5770 or 5850? upgrade for my rig

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: toyota
perhaps you should read back through the thread because he said he wanted the best bang for buck card.

I think you need to re-read the thread, as he never stated that at all. His concern was with bottlenecks and not price, and considering the CPU he's using he won't have any issue with bottlenecks.

5770 wont be able to smoothly handle every game out there at the very low 1440x900.

Stop saying this bullshit. It won't handle every game smoothly. It's already known that, even at this res, Crysis cannot be maxed out on 4890 class cards.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...Radeon_HD_5870/10.html

Look at 1280x1024 (the closest resolution that's tested). The HD4890 only gets 30 fps and the 5850 gets 40 fps. That is a huge difference in performance, which will be indicative of more demanding games to come as well as gaming at a higher resolution should he eventually get a new monitor. But these benchmarks, as well as every statement you're making, needs to be taken with a grain of salt because we don't know the exact pricing nor performance level of the 5770.

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...Radeon_HD_5870/10.html

It just amazes me how hard Crysis is on Graphics cards.

Seriously I even wonder if there is something wrong with the efficiency of that Graphics engine? To my novice eye other games look "almost as good" but seem far less demanding on Video cards. Correct me if I am wrong.

P.S. 1680x1050 has almost 33% more pixels than 1440x900. So this lower than mainstream resolution really shouldn't strain video cards that much.

 

[Munky]

Buy the fastest video card you can reasonably afford, and definitely invest in a bigger, better monitor. A monitor and a good speaker system are about the only HW components I'd call an investment. Everything else grows obsolete in a matter of months. In fact, unless I was playing a twitch shooter (and I don't) I'd much rather be getting 40fps on a big 1920x1200 screen than 90fps on a tyny 1440x900 screen.

 

[abs0lut3]

Originally posted by: netxzero64
well... am just still in the planning process if i'd buy a new LCD... because it will take sometime again before I could buy something else for an upgrade on my rig after buying a new VC...

about my power supply, It could power my rig with my previous GPU, (GTX 260 sonic) OC'ed at 746, 1575, 1302 (GPU, shader, and mems respectively) and obviously the GTX 260 guzzles more power compared to a 5850 or even the 5770... so I think I could handle a 5770 or 5850 better with a lot of headroom for OC'ing...

I believe you should:
1. Sell your monitor and buy the 1080p monitor you have been wanting; and two
2. Wait until the prices settles down around thxgiving or after christmas.

Also, do not buy Acer/Benq cheap big screen crap. Those screens are FAIL. Stick to either AOC/Chimei (they are the LCD OEM for 60%-70% of the market)/LG or Samsung.

AFAIK, there is already a graphical performance of the HD 5770 from another place:
HD5770 vs HD4770 vs HD4850 vs GTS 250

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota
perhaps you should read back through the thread because he said he wanted the best bang for buck card.

I think you need to re-read the thread, as he never stated that at all. His concern was with bottlenecks and not price, and considering the CPU he's using he won't have any issue with bottlenecks.

5770 wont be able to smoothly handle every game out there at the very low 1440x900.

Stop saying this bullshit. It won't handle every game smoothly. It's already known that, even at this res, Crysis cannot be maxed out on 4890 class cards.

http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...Radeon_HD_5870/10.html

Look at 1280x1024 (the closest resolution that's tested). The HD4890 only gets 30 fps and the 5850 gets 40 fps. That is a huge difference in performance, which will be indicative of more demanding games to come as well as gaming at a higher resolution should he eventually get a new monitor. But these benchmarks, as well as every statement you're making, needs to be taken with a grain of salt because we don't know the exact pricing nor performance level of the 5770.

he did say that...

Originally posted by: netxzero64
hey hey guys just cool down... hehehe...

well i just need a very good advise, from what i've read it would be a good choice to have the 5850 because if I were to plan for a 22" LCD then the games I want to play will still be playable given that I could max out the settings...

and also because I consider my budget (still saving) for a good bang for the buck video card...

with his cpu at 14400x900 res yes he would hold a 5850 back compared to having an i7/i5. by how much would depend on the individual game of course. also 30-35 fps is perfectly playable for Crysis. look at Hardocp reviews where they even consider just under 30fps for an average framerate acceptable in Crysis. they consider a 5850 perfectly playable at 1920x1200 4x AA, all DX10 Enthusiast settings except shaders on Gamer. http://hardocp.com/article/200...50_video_card_review/4 now do you really believe that a 5770 wont be playable at just a 1440x900 res?? not to mention running a custom DX9 config camn look just as good while pumping several more fps. hell I play Crysis/Warhead on a modified DX9 very high config myself at 1920x1080 even with my system.



are you happy with you current setup at that res because with his setup and 5770 he will get well over 3 times what you can get? so I guess that means you just arent playing anything with your current setup according to the advice you give out. you make it sound like card as fast as the 4890 that can tear through all but a 3 or 4 games maxed at 1920x1080 will somehow just be too sluggish for him at just 1440x900?? a 5770 if as fast or faster than 4890 will be PLENTY for that low res especially since he is looking for the best bang for buck.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: toyota

he did say that...

Originally posted by: netxzero64
hey hey guys just cool down... hehehe...

well i just need a very good advise, from what i've read it would be a good choice to have the 5850 because if I were to plan for a 22" LCD then the games I want to play will still be playable given that I could max out the settings...

and also because I consider my budget (still saving) for a good bang for the buck video card...

Ok so I missed that, but that doesn't change the fact the 5850 is a good bang for the buck video card.

with his cpu at 14400x900 res yes he would hold a 5850 back compared to having an i7/i5. by how much would depend on the individual game of course. also 30-35 fps is perfectly playable for Crysis. look at Hardocp reviews where they even consider just under 30fps for an average framerate acceptable in Crysis. they consider a 5850 perfectly playable at 1920x1200 4x AA, all DX10 Enthusiast settings except shaders on Gamer. http://hardocp.com/article/200...50_video_card_review/4 now do you really believe that a 5770 wont be playable at just a 1440x900 res?? not to mention running a custom DX9 config camn look just as good while pumping several more fps. hell I play Crysis/Warhead on a modified DX9 very high config myself at 1920x1080 even with my system.

The i7/i5 is completely irrelevant. His processor is fast enough to handle any game to achieve high framerates at 1440x900. Intel may be a bit faster in a few games, but as more demanding games are released the load will move towards the GPU and off of the CPU. You still don't have a counter for this argument and I think you're avoiding it, but it's undeniable that future games will be more demanding than current games and in this regard the 5850 will be the faster card regardless of resolution.

30 fps may be "playable" for Crysis, but 40 fps will be much, much smoother. Why are you trying to argue against this point? It's fact. The 5850 will provide a much better experience and there won't be as many slowdowns (better minimum framerates, which are most important) as with a 4890-class card.

are you happy with you current setup at that res because with his setup and 5770 he will get well over 3 times what you can get? so I guess that means you just arent playing anything with your current setup according to the advice you give out. you make it sound like card as fast as the 4890 that can tear through all but a 3 or 4 games maxed at 1920x1080 will somehow just be too sluggish for him at just 1440x900?? a 5770 if as fast or faster than 4890 will be PLENTY for that low res especially since he is looking for the best bang for buck.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? This makes zero fucking sense and is so full of logical fallacies. My advice has nothing to do with me. I look at reviews and I look at numbers, and the numbers show that NOT EVERY GAME can be maxed out with a 4890 class video card at that resolution like you keep claiming over and over again.

But to answer your question: No, I'm not completely happy with my setup. I cannot max out any new games, although older games (Half-life 2, Battlefield 2, FEAR) are just fine. But TF2, Crysis, Far Cry 2, Assasin's Creed, Bioshock, and etc cannot be maxed out on my setup without the game either being unplayable or experiencing slowdown or less-than-ideal smoothness.

What I'm saying about the 4890 is that it cannot MAX OUT MAX OUT MAX OUT (this is what the OP asked for, if you can't fucking remember as I've said it in every single post) EVERY EVERY EVERY single game. It can handle a lot of games, but not every single game and it sure as won't be MAXING OUT newer games (meaning the list of games it can't max out will grow over time). The key word in all of this is: MAX OUT. This is what the OP first mentioned in his first post, so I take it as the most important request unless he were to otherwise state so. Sure he could turn down a few settings, settle for medium quality, and etc with a 4890-class card, but this is not maxing out a game and keeping a smooth experience. The 5850 will provide that: It will give him a smoother experience, let him max out a game that otherwise couldn't be maxed out, and/or handle future games to come or handle a monitor upgrade much better.

You look at resolution and you look at CPU speed as if it's some kind of brick wall, and it's not.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota

he did say that...

Originally posted by: netxzero64
hey hey guys just cool down... hehehe...

well i just need a very good advise, from what i've read it would be a good choice to have the 5850 because if I were to plan for a 22" LCD then the games I want to play will still be playable given that I could max out the settings...

and also because I consider my budget (still saving) for a good bang for the buck video card...

Ok so I missed that, but that doesn't change the fact the 5850 is a good bang for the buck video card.

with his cpu at 14400x900 res yes he would hold a 5850 back compared to having an i7/i5. by how much would depend on the individual game of course. also 30-35 fps is perfectly playable for Crysis. look at Hardocp reviews where they even consider just under 30fps for an average framerate acceptable in Crysis. they consider a 5850 perfectly playable at 1920x1200 4x AA, all DX10 Enthusiast settings except shaders on Gamer. http://hardocp.com/article/200...50_video_card_review/4 now do you really believe that a 5770 wont be playable at just a 1440x900 res?? not to mention running a custom DX9 config camn look just as good while pumping several more fps. hell I play Crysis/Warhead on a modified DX9 very high config myself at 1920x1080 even with my system.

The i7/i5 is completely irrelevant. His processor is fast enough to handle any game to achieve high framerates at 1440x900. Intel may be a bit faster in a few games, but as more demanding games are released the load will move towards the GPU and off of the CPU. You still don't have a counter for this argument and I think you're avoiding it, but it's undeniable that future games will be more demanding than current games and in this regard the 5850 will be the faster card regardless of resolution.

30 fps may be "playable" for Crysis, but 40 fps will be much, much smoother. Why are you trying to argue against this point? It's fact. The 5850 will provide a much better experience and there won't be as many slowdowns (better minimum framerates, which are most important) as with a 4890-class card.

are you happy with you current setup at that res because with his setup and 5770 he will get well over 3 times what you can get? so I guess that means you just arent playing anything with your current setup according to the advice you give out. you make it sound like card as fast as the 4890 that can tear through all but a 3 or 4 games maxed at 1920x1080 will somehow just be too sluggish for him at just 1440x900?? a 5770 if as fast or faster than 4890 will be PLENTY for that low res especially since he is looking for the best bang for buck.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? This makes zero fucking sense and is so full of logical fallacies. My advice has nothing to do with me. I look at reviews and I look at numbers, and the numbers show that NOT EVERY GAME can be maxed out with a 4890 class video card at that resolution like you keep claiming over and over again.

But to answer your question: No, I'm not completely happy with my setup. I cannot max out any new games, although older games (Half-life 2, Battlefield 2, FEAR) are just fine. But TF2, Crysis, Far Cry 2, Assasin's Creed, Bioshock, and etc cannot be maxed out on my setup without the game either being unplayable or experiencing slowdown or less-than-ideal smoothness.

What I'm saying about the 4890 is that it cannot MAX OUT MAX OUT MAX OUT (this is what the OP asked for, if you can't fucking remember as I've said it in every single post) EVERY EVERY EVERY single game. It can handle a lot of games, but not every single game and it sure as won't be MAXING OUT newer games (meaning the list of games it can't max out will grow over time). The key word in all of this is: MAX OUT. This is what the OP first mentioned in his first post, so I take it as the most important request unless he were to otherwise state so. Sure he could turn down a few settings, settle for medium quality, and etc with a 4890-class card, but this is not maxing out a game and keeping a smooth experience. The 5850 will provide that: It will give him a smoother experience, let him max out a game that otherwise couldn't be maxed out, and/or handle future games to come or handle a monitor upgrade much better.

You look at resolution and you look at CPU speed as if it's some kind of brick wall, and it's not.

and you look at gpu benchmark that uses a significantly faster cpu and some how think his cpu can pull off the same thing. I hate to tell you but at 1440x900 with a card as fast as the 5850 he is most certainly not going to get the number you see for that res. he wont have to turn settings down to medium to play games at 1440x900 with a 5770. hell my slower gtx260 can handle basically everything at 1440x900 on highest settings with at least some AA. one exception would be Clear Sky where I turn the ssao down one notch and the sun shadows to low and use no AA. I really dont even have to do that since that only effects a small part of the game. the only other exception would be using no AA in Crysis if using the stock configs and stock very high settings. those are it and I actually play those two just fine at 1920x1080 because Clear Sky is fine for most of the game even at that res and for Crysis I have custom very high DX9 config. I am picky and I would tell those two are the only ones that do need a little more gpu power at 1920 to be perfect. at 1440x900 its not a problem at all for a 192sp gtx260 so I am sure a faster 5770 would have no issues at all.

anyway we both have our own thoughts on the situation and we both feel that we are right so lets just agree to disagree as they say.

 

[SRoode]

Originally posted by: munky
Buy the fastest video card you can reasonably afford, and definitely invest in a bigger, better monitor. A monitor and a good speaker system are about the only HW components I'd call an investment. Everything else grows obsolete in a matter of months. In fact, unless I was playing a twitch shooter (and I don't) I'd much rather be getting 40fps on a big 1920x1200 screen than 90fps on a tyny 1440x900 screen.

+1

If I had a 19" monitor now, I'd rather spend the money that a 5850 would cost on something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16824236047

1920x1200, 25.5", with HDMI input too. It's only $10 more than the 5850, and I think the larger picture and higher rez would help make games more immersive. I know you are still using OB video, but you could buy an 8800GT on E-Bay for about $40 or so, which would drive a monitor at this rez no problem.

Good luck!

 

[GaiaHunter]

Between those I would go with the 5850 - it is within your budget and will have more juice on its legs for the future.

And we don't know much about the 5770 yet, so it is all speculation.

I think it is a good idea to go with the best card your budget can buy.

 

[happy medium]

I'd get something like this Asus 22 inch 1680x1050 for 159$ free shipping with 20$ rebate= 139$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...5&name=1680%20x%201050

Then I'd get a 5770 for 199$...as suggested here.

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...-5750-performance.html

And sell my 19 inch monitor for 50$.

Total 300$

Makes a hellava lot more sense then buying a 260$ 5850 card (thats not shipping at the Egg). I certainly wouldn't buy a 5850 for 1440 x900 just so I can play 1 OR 2 games that are poorly optomized at max settings.

A 5770 will be enough to play at high setting for 90% of games for the forseeable future. Mostly just Xbox 360 ports with some extra eye candy.

5850 at the egg...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...ame=Radeon%20HD%205850

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: toyota
and you look at gpu benchmark that uses a significantly faster cpu and some how think his cpu can pull off the same thing. I hate to tell you but at 1440x900 with a card as fast as the 5850 he is most certainly not going to get the number you see for that res. he wont have to turn settings down to medium to play games at 1440x900 with a 5770. hell my slower gtx260 can handle basically everything at 1440x900 on highest settings with at least some AA. one exception would be Clear Sky where I turn the ssao down one notch and the sun shadows to low and use no AA. I really dont even have to do that since that only effects a small part of the game. the only other exception would be using no AA in Crysis if using the stock configs and stock very high settings. those are it and I actually play those two just fine at 1920x1080 because Clear Sky is fine for most of the game even at that res and for Crysis I have custom very high DX9 config. I am picky and I would tell those two are the only ones that do need a little more gpu power at 1920 to be perfect. at 1440x900 its not a problem at all for a 192sp gtx260 so I am sure a faster 5770 would have no issues at all.

anyway we both have our own thoughts on the situation and we both feel that we are right so lets just agree to disagree as they say.

The CPU is irrelevant for games like Crysis, which are GPU-bound even at 1440x900 on max settings. Again you fail to see the point.

Ah, I see you admit that a GTX260-class card, which is close to where I expect the 5770 to compete, cannot handle AA in Clear Sky and Crysis on max settings. Guess what. At 1440x900, AA makes a world of difference. The extra GPU power the 5850 will provide over the 5770, regardless of bottlenecks, will give the OP the ability to use AA with these more demanding titles, and with AA applied the game will look much better at this lower resolution.


Sure enough, the 5770 will be a capable card, but you need to stop saying the 5850 will not provide no extra benefits for him. That is completely false and I want you to fucking admit it. In games like Crysis, Arma II, Clear Sky, and etc, the 5850 is going to provide a better (smoother, higher IQ) gaming experience even at 1440x900 and when paired with a Phenom II processor.

You make CPU bottlenecks and resolution limitations into some kind of wall, that once you hit there is no gain. That is just not true for every scenario, and I know you know this.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota
and you look at gpu benchmark that uses a significantly faster cpu and some how think his cpu can pull off the same thing. I hate to tell you but at 1440x900 with a card as fast as the 5850 he is most certainly not going to get the number you see for that res. he wont have to turn settings down to medium to play games at 1440x900 with a 5770. hell my slower gtx260 can handle basically everything at 1440x900 on highest settings with at least some AA. one exception would be Clear Sky where I turn the ssao down one notch and the sun shadows to low and use no AA. I really dont even have to do that since that only effects a small part of the game. the only other exception would be using no AA in Crysis if using the stock configs and stock very high settings. those are it and I actually play those two just fine at 1920x1080 because Clear Sky is fine for most of the game even at that res and for Crysis I have custom very high DX9 config. I am picky and I would tell those two are the only ones that do need a little more gpu power at 1920 to be perfect. at 1440x900 its not a problem at all for a 192sp gtx260 so I am sure a faster 5770 would have no issues at all.

anyway we both have our own thoughts on the situation and we both feel that we are right so lets just agree to disagree as they say.

The CPU is irrelevant for games like Crysis, which are GPU-bound even at 1440x900 on max settings. Again you fail to see the point.

Ah, I see you admit that a GTX260-class card, which is close to where I expect the 5770 to compete, cannot handle AA in Clear Sky and Crysis on max settings. Guess what. At 1440x900, AA makes a world of difference. The extra GPU power the 5850 will provide over the 5770, regardless of bottlenecks, will give the OP the ability to use AA with these more demanding titles, and with AA applied the game will look much better at this lower resolution.


Sure enough, the 5770 will be a capable card, but you need to stop saying the 5850 will not provide no extra benefits for him. That is completely false and I want you to fucking admit it. In games like Crysis, Arma II, Clear Sky, and etc, the 5850 is going to provide a better (smoother, higher IQ) gaming experience even at 1440x900 and when paired with a Phenom II processor.

You make CPU bottlenecks and resolution limitations into some kind of wall, that once you hit there is no gain. That is just not true for every scenario, and I know you know this.

the CPU is irrelevant for games like Crysis? well reality trumps theory: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...lynnfield-cpu-review/7 in Crysis even at 1680x1050 with DX10 high settings and 2x AA an overclocked i7 gets 50% better framerates than a stock Phenom 2 955. those are all top of the line cpus and there is still a massive difference when running them overclocked. sure they could turn it up to very high and get some more load on the gpu but then knocking the res down to 1440x900 would negate much of that by loading the cpu a bit more too.

also thats with a gtx280 which is pretty good bit slower than a 5850. so imagine how much more the cpu would matter with a faster card and at just 1440x900? in Crysis he would be lucky though because his cpu could also benefit from overclocking. there are plenty of games out there that are more intense on the cpu then Crysis where an I7 would walk all over those lesser cpus especially at just 1440x900.

at just 1440x900 I think he would benefit very little from the 5850 over the 5770 and depending on the price it may not be worth it at all. the 5850 is a strong card and that is a very low resolution so some of the performance will be limited by his cpu. so my point still stands that at just 1440x900 he will shit away a lot of the performance that a 5850 has over a 5770. also those games you listed play fine with my 192sp gtx260 at 1440x900 and a 5770 will be about 25-30% faster than it.

 

[netxzero64]

well guys, all of you has a point here.. i could just comment on that since most people or us think that the 5770 will be on par or be a bit powerful than a 4890, all we can do is wait until the anand staff do reviews for it... also i consider price... but still i won't let my eyes off on the 5850 because if i'm correct in the future more demanding games will be released, so the higher the requirements will be for the graphics card, so even with a 1440x900 res the games could be more GPU bound because of higher graphics requirements... not considering the current games available...

(sigh) its hard to decide which one to buy =), but I appreciate the views of each of you guys... i just want to play at max because i don't settle for anything less in games especially on graphics, i know my rig isn't that powerful but that's what i can only afford =)

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: netxzero64
well guys, all of you has a point here.. i could just comment on that since most people or us think that the 5770 will be on par or be a bit powerful than a 4890, all we can do is wait until the anand staff do reviews for it... also i consider price... but still i won't let my eyes off on the 5850 because if i'm correct in the future more demanding games will be released, so the higher the requirements will be for the graphics card, so even with a 1440x900 res the games could be more GPU bound because of higher graphics requirements... not considering the current games available...

(sigh) its hard to decide which one to buy =), but I appreciate the views of each of you guys... i just want to play at max because i don't settle for anything less in games especially on graphics, i know my rig isn't that powerful but that's what i can only afford =)

future games are not going to mean the cpu is any less important especially at just 1440x900 when using a very fast gpu. as you could see even Crysis which is a very gpu heavy card still had a 50% improvement with an overclocked an i7 at 1680x1050 even using AA and DX 10 high settings. if anything future games will be taxing the cpu even more than they do now. games like GTA 4 already have a massive advantage with faster quad cores like an i7 compared to other cpus. the future will be more demanding on both the cpu and gpu.


regardless of what some people think 1440x900 is ridiculously low res and a card like 5850 will a great deal of its additional power over the 5770 got to waste without a very fast cpu. if you doubt me look at cpu reviews for at pcgh.com. for many games they test various cpus at 1280x1024 which is actually slightly larger than 1440x900. sometimes they testat a higher res like 1680x1050 though. you can see the i7 beats the crap out of other cpus in most games especially at just 1280x1050 and thats with a slower card than a 5850.


heck here are few right here. see how even at 1680 faster cpus like an i7 will still have advantage even with slower cards than a 5850. I am sure somebody will say that the games will still be playable. of course they will but thats not the point. the point is you will be pissing away what the 5850 can really do at such a low res because it becomes very cpu bound res when you have a fast card like that. your cpu is good but it just gives up too much to some faster ones especially at just 1440x900. the 5770 will make more sense at that very low res and it wont be giving up nearly as much performance.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...PU-benchmarks/Reviews/

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...ield-results/Practice/

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...with-15-CPUs/Practice/

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...with-18-CPUs/Practice/

 

[cbn]

Originally posted by: netxzero64
but still i won't let my eyes off on the 5850

ASUS "Voltage tweak" HD5850 for $259= no brainer.

At this point I don't think you will see a better bargain. $149 HD5750 looks like a borderline value.

But with 1440x900 resolution I myself would be looking at HD5670 (if such a thing were available)

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: toyota
the CPU is irrelevant for games like Crysis? well reality trumps theory: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...lynnfield-cpu-review/7 in Crysis even at 1680x1050 with DX10 high settings and 2x AA an overclocked i7 gets 50% better framerates than a stock Phenom 2 955. those are all top of the line cpus and there is still a massive difference when running them overclocked. sure they could turn it up to very high and get some more load on the gpu but then knocking the res down to 1440x900 would negate much of that by loading the cpu a bit more too.

Their testing is flawed, just look at how the Phenom 955 numbers compare to the 965. With a 6% increase in clockspeed they are reporting a 19% improvement in AVG framerate. And the Q6600 (stock) is beating the 955 (stock)? Ridiculous.

Oh and those weren't Very High settings being used.

Originally posted by: toyota
regardless of what some people think 1440x900 is ridiculously low res and a card like 5850 will a great deal of its additional power over the 5770 got to waste without a very fast cpu. if you doubt me look at cpu reviews for at pcgh.com. for many games they test various cpus at 1280x1024 which is actually slightly larger than 1440x900. sometimes they testat a higher res like 1680x1050 though. you can see the i7 beats the crap out of other cpus in most games especially at just 1280x1050 and thats with a slower card than a 5850.

YOU'RE TOO FOCUSED ON BOTTLENECKS. Jesus. He won't be pissing anything away. What you're saying (insinuation) is that the 5770 will provide the same framerates as a 5850 at this res and with his CPU, and you are just flat out wrong. The 5850 will provide increased framerates and better IQ. You have yet to counter this point: With the added horsepower of the 5850, and even if I ASSUME you're scenario of a bottleneck, he would be able to increase the AA/AF quality in his games and not lose an ounce of performance. With a 5770, he would lose some performance by doing this in the more demanding games.

And let's not forget longevity: The 5850 will have more staying power, either over time as more demanding games come out or for a monitor upgrade. For a person who wants to completely max out their games, it's better to have too much power than not enough.

Oh and let's not forget what we don't know: Specs, performance, or pricing of the 5770.

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: toyota
the CPU is irrelevant for games like Crysis? well reality trumps theory: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardwa...lynnfield-cpu-review/7 in Crysis even at 1680x1050 with DX10 high settings and 2x AA an overclocked i7 gets 50% better framerates than a stock Phenom 2 955. those are all top of the line cpus and there is still a massive difference when running them overclocked. sure they could turn it up to very high and get some more load on the gpu but then knocking the res down to 1440x900 would negate much of that by loading the cpu a bit more too.

Their testing is flawed, just look at how the Phenom 955 numbers compare to the 965. With a 6% increase in clockspeed they are reporting a 19% improvement in AVG framerate. And the Q6600 (stock) is beating the 955 (stock)? Ridiculous.

Oh and those weren't Very High settings being used.

Originally posted by: toyota
regardless of what some people think 1440x900 is ridiculously low res and a card like 5850 will a great deal of its additional power over the 5770 got to waste without a very fast cpu. if you doubt me look at cpu reviews for at pcgh.com. for many games they test various cpus at 1280x1024 which is actually slightly larger than 1440x900. sometimes they testat a higher res like 1680x1050 though. you can see the i7 beats the crap out of other cpus in most games especially at just 1280x1050 and thats with a slower card than a 5850.

YOU'RE TOO FOCUSED ON BOTTLENECKS. Jesus. He won't be pissing anything away. What you're saying (insinuation) is that the 5770 will provide the same framerates as a 5850 at this res and with his CPU, and you are just flat out wrong. The 5850 will provide increased framerates and better IQ. You have yet to counter this point: With the added horsepower of the 5850, and even if I ASSUME you're scenario of a bottleneck, he would be able to increase the AA/AF quality in his games and not lose an ounce of performance. With a 5770, he would lose some performance by doing this in the more demanding games.

I didnt say he would hit a brick wall because he wont. I am saying that yes at that res he will most certainly not get close to most of the benefit that a 5850 will have over a 5770. a 5770 will still be very fast for such a low res and even it would perform better with a faster cpu at just 1440x900. you can see those other benchmarks that clearly show that even at 1680x1050 with highest settings and usually AA that an i7 if faster than his cpu. and those are with slower gpus than a 5850. so use common sense to realize that just 1440x900 a 5770 is fast and makes more sense. thats about the same gpu power you would have running games at 640x480 with your 3850. if you had a cpu like his do you think that you really couldnt max games at 640x480 on your 3850 either?

 

[netxzero64]

well that's the sad thing... i don't have an i7 rig hehehe.... but i think my rig is decent to rip any games out there with a powerful GPU...

@cusidea

i agree with you to have too much power than not enough... because future games will put more toll to the GPU as well as CPU so i think i would go for the 5850 for this... but am still more than a hundred bucks to go to have that.. =(

 

[netxzero64]

see 5770 specs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...n_.28HD_5xxx.29_series

i found this a little lacking but hopefully its on par with 4890....

 

[netxzero64]

here's a peek of what's to come for 5750 and 5770....

http://i443.photobucket.com/al.../netxzero/5770-pic.jpg

http://i443.photobucket.com/al.../netxzero/5750-pic.jpg

 

[netxzero64]

here's a peek of what's to come for 5750 and 5770....

http://i443.photobucket.com/al.../netxzero/5770-pic.jpg

http://i443.photobucket.com/al.../netxzero/5750-pic.jpg

 

[yh125d]

OP, I would really consider making buying a new LCD a priority on your list. I am totally of the opinion that damn near any game at 1920x1080 lowered to medium settings looks better than at 1440x900 with max settings. Now I know that right now you only have integrated so you're not playing anything, so you def need to buy a card (and I agree with others that the 5850 sounds like a really good match for you, provided you up your res), but I don't know if it's the best idea to buy a 5850 now and be stuck at 1440 for several more months until you get a new monitor. Maybe buy a 22-24" 1080p monitor now (like $175-200, maybe less on sale) and in a couple months (hopefully after a small price drop if you're lucky, maybe even a model with a better-than-reference cooler) buy the 5850? That's just if you can wait that long though



IDK, just an option to mull over

 

[netxzero64]

@yh125d

yeah... i'll consider your advise sir... and I'm still in the process of which one to choose... because either i'll buy a 5770 and the next time that i'll spend money on a new tech will be is a totally new rig...

anyway... I wanna ask also if there are issues on the ATI 5 series running on XP.. are there issues on the 5 series under windows xp? or should I format my rig to a new OS? because as much as possible I wanna stay under XP for quite some time before I'll go for the windows 7 OS

 

[RussianSensation]

yh125d, great advice!

A monitor tends to outlast all system components. I had a Viewsonic 19 inch CRT from 2001 until 2007. Then got the 37 inch Westy, which I don't plan to upgrade for a while. GTX 280 was $500-600 June 2008, and now you can get the same performance for $200 or 85% of that in 4870 for $125. In 15 months, we will have 5870 performance for $200 or less; and in 15 months from that point double that performance for $200. In terms of computer tech buys, a videocard is the worst, while a good monitor is the best.

 

[yh125d]

There haven't been any XP bugs with 5xxx that I've heard of, so you would be fine there. But yeah you should probably upgrade that soon as well... I use Win 7 at home and XP at work and I definitely prefer 7