4890 or 5770

[matty-hodgson]

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- the 5770 is a pooch.

shut up. all you do here is cause arguments. i dunno how you do it but you're bloody good at it!

[aidanjt]

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.

What part of "it's performance is adequate to play current games on a 24" monitor" did you miss? Your own illogic is piling up.

[Terbinator]

Seriously, isn't it about time he stopped getting trolled ?

[Rollo]

What part of "it's performance is adequate to play current games on a 24" monitor" did you miss? Your own illogic is piling up.

I can't help it you're wrong.

I like XBit- they show the all important minimum framerates.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...0_9.html#sect2

Ouch. 44 vs 63 fps minimum at Resident Evil 5- a person would notice that! (at 19X12)

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...0_8.html#sect0

Ugh. 23 vs 31 at Far Cry 2 at 19X12- that one will be lurching along like what we had to deal with in the old days. Thank god good cards like the 4890 were launched!

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...-5770-review/7

Ooops- almost 50% higher minimums for the 4890 at Dawn of War 2 19X12 4X16X.

When you combine the sometimes much lower minimums to the almost always lower averages, the 4890 is the clear choice.

Games aren't likely to get easier on graphics cards, so it's always good to get as fast of a card as you can for your money.

[aidanjt]

Ouch. 44 vs 63 fps minimum at Resident Evil 5- a person would notice that! (at 19X12)

No, they wouldn't.

When you combine the sometimes much lower minimums to the almost always lower averages, the 4890 is the clear choice.

No, it isn't the clear choice. And we've already explained why it isn't the clear choice.

Games aren't likely to get easier on graphics cards, so it's always good to get as fast of a card as you can for your money.

Suddenly I'm reminded of Swap=RAM*2. I can't think why.

[Rollo]

No, they wouldn't.


No, it isn't the clear choice. And we've already explained why it isn't the clear choice.

I suppose whether they'd notice or not depends if the gamer had vsynch on or not. The lucky 4890 gamer would stay at even 60fps* while the unfortunate 5770 gamer would be watching his framerate jump back and forth between 30 and 60fps when it couldn't synch to 60 because the 5770 is weak.

Yes, you've explained why the 5770 is a better deal because it's a mid range card, and it uses less power, and it will have DX11 effects in a few games.

Seems a pretty clear choice to me- faster in every game vs pennies worth of electricity and a couple games with DX11 effects sometime in the future. What to choose? What to choose?



*assuming the person has a 60Hz LCD

[ajones]

Back to our new OP...

As you can probably tell, you've asked a very good question and opinion is divided. You've also learnt that whenever a graphics post comes along, there is the inevitable arguament with Rollo.

I guess from the sentiments of the above;

If when DX11 becomes more prevalent in the games market (say in about 12 months at a complete guess) you are happy to purchase a new graphics card, then the 4890 seems to be the choice to go for. Bottom line, the 4890 is faster than the 5770 for games that exist today.

If you are after a card that's going to last you a long time... we're talking 3+ years here, then surely it has to be the DX11 5770 all the way.

But I think Jay hit the nail on the head.... If you can you would be best advised to wait. Early next year (fingers crossed) nVidia release their new cards. This is unlikley to effect your choice unless by some miracle they release a mid-range card, but should have some impact on ATi prices unless it turns out that Fermi is a puppy. We're also hearing rumours that ATi supply problems may be coming to an end, in which case you should start seeing more competitive pricing for their 5xxx series.

So, I'd summarise as;
1) Wait
2) 4890 for a short term investment in you PC
3) 5770 as a long term investment in your PC

Personally if I had to buy now, I'd defy whatever logic I used above and buy the 5770. It's good enough and cheaper to boot!

[Domestic_Ginger]

Back to our new OP...

Back on track and well summerised Dr Jones!

[aidanjt]

Seems a pretty clear choice to me

And this is your association fallacy.

[Rollo]

And this is your association fallacy.

It makes as much sense as you saying people who want to save electricity buy a lower power video card and leave their computer running while they're at work and asleep.

[aidanjt]

It makes as much sense as you saying people who want to save electricity buy a lower power video card and leave their computer running while they're at work and asleep.

And now a strawman? Seriously?

[shaithis]

because the 5770 is weak.

Yeah, because weak cards can play a new game at 44fps MINIMUM @ 1920x1200 resolution.

Perhaps you need to get in the real world where people do not get given high end gfx cards or have limitless funds for PC hardware?

[scaryjim]

It makes as much sense as you saying people who want to save electricity buy a lower power video card and leave their computer running while they're at work and asleep.

a) that was me, not aidanjt.

b) I wasn't suggesting that, I was providing an example of the possible savings if you already run your PC 24/7. If you want something more tangible, the OP will save £1 ($1.62) for every 160 hours the computer is running in an idle state (e.g. web browsing or word processing), and every 106 hours while gaming. I'll leave it to the OP to work out how much that would save them over the course of 3 years, but I suspect it would be a substantial proportion of the cost of the graphics card...

[Rollo]

If when DX11 becomes more prevalent in the games market (say in about 12 months at a complete guess) you are happy to purchase a new graphics card, then the 4890 seems to be the choice to go for. Bottom line, the 4890 is faster than the 5770 for games that exist today.

If you are after a card that's going to last you a long time... we're talking 3+ years here, then surely it has to be the DX11 5770 all the way.

There are a couple problems with this, IMHO.

1. When has a mid range video card ever been a 3 investment? What was midrange 3 years ago? An X1900 if you're charitable and say a $300 card is "midrange". They dropped support on those earlier this year. How would it be doing on current games at our 19X12?

2. New DX versions take a while to get into the market. You get a game patched here and there, but full versions that really take advantage of the tech take a while and usually are pretty limited. Even now, in your current game library, how big of a difference is DX10? There are a lot more DX10 games out to be sure, but it really takes a while. I don't think we'll be flooded with DX11 games at the end of 2010 either, and I bet a lot of what there are out then mainly use it for the speed increases rather than tesselator effects. Devs tend to code for the installed user base, and DX11 won't be mainstream this year. (2010, and by this I mean the shift to it will begin with people like us, but it won't be "mainstream" till 2011 and we have to remember a lot of current development is done for consoles)

In any case, perhaps I was unfair calling the 5770 a "pooch". It's not a "pooch", I just think in this choice the 4890 is the better deal because it offers higher gaming performance at everything currently, and I think it's better positioned to continue to do so for the next year. Even the year after it's not like people will ONLY buy DX11 games, and if they did, going through a year of subpar performance with the 5770 to get there is a big price to pay. My guess is the OP could buy his 4890 now, use it a year, then sell it for $50-60 next December and buy a 5770 for $75. for that level of DX11 in 2011. Question is: will anyone want that level of DX11 in 2011.

You can buy a two year card at top of the line, but not $150 cards IMO. 4870X2 will easily last a 19X12 gamer another year, a 5970 will go two. No free lunch in the video card world.

[Rollo]

Yeah, because weak cards can play a new game at 44fps MINIMUM @ 1920x1200 resolution.

Perhaps you need to get in the real world where people do not get given high end gfx cards or have limitless funds for PC hardware?

I agree. I was probably a little "colorful" in my description of the 5770 due to some of the hostility encountered here.

The 5770 is the weaker card, IMO due to it's 128 bit memory, but for games out today it's pretty competent for the most part. I'm just not a big fan of cards with gimped memory, that one comes back to haunt you.

I'm also not a standard consumer as you note, but I do know a bit about video cards, and the advice I give does represent the choices I would make if I were choosing between these two parts.

[matty-hodgson]

1. When has a mid range video card ever been a 3 investment? What was midrange 3 years ago? An X1900 if you're charitable and say a $300 card is "midrange". They dropped support on those earlier this year. How would it be doing on current games at our 19X12?.

well.. my card's coming up to 3 years old now (8800GT, 27 months old), running at 2048x1152 (more pixels than 1920x1200) and it's still running fine, yeah, i have to knock the graphics down a little bit and leave V-sync off but it's still lasted me 3 years and it was a mid-range card when i bought it (£133).