4890 or 5770

[scaryjim]

Rollo, why do you continually insist on comparing apples to oranges?

The 5770 is a latest generation mid-range card designed to replace the outgoing 4850. Stop comparing it to cards that were 40% - 60% more expensive at launch. It just makes you look stupid. I wouldn't expect a new midrange card to outperform the previous (very recent) generation top end cards. I also doubt very much that NVidia will launch a GT300-based card @ £125 that can outperform the GTX260 - particularly given their complete failure to launch any low and mid-range cards based on GT200...

As to the 5770, I believe I said this in my last post: "Clearly, the GPU is held back slightly by its lower memory bandwidth". Yes, the card is bandwidth limited. But if it was bandwidth *crippled*, I'd expect more than a 4.5% boost to framerates for a 17% increase in bandwidth. Bandwidth is far from the whole story there, and your insistence that the card is "crippled" by its memory interface is obviously rubbish. A crippled card would not provide playable framerates at 1920x1200 - the 5770 does.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Rollo, why do you continually insist on comparing apples to oranges?

The 5770 is a latest generation mid-range card designed to replace the outgoing 4850. Stop comparing it to cards that were 40% - 60% more expensive at launch. It just makes you look stupid. I wouldn't expect a new midrange card to outperform the previous (very recent) generation top end cards. I also doubt very much that NVidia will launch a GT300-based card @ £125 that can outperform the GTX260 - particularly given their complete failure to launch any low and mid-range cards based on GT200...

As to the 5770, I believe I said this in my last post: "Clearly, the GPU is held back slightly by its lower memory bandwidth". Yes, the card is bandwidth limited. But if it was bandwidth *crippled*, I'd expect more than a 4.5% boost to framerates for a 17% increase in bandwidth. Bandwidth is far from the whole story there, and your insistence that the card is "crippled" by its memory interface is obviously rubbish. A crippled card would not provide playable framerates at 1920x1200 - the 5770 does.

Actually the HD5770 is the replacement for the HD4770 and similar midrange cards in the ATI lineup. The HD4850 was replaced by the HD5850 and the HD4870 by the HD5870. The price erosion of the HD4850 and HD4870 has made them very cheap indeed. The HD4870 was over £200 at launch IIRC and the HD4850 was well over £100. The HD4890 was over £200 at launch.

The fact is that the HD5000 series is priced higher due to the fact it is the fact they are the first DX11 cards and also since there are shortages of the higher end cards combined with the fact that there are no Nvidia DX11 cards available. This was seen with the G80 too when ATI was delayed with the R600. Once the issues with the 40NM production process are reduced and also when Nvidia releases its DX11 cards prices will start to drop for the HD5000 series.

[scaryjim]

Actually the HD5770 is the replacement for the HD4770 and similar midrange cards in the ATI lineup.

I know the naming scheme suggests that, but I'm basing my assumption on launch day RRP - both the 5770 and 4850 launched with an RRP of £125, whereas the 4770 launched at about £99 - nearer the pricing of a 512MB 5750. Whichever way you look at it it's obviously not a replacement for the 4870 / 4890 though, which launched at £175 / £200 respectively...

[Pob255]

I hate to say this, but I have to disagree with you scaryjim and support Rollo.

The original poster was asking which card is better to buy NOW, not at the prices when they where released but at current prices.

So yes Rollo is right to compare the high end 4890 with the 5770 as that was the original question that was asked.

Would a 4890 for £125 be a better buy over a 5770 for £110?
I'd say yes.

No you don't have DX11, however UNTIL there are any DX11 games actually released, that is not an issue to me.
No Eyeinfinity? Againnot an issue, you need 3 monitors and one of thoes MUST have display port, that would mean (myself personally) having to buy 2 new monitors. (and I'll still not have room on my desk for them as well.)
Low power? Now that is important, however as long as you have a psu that can cope with a 4890 it's not a major issue to me, if I wanted low power I would not even considered a 4890 in the first place.
Heat and size of the card are the last two factors that need to be considered.
Can the case fit a long 4890? A fairly basic thing to check before you even need to ask if it's worth considering.
Can the case cooling cope with the heat? A more tricky thing, we'd need to know more about the case.

[shaithis]

So, if you agree with Rollo, you are basically saying that the 5770 is "a pooch for performance" and that it is a "crippled card".

Neither are true, which is what that discussion was about. No one is denying that the 4890 is faster now. No one knows whether new drivers will change that status and no one knows whether the OP will get more value from buying a DX11 card now or not.

The details have been given and the OP can make an informed decision on what is right for him.

[MadduckUK]

No one knows whether new drivers will change that status

we will later today though
http://twitter.com/catalystmaker

i have heard some things, but its better to wait for official drivers i think

[scaryjim]

The original poster was asking which card is better to buy NOW, not at the prices when they where released but at current prices.

Agreed, and apologies for getting pulled slightly off-topic by Rollo.

I still reckon the 4890 / 5770 decision is *not* as cut and dried as you suggest though: DX11 seems to be getting a much faster uptake than DX10 (presumably partly due to the much better reception Windows 7 got compared to Vista) and is also meant to improve performance rather than reduce it (this tallies with performance improvements that ATI cards get running DX10.1 codepaths vs. DX10), so it's a worthy consideration. I'll accept that Eyefinity may not be a factor for many purchasers, but I've responded to enough "can I run three monitors on one gfx card" threads on here to know that it is a feature a lot of people are looking for, and the power considerations are (IMNSHO ) more relevant than you make out because the idle power consupmtion is so much better - and of course most people use their computer at idle the majority of the time. The 5770 draws 50W less than the 4890 at idle, which would equate, if you were running 24/7, to a saving of ~ £50 a year on your electricity bill. You don't need to be using your computer much to get financial benefit from picking the 5770...

[Pob255]

Yes that's what I mean with the power issue, if low power is an issue I'd not look at the 4890 as it's a well known card with a high power consumption.

And while current performances between the 4890 & 5770 are simular, how long will that last?
And not just because of driver updates, I can see DX11 with the higher base memory on mid range cards + the increasing popularity of 64bit OS means delevopers are going to be looking at higher and higher resolution textures, which means memory bandwidth is going to become more important.
Remember this is a card at just over £100 (the most popular price range) which comes with 1gb of memory as standard.
This in turn could lead to that 10-20% performance difference actually increasing not reducing. 5770 = 4.80GHz @ 128bit
4890 = 3.90Ghz @ 256bit
Is the memory bandwidth low compared to the 4890? Oh yes.
Now strangely for a mid range card the 5770 has the same number of streams and same gpu core speed to the 4890, which is probably why they are so close.

Now if it was 4890 @ £150 vs 5770 @ £110
I'd say the 5770 over the 4890, but for £15 more stick with the 4890.

[Rollo]

Agreed, and apologies for getting pulled slightly off-topic by Rollo.

I still reckon the 4890 / 5770 decision is *not* as cut and dried as you suggest though: DX11 seems to be getting a much faster uptake than DX10 (presumably partly due to the much better reception Windows 7 got compared to Vista) and is also meant to improve performance rather than reduce it (this tallies with performance improvements that ATI cards get running DX10.1 codepaths vs. DX10), so it's a worthy consideration. I'll accept that Eyefinity may not be a factor for many purchasers, but I've responded to enough "can I run three monitors on one gfx card" threads on here to know that it is a feature a lot of people are looking for, and the power considerations are (IMNSHO ) more relevant than you make out because the idle power consupmtion is so much better - and of course most people use their computer at idle the majority of the time. The 5770 draws 50W less than the 4890 at idle, which would equate, if you were running 24/7, to a saving of ~ £50 a year on your electricity bill. You don't need to be using your computer much to get financial benefit from picking the 5770...

I didn't take anything off course, I offered the main relevant info on the topic. I didn't talk about power because gaming performance for me means a whole lot more than nickles and dimes on electricity.

No one has offered any other explanation as to why the 5770 is slower, I'd bet one of my reasons is correct.

I've also posted links here that show the 5770s DX11 performance is no great shakes, and I bet at some games 8XAA hits that 128bit bus too hard as well.

[aidanjt]

I didn't take anything off course, I offered the main relevant info on the topic. I didn't talk about power because gaming performance for me means a whole lot more than nickles and dimes on electricity.

Association fallacy. Just because the 5770 isn't the right card for you, it doesn't mean it's the wrong card for everyone.

[Rollo]

Association fallacy. Just because the 5770 isn't the right card for you, it doesn't mean it's the wrong card for everyone.

It's the wrong card for anyone who likes to play video games.

All a person has to do is turn their computer off when not using it to negate the power issue. (I imagine a person can turn down idle clocks as well with ATi drivers)

Given the shortage of DX11 games and special effects, I'd say taking a big performance cut is about the only thing matters.

I'd think people would want to select cards that can give them the logest usable life, and get their money's worth.

If the new drivers bring the 5770 to 4890 performance w/o impacting IQ, my recommendation shifts.

[aidanjt]

It's the wrong card for anyone who likes to play video games.

No it's not, people have already stated that it's performance is adequate to play current games on a 24" monitor, and DX11 games should perform better still, particularly as the driver support for the 5xxx series matures. Why perpetuate your fallacy?

[MadduckUK]

I'd think people would want to select cards that can give them the longest usable life

so thats going to be the 5770 then, i mean, why buy a 4890 now only to find that you need the dx11 features in 6 months (and maybe nvidia will have something to sell you by then aye? aye?) when you can "future proof" yourself now

anyone with a 5770 been able to compare the 9.12's (out now, go get) to the 9.11's?

[Jay]

why buy either now then? May as well wait for the prices to drop on the 5xxx

[MadduckUK]

i presume people arent buying for the hell of it, and may actually want it at some point in the very near future. if they can wait then of course they should. but otherwise we get into the situation where you are always a week a way from a price drop or a new product and do nothing, ever

[Rollo]

No it's not, people have already stated that it's performance is adequate to play current games on a 24" monitor, and DX11 games should perform better still, particularly as the driver support for the 5xxx series matures. Why perpetuate your fallacy?

Why are you defending the indefensible? The 5770 gets beat up on by the 4890, and saying it has lower power and will run some DX11 effects some day doesn't change that fact.

No fallacy here.