At what price difference is a 5850 a justifiable upgrade over a 4890?

[SunnyD]

Obviously at full retail price, a 5850 @ $300+ is probably stretching it. But when shopping the used marketplace, at what price point does a 5850 become "worth it" as an upgrade to a 4890, considering current resale values on 4890's in general.

 

[jtisgeek]

for me probably around 175.

 

[cbn]

What does HD4890 sell for on the used market?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I wouldn't even consider a 4890 right now. With fermi's release week after next the market will probably adjust itself accordingly and I'd wait before commiting to anything until afterwards. I myself want a new card since my 4890 croaked but am waiting.

 

[happy medium]

What does HD4890 sell for on the used market?

~160$.
A 5850 compared to a 4890? A 5850 is roughly 25% faster then a 4890 and has more features.

I'd go 240$ for a 5850. Then it's "worth it".

 

[cbn]

A 5850 is roughly 25% faster then a 4890 and has more features.

By my calculator HD5850 is 53% faster than a HD4890.

How this would translate into FPS I do not know? That would depend on CPU choice and resolution.

 

[happy medium]

Quote from Anandtech 5850 review.

"One thing that’s very clear in these benchmarks is that as things currently stand, the 5850 has made the GTX 285 irrelevant (again). The 5850 is anywhere between 9% and 16% faster depending on the resolution"

So last I checked the 4890 is just a little slower then a gtx 285. Mabe 10%
So add 10% to the above 9% to 16% and you get 19% to 26% faster for the 5850.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=4

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I got my 4890 for ~$150AR new. Keeping the performance deltas in mind, I'd pay ~$220 for a 5850 and ~$280 for a 5870.

 

[cbn]

Quote from Anandtech 5850 review.

"One thing that’s very clear in these benchmarks is that as things currently stand, the 5850 has made the GTX 285 irrelevant (again). The 5850 is anywhere between 9% and 16% faster depending on the resolution"

So last I checked the 4890 is just a little slower then a gtx 285. Mabe 10%
So add 10% to the above 9% to 16% and you get 19% to 26% faster for the 5850.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=4

At 2560x1600 4x AA, HD5850 is showing only a 16% improvement over HD4890 (using 3.33 Ghz Core i7 for the CPU).

That tells me the CPU is the bottleneck even at very high resolution.

This means the only way for a person to get their moneys worth out of such a Video card would be either 1) Increase the number of monitors and/or 2) Overclock the CPU.

This begs the question why are these gigantic GPUs even being produced?

 

[toyota]

At 2560x1600 4x AA, HD5850 is showing only a 16% improvement over HD4890 (using 3.33 Ghz Core i7 for the CPU).

That tells me the CPU is the bottleneck even at very high resolution.

This means the only way for a person to get their moneys worth out of such a Video card would be either 1) Increase the number of monitors and/or 2) Overclock the CPU.

This begs the question why are these gigantic GPUs even being produced?

in NO way shape or form is a 3.33 i7 a bottleneck for Crysis at 2560 high settings 4x AA with a single 5850.

 

[SunnyD]

So here's a hypothetical... say I get a bite on my current 4890 (MSI Factory OC'd) @ $195... a 5850 @ say $250 would be a steal?

in NO way shape or form is a 3.33 i7 a bottleneck for Crysis at 2560 high settings 4x AA with a single 5850.

And I believe Crysis itself is and always has been the bottleneck in that equation.

 

[cbn]

in NO way shape or form is a 3.33 i7 a bottleneck for Crysis at 2560 high settings 4x AA with a single 5850.

Not a bottleneck (Sorry for my misuse of that term), but certainly the 3.33 Ghz i7 is limiting the HD5850.

With 53% more GPU processing power, we would be seeing a higher frame rate increase with a stronger and/or higher clocked CPU.

 

[cbn]

And I believe Crysis itself is and always has been the bottleneck in that equation.

That is why I picked Crysis, it is the most graphically demanding game AFAIK.

With other games I am sure 3.33 Ghz i7 CPU would be even more limiting.

LOL, these upcoming Fermi comparisons are going to be interesting when lack of CPU power is factoring into the equation. (Or maybe the extra VRAM, bandwidth on Fermi helps at high resolution?)

 

[SunnyD]

That is why I picked Crysis, it is the most graphically demanding game AFAIK.

With other games I am sure 3.33 Ghz i7 CPU would be even more limiting.

LOL, these upcoming Fermi comparisons are going to be interesting when lack of CPU power is factoring into the equation.

Your sig is fucking huge btw.

 

[cbn]

So here's a hypothetical... say I get a bite on my current 4890 (MSI Factory OC'd) @ $195... a 5850 @ say $250 would be a steal?

What CPU and what monitor do you have?

 

[SunnyD]

What CPU and what monitor do you have?

1920x1200 24".

 

[cbn]

1920x1200 24".

What CPU? (The link in your sig doesn't work)

 

[jthunderloc]

So here's a hypothetical... say I get a bite on my current 4890 (MSI Factory OC'd) @ $195... a 5850 @ say $250 would be a steal?

$50 is the magic number for me. Considering the 5850 should be selling for $250 or less by now and $200 is an average price for the few 4890s still new from retailers. It's still comparing the top single gpu from ATI to the lower end enthusiast level gpu in the new generation.

I opted for the dual 4890 route giving me 5870 performance for around $300. Once the prices drop on the 5870s ill probably upgrade, id like to see what the 5890 is going to be

-Wes

 

[SunnyD]

What CPU? (The link in your sig doesn't work)

i7 920.

 

[Ben90]

Very very very very few games are going to be CPU bound by a 3.33ghz i7.

Even a 5870 sees an increase in framerate by turning off AA in Counter-Strike: Source, one of the most CPU intensive games of all time.

 

[MagickMan]

Quote from Anandtech 5850 review.

"One thing that’s very clear in these benchmarks is that as things currently stand, the 5850 has made the GTX 285 irrelevant (again). The 5850 is anywhere between 9% and 16% faster depending on the resolution"

So last I checked the 4890 is just a little slower then a gtx 285. Mabe 10%
So add 10% to the above 9% to 16% and you get 19% to 26% faster for the 5850.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3650&p=4

Unless you OC the 5850, which it does much better than the 4890, for obvious reasons. A 1GHz 5850 crushes an OCed 4890 and is a much better value.

 

[cbn]

Very very very very few games are going to be CPU bound by a 3.33ghz i7.

Well the frame rate increase @ 2560 x 1600 for Crysis warhead isn't that impressive.

 

[cbn]

i7 920.

If you can really sell your HD4890 for $195 and buy a HD5850 for $250 then I say go for it.

HD5850 has much lower 24/7 idle power consumption (that saves money) as well as being DX11.

Just realize we are only talking about at most a 10% improvement at most in performance over HD4890 at 1920 x1200.

P.S. I think the energy savings HD5850 offers you is probably more impressive than any increase in playable frame rates.

 

[happy medium]

Not a bottleneck (Sorry for my misuse of that term), but certainly the 3.33 Ghz i7 is limiting the HD5850.

With 53% more GPU processing power, we would be seeing a higher frame rate increase with a stronger and/or higher clocked CPU.

No way does a core i7 @3.33 limit a 5850.
It's enough cpu for 2 5850's.
A pentium dual core (e5200)@ 3.5 would push a 5850 easy.


A 5850 is no where near 53% faster then a 4890.
Show me 5 benchies where a 5850 is 53% faster then a 4890 and I'll show you 25 that say it's not.

 

[toyota]

Well the frame rate increase @ 2560 x 1600 for Crysis warhead isn't that impressive.

thats not the cpu limiting it though. you could probably lower that i7 down to 2.3 and still be basically 100% gpu limited in Crysis at 2560 with single 5850.