5770 is NOT good as 4870 or GTX260

[AzN]

I don't understand why some people on this board think 5770 is good as 4870, 4890, GTX 260 that eats less power with little over half the bandwidth.

Lot of these people here are quick to judge a card by looking at internet reviews just to compare average frame rates when minimum frame rates is just as important if not more.

I've had 6600 that had near 9700 pro level of performance with only 128bit memory bus. It would get similar average frame rates but minimum frame rates wasn't anywhere near the 9700 series. It would drop to teens while the 9700 didn't.

I wish more reviewers included minimum frame rates as this is more important to me than just average frame rates.

Here's a classic review of an overclocked Gainward 4850 1024mb that is getting similar results of 4870 with same core clocks as 4870. Notice the average frame rates and minimum frame rates as you raise resolution. Minimum frame rates plummet on the 4850 to unplayable frame rates while 4870 does not in upper resolutions. While average frame rates is consistent on the 4850 compared to 4870.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gainward-hd4850-1024mb-gs_8.html#sect1

As much as 5770 is a decent mid-range card I still think this card is not even in the same league as 4870/4890/GTX260. It's more like overlclocked 4850/4770 and overpriced at that.

 

[TC91]

I cannot agree any more, the 5770 is well overpriced for the performance it offers at this time

 

[Schmide]

I agree to a point. From the same site review

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5770-hd5750_17.html

The 4890 averages 12% more, however the gtx260 216 trades places, and in their set of marks loses more than it wins. If you put the latter in the same class as the 4870/4890 you must classify the 5770 in the same class.

 

[edplayer]

It would be a good deal now at around $130. It will be an $80 card in 6 months (on sale/hot deals, not msrp).

 

[dguy6789]

I agree about the 5770, but the 6600GT was a better card than the 9700 and 9800 all around.

 

[Tempered81]

I agree AZN. I would rather have a 4870 than 5770

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Relative performance changes (fluctuates) from game to game.


edit: even the minimum framerate performance

 

[BFG10K]

Relative performance changes (fluctuates) from game to game.

Exactly. From my testing the 5770 outruns the GTX285 in some games, and it's slower than the 4850 in others. I also found it to be roughly on par with the GTX260+ overall.

The 5770’s performance is all over the place at the moment, and I blame the drivers.

 

[AzN]

The 5770’s performance is all over the place at the moment, and I blame the drivers.

I blame the bandwidth.

 

[AzN]

but the 6600GT was a better card than the 9700 and 9800 all around.

I was talking about 6600 non gt. The GT was actually faster card than 9800 pro but the bandwidth was close enough to not matter.

 

[dguy6789]

I was talking about 6600 non gt. The GT was actually faster card than 9800 pro but the bandwidth was close enough to not matter.

Ah I misunderstood. I didn't think anyone ever talked about the 6600 non GT.

 

[AzN]

I agree to a point. From the same site review

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5770-hd5750_17.html

The 4890 averages 12% more, however the gtx260 216 trades places, and in their set of marks loses more than it wins. If you put the latter in the same class as the 4870/4890 you must classify the 5770 in the same class.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5770-hd5750_8.html#sect0

There's the same bench with the 5770. It's a little better than the 4850 but look at the minimum frame rates still plummeting in upper resolutions even when massively overclocked. GTX260 and 4890 does not show this behavior.

It might be 12% lower average frame rates but when you look at minimum frame rates it's 35% slower @ 1920x1200.

 

[tuteja1986]

Well i think ATI and Nvidia will stop this price war as its gone to unprofitable price level.
As for being overpriced , i do not believe they are as they aren't really making killing profit on them and ATI 4890/4870 were priced at crazy low price to gain market share.

 

[hans030390]

If you're looking only for better performance, then the 5770 isn't as good as the 4870 or GTX 260. With only performance, it's also overpriced. Still, performances isn't TOO far off from them. Remember that not everyone plays at crazy high resolutions with AA/AF cranked up all the way.

However, I like that it's 1) A smaller card than those 2) Draws a good bit less power than those (and even cards it IS faster than, ex: 4850 draws more power than 5770, but 5770 is more powerful) 3) Includes features like DX11. The first two alone made it worth the money for me.

Keep in mind that the 5xxx series keeps inflating in price for no good reason. Once the demand goes down and/or there's some competition (Nvidia's DX11 cards), I'm sure the prices will fall to very reasonable levels.

 

[Washoe]

I blame the bandwidth.

 

[AzN]

However, I like that it's 1) A smaller card than those 2) Draws a good bit less power than those (and even cards it IS faster than, ex: 4850 draws more power than 5770, but 5770 is more powerful) 3) Includes features like DX11. The first two alone made it worth the money for me.

Do you really expect 5770 to play dx11 games? I doubt that.

Power consumption is the only thing I can think of. But do gamers care that much about power consumption to sway to a slower card and bottoms out harder than cards that cost essentially same? It's not like GTX260 or 4890 are really power hogs. It's just that 5770 barely consume any power.

 

[Patrickz0rs]

I remember some troll posted that the 5770 will be better than a 4890 with driver improvements. I LOL'ed all the way to class that morning.

 

[x3sphere]

Do you really expect 5770 to play dx11 games? I doubt that.

Power consumption is the only thing I can think of. But do gamers care that much about power consumption to sway to a slower card and bottoms out harder than cards that cost essentially same? It's not like GTX260 or 4890 are really power hogs. It's just that 5770 barely consume any power.

eh? The 5770 will play DX11 games fine at a low res. People who buy this card are not going to be gaming at 1080p with AA, at least I hope not.

 

[happy medium]

I would think a 5770 would play directx 11 games just fine @ 1650x1050 med settings.

I just wish AMD would hurry and fill the gap between the 5770 and 5850 with the 5830 so I can do some crossfire action.

 

[Schmide]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5770-hd5750_8.html#sect0

There's the same bench with the 5770. It's a little better than the 4850 but look at the minimum frame rates still plummeting in upper resolutions even when massively overclocked. GTX260 and 4890 does not show this behavior.

It might be 12% lower average frame rates but when you look at minimum frame rates it's 35% slower @ 1920x1200.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/11/23/powercolor_hd5770_video_card_review/1

If we take a look at a few graphs of the frame rate, all the cards seem to follow the same general FPS lines. There seems to be a few places where the 5770 just hiccups. Too bad they didn't have the Far Cry bench there. There is also the obligatory benchmark where the difference is too high based on architecture to consider.

Could be poor driver executions during load time?

 

[crisium]

Well, right now the cheapest 5770 is $17+ cheaper than the cheapest GTX 260 and 4870 on Newegg (including shipping). That means the GTX 260 / 4870 is 10% more expensive. And as it turns out, the 260's performance advantage is usually around 8-12%. So it works out to fit it's priceerformance ratio. I think you'd be wise to pony up a bit more for better performance, but considering it's also DX11 and lower power, it wins out in features sans-Nvidia's exclusive capabilities on the 260. Not an unreasonable buy for 1650 or lower resolution, I think.

When it was first launched and 4870s could be had for $145, it was a bad deal. But considering the shortage of GPUs, it's suddenly competitive. But the 4890 is in the next price bracket and offers quite the performance boost, so that will be attractive for many who demand pure performance. Also the GTS 250 a good deal cheaper and only a bit slower, so it's also a better buy besides lacking DX11. But because of that DX 11, it is not unreasonable to buy a 5770. Not like the GTX 275, which is a straight up bad buy at it's current price point.

*all prices via Newegg, cause that's how I roll.

 

[wrangler]

I put a 5770 in my wife's rig for a 1680x1050 monitor and it is great for that resolution AND, it is quiet and cool.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I remember some troll posted that the 5770 will be better than a 4890 with driver improvements. I LOL'ed all the way to class that morning.

you must be a hit with the girls.

 

[hans030390]

Do you really expect 5770 to play dx11 games? I doubt that.

Power consumption is the only thing I can think of. But do gamers care that much about power consumption to sway to a slower card and bottoms out harder than cards that cost essentially same? It's not like GTX260 or 4890 are really power hogs. It's just that 5770 barely consume any power.

I don't know if it will be able to play them or not in the future. Still, I'd rather have it than not. I also was on a tight budget and couldn't get a great PSU...so, yeah, power consumption matters. Don't forget that it's also a shorter card. Not a big issue for most, but still nice.

Some people care about things other than just performance.

 

[edplayer]

Do you really expect 5770 to play dx11 games? I doubt that.

Sure, why wouldn't it?

maybe if we are talking about some super demanding DX11 game (sort of like the Crysis of DX11) coming out five years from now. Otherwise, of course it will.