5770 or GTS 250?

[Rollo]

You'd have a point if that was true. As it is, the 5770s GDDR5 Memory running over a 128bit bus provides the same bandwidth as GDDR3 over 256bits running @ 2300MHz effective: that's more bandwidth than the 4850 boasts! And given that a clock-for-clock comparison of the 4850 and 4870 shows that the doubling of memory bandwidth only gives the 4870 ~ a 10% performance advantage, the 4850 isn't exactly hugely bottlenecked by memory bandwidth. So the 5770 might be marginally slowed down by lack of memory bandwidth, but it certainly isn't "hobbled"...

I'm right about the bandwidth, and I'm right about the 5770.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3658&p=1

If you compare the specs between the 4870 and the 5770, what is the ONE area the 5770 is behind? That 128 bit memory bus. True, the memory is running faster, but not twice as fast to make up for half the bus. So we've got less memory bandwidth, same SPs, same ROPs, same TMUs. If anything, the "next gen" DX11 SPs should be more potent.

What do the benches show us? The 5770 losing most to the 4870, sometimes by pretty significant amounts, and only "winning" by a fps or two when it does.

What conclusion does the reviewer come to?

AMD clearly has put themselves in to a hole with memory bandwidth, and the 5770 doesn’t have enough of it to reach the performance it needs to be at.

If you value solely performance in today’s games, we can’t recommend the 5770. Either the 4870 1GB or the GTX 260 would be the better buy.

The same conclusion and recommendation I made. The 5770 is just a bad buy at this point in time, no one has any reason to pay the "early adopter" tax. You pay that to get some new, not possible before performance like the 5970 offers, not some middle of the road performance almost every gamer with $150-$200 to blow on a card got last year.

Buyers this holiday season can do far better with either ATi or NVIDIA last gen this holiday season. The bang per buck bar was set too high by these products, the 5770 would have to be $125 to be a "good deal" IMO.

[Rollo]

Good point. If I had known that the situation would get this out of hand, I likely wouldn't have put that in my signature. I just think maybe the gentle ribbing that goes on may have got a little carried away with another signature stunt.

I apologise to you Rollo, if any of my actions have offended you.

No worries.

FWIW, if his choice is one GTS 250 for the same price as the 5770, the 5770 is the obvious choice. In the US we can get GTX260s, HD4870s, and HD4890s for around the same price as a 5770, and they are all better cards.

For example take a look at what the GTX260 does to the 5770 at 25X16 8X16X:

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewto...&view=previous

Just demolishes it. The 4870 and 4890 would do the same, even more so as 8XAA is one of ATi's strengths. (except on cards with 128 bit memory bus)

[scaryjim]

If you compare the specs between the 4870 and the 5770, what is the ONE area the 5770 is behind? That 128 bit memory bus.

True, but the 4870 cost £175 at launch. The 5770 cost £125. Guess what else cost £125 at launch? The 4850 - which I referred to throughout my post. And if you look at the anandtech reviedw you linked, you'll see the 5770 repeatedly handing the 4850 its rear end on a plate. It's has much better performance than the last generation ATI card with the same laucnh day pricing. You're comparing apples and oranges again Rollo - the 5770 isn't meant to compete with the 4870: the numbering convention kind of gives that game away (if it was it'd be a 58x0 card). The fact that they currently cost the same is an artefact of economics.

As I said previously, most new generation graphics cards end up not significantly outperforming the previous generation cards that cost the same amount simply because the newer cards are able to hold an "early adopter" price hike, which makes them relatively expensive - then as the technology ages the prices drop. Case in point, the 4870 launched at £175 and is now obtainable for < £100. Of course, ATIs 4k series had a massive increase in performance in every class compared to the 3k series (e.g. the 4670 managed similar performance to a 3850 despite being significantly cheaper) and allowed ATI to debut cards with hugely impressive performance at relatively low price points. They are now suffering for that success because they haven't been able to match the performance increase at each level that they acheived previously. That doesn't change the fact that, based on launch-day pricing, the 5770 competes well with its nearest previous generation rival: the 4850.

p.s. fwiw, if I had £120 I had to spend on a graphics card right now, I'd probably get a GTX260. I just think the 5770 is being given an unreasonably hard time due to the ridiculous price chopping that both ATI and NVidia indulged in with their previous generation cards...

[Rollo]

True, but the 4870 cost £175 at launch. The 5770 cost £125. Guess what else cost £125 at launch? The 4850 - which I referred to throughout my post. And if you look at the anandtech reviedw you linked, you'll see the 5770 repeatedly handing the 4850 its rear end on a plate. It's has much better performance than the last generation ATI card with the same laucnh day pricing. You're comparing apples and oranges again Rollo - the 5770 isn't meant to compete with the 4870: the numbering convention kind of gives that game away (if it was it'd be a 58x0 card). The fact that they currently cost the same is an artefact of economics.

As I said previously, most new generation graphics cards end up not significantly outperforming the previous generation cards that cost the same amount simply because the newer cards are able to hold an "early adopter" price hike, which makes them relatively expensive - then as the technology ages the prices drop. Case in point, the 4870 launched at £175 and is now obtainable for < £100. Of course, ATIs 4k series had a massive increase in performance in every class compared to the 3k series (e.g. the 4670 managed similar performance to a 3850 despite being significantly cheaper) and allowed ATI to debut cards with hugely impressive performance at relatively low price points. They are now suffering for that success because they haven't been able to match the performance increase at each level that they acheived previously. That doesn't change the fact that, based on launch-day pricing, the 5770 competes well with its nearest previous generation rival: the 4850.

p.s. fwiw, if I had £120 I had to spend on a graphics card right now, I'd probably get a GTX260. I just think the 5770 is being given an unreasonably hard time due to the ridiculous price chopping that both ATI and NVidia indulged in with their previous generation cards...

I see your points but 5770 has to compete in the world it was launched in. I agree the price chopping was ridiculous, but you realize it was entirely ATi's doing I assume? After the unfortunate 2xxx and 3xxx series they had lost a ton of market share in the discrete market, and they launched the strong 4xxx series at prices not seen since ancient Voodoo 1 times. They did this to buy back market share at the cost of reduced margins, played it off as "Our die shrink allows us to retain margins!".

People bought it, apparently conveniently "forgetting" that most gens prior involved die shrinks, and they didn't involve launching flagship parts at 50% of the cost of the last 3 or 4 gens. (with a new and [at the time] rare form of RAM to boot) NVIDIA had no choice but to follow suit in the market ATi created. Now the market recoils when ATi tries to take back $10 of the MSRP standard they created, and they have to convince people their new parts are worth more than their old parts when the old parts perform better. (or in the case of the 4890 vs 5850 that getting 20% more performance is worth a wait and 40% more money)

They've fallen into the "AMD syndrome"- you can compete on price anytime, but when you set that bar low, how do you get back to the margins that built your company?

[fireisdangerous]

I'm right about the bandwidth, and I'm right about the 5770.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3658&p=1

If you compare the specs between the 4870 and the 5770, what is the ONE area the 5770 is behind? That 128 bit memory bus. True, the memory is running faster, but not twice as fast to make up for half the bus. So we've got less memory bandwidth, same SPs, same ROPs, same TMUs. If anything, the "next gen" DX11 SPs should be more potent.

What do the benches show us? The 5770 losing most to the 4870, sometimes by pretty significant amounts, and only "winning" by a fps or two when it does.

What conclusion does the reviewer come to?



The same conclusion and recommendation I made. The 5770 is just a bad buy at this point in time, no one has any reason to pay the "early adopter" tax. You pay that to get some new, not possible before performance like the 5970 offers, not some middle of the road performance almost every gamer with $150-$200 to blow on a card got last year.

Buyers this holiday season can do far better with either ATi or NVIDIA last gen this holiday season. The bang per buck bar was set too high by these products, the 5770 would have to be $125 to be a "godeal" IMO.

i can also recommend the 5770 its very quiet, looking to xfire them in the new year

[Pob255]

p.s. fwiw, if I had £120 I had to spend on a graphics card right now, I'd probably get a GTX260. I just think the 5770 is being given an unreasonably hard time due to the ridiculous price chopping that both ATI and NVidia indulged in with their previous generation cards...

It's not just ATi and NVidia, but also the e-tailers & distributers clearing old stock.
I'll give you a personal e.g. here, back when the first DX10 cards came out I swaped from agp to pci-e, I considered the 8600gt which at the time was £120 however after checking around I discovered that the 7900gs was jast as fast in dx9, it had been around £120 before the 8series came out but quickly droped in price, so I manged to get a 7900gs xxx (the xfx highly oc'd card) for £90

Around the release of the next gen is always the best time to buy the higher end last gen card and generally speaking the higher end last gen will beat the mid ranged next gen in performance.

One major thing the 5770 does have going for it is the low power, which makes it a far more PSU friendly card and crossfire friendly card.

For me the price is the hold back, the fact that I could currently get a 4890 or gtx260 for around £130 where as the 5770 is around £120
It's a tough choise, esp as I'm currently considering trying out sli/crossfire

[fireisdangerous]

I think another major plus of the 5770 is the display out puts, most gtx 260 have hdmi Wich was a major factor for me as I plug my pc into my HDTV

[badass]

Around the release of the next gen is always the best time to buy the higher end last gen card and generally speaking the higher end last gen will beat the mid ranged next gen in performance.

Not true this time though.
I got a Sapphire 1GB 4870 about 6 months ago now and I paid just over £120 for it. Really pleased with that as it seems that it's worth the same now as it was then. Just a shame the cooler's a bit noisy compared the the 8800 GTS it replaced.

[Pob255]

Not true this time though.
I got a Sapphire 1GB 4870 about 6 months ago now and I paid just over £120 for it. Really pleased with that as it seems that it's worth the same now as it was then. Just a shame the cooler's a bit noisy compared the the 8800 GTS it replaced.

4870 1gb @ £107.53
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/175914

4890 @ £129.80
http://www.cclonline.com/product-inf...555&tid=frooct