyone is comfortable with ATI being the best price vs perf., but if they continue to hold the speed crown as well, will people be comfortable with the higher prices that come along with that?

 

[mactronix]

You say the card is where you would expect but others (review sites) were expecting it to be around the 4890 or solidly all over a 4870 which it isnt. looking at the hardware stats between the 4770/4850/4870 and 4890 compared with the 5770 it looks pretty obvious to me that something is wrong with the performance of the card. Could be drivers but if thats the case then they are seriously bad drivers or else its all tied to the price being so high to help shift the 4870 and 4890 cards that are left out there.

Mactronix

 

[andy5174]

You say the card is where you would expect but others (review sites) were expecting it to be around the 4890 or solidly all over a 4870 which it isnt. looking at the hardware stats between the 4770/4850/4870 and 4890 compared with the 5770 it looks pretty obvious to me that something is wrong with the performance of the card. Could be drivers but if thats the case then they are seriously bad drivers or else its all tied to the price being so high to help shift the 4870 and 4890 cards that are left out there.

Mactronix

Agree!

 

[EXT64]

Oh sorry, I meant for the number it was assigned. I would expect a x7xx card to be well below the x8xx and more on par with the previous gen mid-high end (4870). I agree with you that the perf numbers don't quite make sense in respect to the hardware, but we won't know for sure if that is a bandwidth flaw or a driver flaw until a couple real sets of drivers are out.