• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

How fast will the radeon 5770 be upon release?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Originally posted by: LCD123

We may see the 7g ram on the hd5890. Too expensive to use on a sub $200 card, it will make it's way in a card costing at least $400.
That makes sense considering the price increase of the more expensive ram would be less noticeable on a more expensive SKU.

Speaking of HD5870.......basically that is two HD5770 stuck together. So if HD5770 could benefit from more bandwidth then maybe HD5870 could also? (Lots of reviewers have been reporting less than x2 performance with HD5870 vs HD4890 even though 2x shaders are present)
 

wrbt

Member
Oct 9, 2009
48
0
0
Brent the video card editor over at HardOCP is throwing out plenty of hints that memory bandwidth isn't an issue with 5770. Here at:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1457881

Regarding the estimates of a little slower than 4870:
"those performance estimates are low I think you guys will be pleasantly surprised"

Regarding 128 bit:
"I don't even know how to respond anymore to this idea that the memory bit depth is so important, like that one spec makes or breaks the card, or holds any real value now that GDDR5 is in use. Perhaps it is ignorance? I don't know, hopefully I can make it clear again in my article (which I've done in so many past articles). I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over and over and over and over...."

and of course:
"All I know is how the cards perform in games, and I'm impressed with the results. It was better than I thought it would be. Can't really say anymore than that until the launch next week."


I've also seen him write that 5770 is engine limited, not bandwidth. He's obviously got a card in hand and is writing his article, so I'd say it's probably not worth sweating the bandwidth eh?
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
yeah, it definitely is ignorance

ATI has shown time and again that they can get away with much less bandwidth when improvements are made to the core. The biggest parallels we can draw from here is the 512bit 2900XT vs the 256bit 3870. The GPUs had virtually the same raw power on paper, but the 2900XT had twice the bandwidth. Same when considering the 128bit 4670 vs. the 256bit 3850.
 

LCD123

Member
Sep 29, 2009
90
0
0
Originally posted by: Just learning
Originally posted by: LCD123

We may see the 7g ram on the hd5890. Too expensive to use on a sub $200 card, it will make it's way in a card costing at least $400.
That makes sense considering the price increase of the more expensive ram would be less noticeable on a more expensive SKU.

Speaking of HD5870.......basically that is two HD5770 stuck together. So if HD5770 could benefit from more bandwidth then maybe HD5870 could also? (Lots of reviewers have been reporting less than x2 performance with HD5870 vs HD4890 even though 2x shaders are present)
It would be cheaper to just go 192 bit bus than to use super rare and expensive ram. Maybe this is what we will see for the hd6770? The hd5890 could double the hd4890 in performance with 7g ram or with a 384 bit bus.

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles


ATI went from a 512bit bus with their 2900XT to a 256bit bus with the 3870 and saw virtually no drop off in bandwidth intensive situations.

Then there was the G80 -> G92 transition where nVidia dropped from a 384bit bus to a 256bit bus, again with the 256bit bus being more than enough. And now they're also dropping from 512bit to 384bit from GT200 to Fermi

Also, you can delude yourself about your TV resolution all you want, anything lower than 1680x1050 is a tiny resolution per PC gaming standards. Like I said before, 1440x900 or 1280x1024 are both much larger than your tiny, non HDTV resolution, and both of those resolutions are as small as you'll see tested on most review sites.

Let's compare hd2900xt vs. hd2900pro. The hd3870 has higher clocks and a better core design. The hd5770 would need to be far more efficient in memory bandwith to make up for a 50% shortfall vs. the hd4870. You did prove your point that the hd5770 will beat a hd4850, but that's because the hd5770 has higher core clocks and more memory bandwith. We will find out in a few days how well the hd5770 performs, but ill say that ill honestly be very surprised if the hd5770 beats the hd4870 more than 10% of the time. The core is only 13% faster but it has only 2/3 the memory bandwith. Even the hd4770 with a 30% advantage in core clocks was only 10% faster than hd4830 with it having about 9/10th the memory bandwith. If bandwith didn't matter much, why does 30% faster core translate into only 10% increased performance?

I am not paying $1000+ for a 30" 2560x1600 LCD that requires two hd5870s costing $750 for both in order to run every modern game smoothly. You can get a 32" LCD TV 1360x768 for $400 easy and run modern game smoothly on a hd4850 costing $100 used. I don't want to downgrade in monitor size, I am not interested in less than my 32". Id love to own a 40" 1920x1080 TV monitor but can't afford $700 for it. When 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 TVs come out, ill grab a 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 TV for cheap.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: LCD123
Let's compare hd2900xt vs. hd2900pro. The hd3870 has higher clocks and a better core design.
Why should we compare those two? Fact of the matter is that the 5770 vs 4870/4890 is analogous to the 3870 vs. 2900XT. Do you not realize that the GPU is new here? Not simply a die shrink for RV770?

The hd5770 would need to be far more efficient in memory bandwith to make up for a 50% shortfall vs. the hd4870.
Again, the 3870 sure kept up with/beat a 2900XT with half the bandwidth, and this time around the 5770 has 67% of the bandwidth (76.8GB/s vs. 115.2GB/s), not 50%.

You did prove your point that the hd5770 will beat a hd4850, but that's because the hd5770 has higher core clocks and more memory bandwith. We will find out in a few days how well the hd5770 performs, but ill say that ill honestly be very surprised if the hd5770 beats the hd4870 more than 10% of the time. The core is only 13% faster but it has only 2/3 the memory bandwith. Even the hd4770 with a 30% advantage in core clocks was only 10% faster than hd4830 with it having about 9/10th the memory bandwith. If bandwith didn't matter much, why does 30% faster core translate into only 10% increased performance?
Because the 4770s is actually outperforms the 4830 by 12-20%, not 10%, and also because the 4770 was essentially a die shrink of R700 tech and thus didn't include further enhancements bound to be found in the 5700s.

I am not paying $1000+ for a 30" 2560x1600 LCD that requires two hd5870s costing $750 for both in order to run every modern game smoothly. You can get a 32" LCD TV 1360x768 for $400 easy and run modern game smoothly on a hd4850 costing $100 used. I don't want to downgrade in monitor size, I am not interested in less than my 32". Id love to own a 40" 1920x1080 TV monitor but can't afford $700 for it. When 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 TVs come out, ill grab a 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 TV for cheap.
While its admirable that you're frugal, but that doesn't detract from the fact that 1360x768 is a very low resolution for PC gaming standards. Most gamers will be using 1440x900 or 1280x1024 as a lower end resolution, especially gamers that spend in the price range of the 5700s for their video card.
 

edplayer

Platinum Member
Sep 13, 2002
2,186
0
0
The Hardforum thread is funny in that you have these "internet engineers" arguing the performance of a card that they don't even have the official specs for (as released by ATI)

vs.

a person who has the card in hand and has already tested it.

 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Originally posted by: edplayer
The Hardforum thread is funny in that you have these "internet engineers" arguing the performance of a card that they don't even have the official specs for (as released by ATI)

vs.

a person who has the card in hand and has already tested it.
So far I have read the first two pages of that thread.

Yep...The forum member who is testing the card hints that we might be pleasantly suprised by these HD57xx products.
 

Rezist

Senior member
Jun 20, 2009
726
0
71
Can AMD just disable 80 SP's? Every time they've done this in the past it's been 160 SP's. I thought these were kinda built is 160 SP clusters.

4670=2*160
4830/4770=4*160
4850/70/90=5*160
5850=9*160
5870=10*160

The card to get was going to be the 5750 if it had 800 SP's. Low power and good performance combination. Still not really price competitive since it is new but in a 3-4 months it could easily be $90.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Speaking of the Hardforum thread.....in the first post a quote was taken from the bit-tech article saying HD5750 wouldn't have digital PMWs.

Does this mean that HD5750 can't be offered as a "Voltage Tweak" version by ASUS. Or does Smart Doctor/Tweak still possible on non-digital PMWs? (I know little about how this or Smart Doctor works)
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Originally posted by: Rezist
Can AMD just disable 80 SP's? Every time they've done this in the past it's been 160 SP's. I thought these were kinda built is 160 SP clusters.

4670=2*160
4830/4770=4*160
4850/70/90=5*160
5850=9*160
5870=10*160

The card to get was going to be the 5750 if it had 800 SP's. Low power and good performance combination. Still not really price competitive since it is new but in a 3-4 months it could easily be $90.
they are in 80sp clusters. the 5870 has 20 of those. one thing that is odd is that if the 5750 has 720sp then it will have 36tmu. its odd because afaik all other ATI cards have a tmu number that is divisible by eight.
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
3
81
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: Rezist
Can AMD just disable 80 SP's? Every time they've done this in the past it's been 160 SP's. I thought these were kinda built is 160 SP clusters.

4670=2*160
4830/4770=4*160
4850/70/90=5*160
5850=9*160
5870=10*160

The card to get was going to be the 5750 if it had 800 SP's. Low power and good performance combination. Still not really price competitive since it is new but in a 3-4 months it could easily be $90.
they are in 80sp clusters. the 5870 has 20 of those. one thing that is odd is that if the 5750 has 720sp then it will have 36tmu. its odd because afaik all other ATI cards have a tmu number that is divisible by eight.
I think that's just a coincidence, because there seems to be 4 TMU's per cluster. Since the 5750 is the only card with an odd number of clusters, it's also the only one with TMUs that are a factor of four but not eight.

 

edplayer

Platinum Member
Sep 13, 2002
2,186
0
0
Originally posted by: Just learning
Speaking of the Hardforum thread.....in the first post a quote was taken from the bit-tech article saying HD5750 wouldn't have digital PMWs.

Does this mean that HD5750 can't be offered as a "Voltage Tweak" version by ASUS. Or does Smart Doctor/Tweak still possible on non-digital PMWs? (I know little about how this or Smart Doctor works)


looks like two people (apart from Brent Justice) have the card over there. One has posted that it should be possible to do software voltage mods and that it uses the same controller as the 4770, the ST Electronics L6788A
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,567
486
126
Wish these reviews would hurry up. i'm waiting on them before i decide on a 5850 or 5770.
 

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
Originally posted by: netxzero64
wow... that's interesting... I see that the 5770 performs well and has a good OC'ing capability... is it on par with the 4890? i mean on stock clocks?
well you can see its nearly 25-30% faster than the 4850 in many cases so yes it will hang with 4890. at your low res a 5770 will be a killer card.
 

netxzero64

Senior member
May 16, 2009
538
0
71
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: netxzero64
wow... that's interesting... I see that the 5770 performs well and has a good OC'ing capability... is it on par with the 4890? i mean on stock clocks?
well you can see its nearly 25-30% faster than the 4850 in many cases so yes it will hang with 4890. at your low res a 5770 will be a killer card.
if that's the case so I could really go for this one... $100 less....
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Originally posted by: netxzero64
Originally posted by: toyota
Originally posted by: netxzero64
wow... that's interesting... I see that the 5770 performs well and has a good OC'ing capability... is it on par with the 4890? i mean on stock clocks?
well you can see its nearly 25-30% faster than the 4850 in many cases so yes it will hang with 4890. at your low res a 5770 will be a killer card.
if that's the case so I could really go for this one... $100 less....
I still think ASUS Voltage tweak HD5850 is a better deal....but for someone like me who doesn't need massive power HD57xx would be plenty sufficient.
 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,143
32
91
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: LCD123
The GPU will need more bandwith than the hd5770 provides at anything above 800x600 and for all modern games. If there was no need, ATI would have gone 128 bit for the high end cards, but the fact ATI has gone 256 bit ram since the radeon 9700s tells me that there is a need for bandwith! Nvidia is actually going 384 bit for their new cards and they have gone above 256 bit on their current high end cards. A 50% increase in memory bandwith doesn't always give 50% more performance unless the game requires every bit of bandwith then the bandwith will be there!

High definition is 1280x720, full high definition is 1920x1080. My 32" LCD is considered to be high definition with a native resolution of 1360x768. A tiny resolution would be 800x600 or lower which is what I had on my CRT monitors ive owned before I finally went LCD in late 2008. There's plenty of LCDs(small monitors and medium TVs) with 1360x768 so this will be the lowest common resolution except for those still on a CRT or those running non native resolutions on LCDs. 1920x1080 is a common resolution nowdays and can be found on LCD monitors in the 23" range and on LCD TVs 32" and up.
ATI went from a 512bit bus with their 2900XT to a 256bit bus with the 3870 and saw virtually no drop off in bandwidth intensive situations.

Then there was the G80 -> G92 transition where nVidia dropped from a 384bit bus to a 256bit bus, again with the 256bit bus being more than enough. And now they're also dropping from 512bit to 384bit from GT200 to Fermi

Also, you can delude yourself about your TV resolution all you want, anything lower than 1680x1050 is a tiny resolution per PC gaming standards. Like I said before, 1440x900 or 1280x1024 are both much larger than your tiny, non HDTV resolution, and both of those resolutions are as small as you'll see tested on most review sites.
nvidia is going from 512 bit / gddr3 to 384 bit / gddr 5, so they're going to get ~ 50% more bandwidth in total.
 

LCD123

Member
Sep 29, 2009
90
0
0
The leaked benchmarks do prove the $160 hd5770 beats hd4850 which costs $100 now. The hd4870 costs $150 and will likley still be faster. For $200, the hd4890 is way faster. How can the hd5770 with the same core clocks but a little over half the memory bandwith match the hd4890? It(the hd5770) beats the hd4850 only because it actually has more memory bandwith! I give credit to the hd5770 for having dx11 and using less power so the $$$$$$ you save on electric bills might pay for itself. We shall see official reviews in a couple days but going by prelimary previews, the hd5770 appears to perform between the hd4850 and hd4870 which is exactly what I expected based on it's core/memory clocks and bandwith.
 

cbn

Lifer
Mar 27, 2009
12,968
221
106
Originally posted by: LCD123
I give credit to the hd5770 for having dx11 and using less power so the $$$$$$ you save on electric bills might pay for itself.
Yep ATI made huge improvements in idle power consumption. 18 watts idle for HD5770 and 27 watts for HD5870/50 is a significant difference compared to what HD4870/90 used at idle.

Check out how this can add up over time---->http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/...er,review-31495-4.html
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY