5770 vs 4890 suggestions

[deadken]

I'm considering a hold over card until I get a 69xx or 7xxx card most likely after February (my budget is around $250). While browsing the F/S forums (rather difficult since the search function still isn't working), I came across a 4890 for $65 shipped and a 5770 for $70-$75 shipped. Both cards are 1GB. I'm thinking that either one would be a significant upgrade from my 8800GTS and I figure I could recoup a few bucks after I buy my final card in 7-8 weeks.

When I compare the cards at GPUReview
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=608&card2=615
I see that their specs are very similar except: memory bandwidth, wattage, and DX version.

I'm not sure if the memory bandwidth of the 4890 is as important to me as the DX11 support and less wattage of the 5770, so I figured that I would ask here. My monitor is 1920 x 1200 and my OS is Win7. I have BF3, but haven't been playing much since my FPS can make things 'less then fun' sometimes.

If I had to guess, I'd think that the bandwidth is more important and that the 5770 might have problems playing in DX11. But, I trust most people here way more then my guesses, so I figured that I would ask.

Thanks in advance for any help.

FWIW:
24" 1920 x 1200 IPS
AMD PHII 4cores @ 3.8Ghz
2 x 4GB ram
Win 7 64bit H.P.
OCZ Modstream 700W

 

[3DVagabond]

I think performance wise it's splitting hairs. I'd lean towards lower power usage/heat and Dx11 and get the 5770.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

I'm considering a hold over card until I get a 69xx or 7xxx card most likely after February (my budget is around $250). While browsing the F/S forums (rather difficult since the search function still isn't working), I came across a 4890 for $65 shipped and a 5770 for $70-$75 shipped. Both cards are 1GB. I'm thinking that either one would be a significant upgrade from my 8800GTS and I figure I could recoup a few bucks after I buy my final card in 7-8 weeks.

When I compare the cards at GPUReview
http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=608&card2=615
I see that their specs are very similar except: memory bandwidth, wattage, and DX version.

I'm not sure if the memory bandwidth of the 4890 is as important to me as the DX11 support and less wattage of the 5770, so I figured that I would ask here. My monitor is 1920 x 1200 and my OS is Win7. I have BF3, but haven't been playing much since my FPS can make things 'less then fun' sometimes.

If I had to guess, I'd think that the bandwidth is more important and that the 5770 might have problems playing in DX11. But, I trust most people here way more then my guesses, so I figured that I would ask.

Thanks in advance for any help.

FWIW:
24" 1920 x 1200 IPS
AMD PHII 4cores @ 3.8Ghz
2 x 4GB ram
Win 7 64bit H.P.
OCZ Modstream 700W

The 5770 might be a DX 11 branded card but its too weak for it. Not its bus its gpu. It doesnt have the power really. I mean you get like 19fps in Dx 11 with it

Read this comparison between the 4890 and 5870 and the real performance levels it can give you
http://www.beyond3d.com/content/reviews/54/4

Its a bit noisier, hotter and use more power but its about 40 percent slower than the 5870 but when you add AA and go to Dx 11 the 5870 manage to pull that x2 performance increase Amd promised.
But the 4890 vs 5850 would be a better matchup as they both outperform the 5770 and performance levels are closer to each other

 

[StrangerGuy]

I'll take the 5770.

 

[lamedude]

The 4000 cards aren't getting WDDM 1.2 drivers if plan on keeping it for a Win8 box.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

As an owner of two 5770s myself, even I would say that you can't really play any DX11 games well on it [maybe DiRT 2/DiRT 3 - you could get away with] - especially if it uses tessellation... it just wouldn't handle it. Not even the 69xx series cards can (in my opinion - not well enough, at least).
The performance of the 4890 is a LOT faster - from what I've seen - it smacks the 5770 in the face . I would recommend the 4890. However, lamedude's comment is also valid.

It depends though... you might just be better off saving that money, waiting a few weeks and buying a 7950. Although that depends on your budget then. A "hold over card" for a matter of a month (and a bit) is a tad silly in my opinion, but then again, I am a student and would rather be one to wait.

 

[-Slacker-]

The 5770 might be a DX 11 branded card but its too weak for it. Not its bus its gpu. It doesnt have the power really. I mean you get like 19fps in Dx 11 with it

Yup. The 5770 can't do DX11 at 19x12, except maybe in h.a.w.x. 2, so if you can find the slightly faster hd4890 for cheaper, go with that.

 

[tweakboy]

A 4890 is faster!

 

[Don Karnage]

5770 every time. No DX11 with the 4890

 

[Termie]

Why not buy the HD6770 (identical to HD5770) for $70AR/FS new?

Here's the deal I posted: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2217775. Today only, but I think that's your best bet. Certainly no reason to pay more for a used one.

And in terms of performance, this is just a holdover card, right? Then a few percentage points difference won't matter - the 5770/6770 uses way less power, makes way less noise, and for any game where the performance really mattered, the 4890 would choke anyway.

BF3 is a prime example: http://www.techspot.com/review/458-battlefield-3-performance/page5.html

No, the 5770 won't do much better at high settings: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/battlefield-3-graphics-performance,3063-8.html

But I'm pretty sure you'd get playable multiplayer performance at a mix of low/medium. And in BF3, it's clearly better than the 4870/4890 - probably due to DX11 optimizations.

 

[Chiropteran]

A 4890 is faster!

And hot, louder, losing driver support sooner, etc.

I'd go with 5770 or the 6770 shell-shocker deal today.

 

[Phynaz]

And hot, louder, losing driver support sooner, etc.

I'd go with 5770 or the 6770 shell-shocker deal today.

This. 5770 is an awesome low power consumption card.

 

[Concillian]

Yeah, I went from a 4850 to a 5770 and saw a significant decrease in power consumption. 5770 is probably HALF the power usage of a 4890.

The 4890 is faster, but not by much. I also got about 10% OC out of my 5770. (930 / 1300) with little effort.

It "works" for the games I play at 1920x1200, but not at max settings or with AA, of course.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If the budget is $250, I'd just get a 6950 now. With an interim card you double your chance of a DOA, double the chance of a rebate hassle, and then have to go through the hassle of selling a card.

AMD isn't about to compete with themselves so I wouldn't expect the 7000 series to do much of anything to the current pricing structure. Nvidia isn't likely to aggressively compete when they don't have the top product -- they're the Intel of the GPU world and they have an image to keep: they can't be seen as only having cut-rate products. I wouldn't bet on much movement until Nvidia's next gen midrange card comes out. That's where Nvidia seems to like being aggressive.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

The 4890 is faster, but not by much.

I disagree. Look at many accurate benchmarks, the 4890 generally hits between 10% and 20% faster (depending on the application [game, benchmark, etc.] in use). Albeit, some comparisons may have been done with early drivers for the 5K cards.
Personally, I did receive a MASSIVE speed boost for my 5770 [when I only had one] from either 10.8 or 10.9

Still, if I personally had the choice, I'd go for the 4890 - it's not as if you're going to run D3D11 on a 5770, let alone any of the 5K cards [if heavy tessellation is in place].

 

[Don Karnage]

5770s should easily hit 1ghz core / 1350 mem with a small voltage bump. There is no reason to pick a 4890 over one.

 

[Phynaz]

I disagree. Look at many accurate benchmarks, the 4890 generally hits between 10% and 20% faster (depending on the application [game, benchmark, etc.] in use).

10 to 20 percent is much faster? :hmm:

 

[Joseph F]

^ Yes, it is.

 

[Phynaz]

^ Yes, it is.

Oh, okay, let me check in on the other threads then where people claim the 7970 is a failure because it's not twice as fast. I'll try to reconcile these two views


10% isn't even going to be noticeable.

 

[Joseph F]

The difference between 30 and 36 FPS is most definitely noticeable. (You did state 10-20&#37
And I'm sure that you could at least notice the difference in between 30 and 33 FPS.

 

[deadken]

Thank you for the replies. Most of them were helpful and provided some insight. As soon as I got home I checked this thread and I certainly would have bought that shell-shocker 6770 brand new for the $70 AMIR price. I have an extreme dislike of Diamond products after having to deal with them over a defective 1650Pro, but I would have put that aside if the deal was still going on when I looked.

Just to clear things up a little bit:
$250 is the budget for the new card. From what I've read about 7xxx pricing, I'll have to wait until at least mid-February to get a 7xxx card that retails for $250. I figure that in reality, that might mean early March.

The idea of a hold-over card was to get playable FPS on BF3 now, and not lose much money upon resale in 2 months. I think a 6950 is a wonderful card, but IMO they will be worth significantly less in 2 months.

I had hoped that the prices on a 5770 had slid enough that they wouldn't be sliding more then $10-$20 in the next few months. I had no idea that they were basically identical to a 6770. Or that the 6770's were so close in price.

Basically, if it will only 'cost' me around $20 to play BF3 for the next 2 months, I will lay out $60-$75 now and get another card. As a bonus, that will put me in a position as not 'needing' a new video card, but instead 'wanting' a new video card.

-thanks again, Ken

 

[nurturedhate]

I've had a 4870 oc'd to 840 core. Was running an i5-2400 at 3.7. At 1680*1050 on low settings on a 64 player map like caspian it is not playable unless you enjoy 25-35 fps. Friend has a phII 965 i believe and a 5770 but with a 1080 monitor. everything on low. Even lower fps, 20-30. If you are playing at 1920*1200 neither card will be a satisfactory experience.

What I ended up doing was finding another 4870 for $30 locally and crossfiring them. Respectable performance. Roughly medium setting. Never saw below 40 fps. After that I moved to a 580 but that is a different story.

 

[Don Karnage]

I've had a 4870 oc'd to 840 core. Was running an i5-2400 at 3.7. At 1680*1050 on low settings on a 64 player map like caspian it is not playable unless you enjoy 25-35 fps. Friend has a phII 965 i believe and a 5770 but with a 1080 monitor. everything on low. Even lower fps, 20-30. If you are playing at 1920*1200 neither card will be a satisfactory experience.

What I ended up doing was finding another 4870 for $30 locally and crossfiring them. Respectable performance. Roughly medium setting. Never saw below 40 fps. After that I moved to a 580 but that is a different story.

Have any 3dmark11 runs? I have a 5770 i can drop in to compare.

 

[Termie]

Thank you for the replies. Most of them were helpful and provided some insight. As soon as I got home I checked this thread and I certainly would have bought that shell-shocker 6770 brand new for the $70 AMIR price. I have an extreme dislike of Diamond products after having to deal with them over a defective 1650Pro, but I would have put that aside if the deal was still going on when I looked.

Just to clear things up a little bit:
$250 is the budget for the new card. From what I've read about 7xxx pricing, I'll have to wait until at least mid-February to get a 7xxx card that retails for $250. I figure that in reality, that might mean early March.

The idea of a hold-over card was to get playable FPS on BF3 now, and not lose much money upon resale in 2 months. I think a 6950 is a wonderful card, but IMO they will be worth significantly less in 2 months.

I had hoped that the prices on a 5770 had slid enough that they wouldn't be sliding more then $10-$20 in the next few months. I had no idea that they were basically identical to a 6770. Or that the 6770's were so close in price. Basically, if it will only 'cost' me around $20 to play BF3 for the next 2 months, I will lay out $60-$75 now and get another card. As a bonus, that will put me in a position as not 'needing' a new video card, but instead 'wanting' a new video card.

-thanks again, Ken

If you're really making this purchase primarily to play BF3 at any reasonable settings, I think you'll want more than a 4890 or 5770. One option that won't break the bank is a 6850 ($125) or 6870 ($140). Because they are already pretty well discounted, they won't lose a lot of value in the coming months, and you'll probably be able to resell them for around $100 when you pick up a new 7000-series card. Plus, they are leagues ahead of the 5770 in terms of BF3 performance - the 6850 will easily handle medium settings at 1080p, and the 6870 can just about handle all high at 1080p.

Here are some links to the best deals going right now:

(1) Sapphire HD6850 - $125AR/FS/Code (APPLE9710) - http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?name=AT-6850_1G

(2) HIS HD6870 - $140AR/FS - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161389

I realize that this is above your budget, but based on my experience and the comments from others here, I think that your $70 invested in a 5770/4890 would feel like money wasted once you tried to fire up BF3 on either card. A 6850 or 6870, on the other hand, will allow you to enjoy the game, and will retain their resale value quite well, IMO.

I'd personally get the 6870 - it's 25% faster than the 6850 and 18% slower than the 6950 in BF3. And yet it costs $15 more than the 6850 and about $100 less than a 6950. That math certainly speaks volumes as to its value. It's also 50% faster than the 5770, and in this game, that's the difference between playing at low and high.

 

[nurturedhate]

Have any 3dmark11 runs? I have a 5770 i can drop in to compare.

Sold the 4870 crossfire setup to a different friend and then moved states. From az to pa.