Incredible: 4770 in XFire beats 4890 AND it's cheaper !!!

[Darren]

If you look back at the two HD4830 review samples that Wiz got, he managed to get one to 1105MHz on the GDDR3, yielding a bandwidth of 70.7GB/s. Guess what the HD4770's bandwidth was at the 1105MHz Wiz managed with his review sample...yep 70.7GB/s.

Why should a mid-range card have the same memory bandwidth as the flagship?


GDDR5@128-bit = GDDR3@256-bit

The HD4890 uses a 256-bit bus, and stomps the HD2900XT...

I agree,

Ketxxx and a few others are putting too much emphasis in this memory interface business, I do not see them saying, "I don't like the 4890 at all. Sure, it has 55nm and GDDR5, but a 256bit memory bus that absolutely, unquestionably, slaughters it" - I will opt for the ancient ATI 2900 XT instead for 512-bit bus instead.

My point is, when a high end card (4890) has a lack-luster memory interface know one says nothing as soon as a midrange card does the same yet holds its own performance wise everyone bashes it!

 

[AKlass]

no to mention bigger bus means bigger die size

 

[Ketxxx]

Its faster, but theres absolutely no point in GDDR5 on a card that kills it with a 128bit bus. Make no mistake, the memory bus is important. With the continuing trend of bandwidth hungry 3D applications (yes 3D applications I'm not restricting thought to games like most seem to be doing) a 128bit bus is strictly budget, entry level crap these days. The kind of thing you would expect to see on a £40 graphics card. Any higher midrange to top-tier graphics card should have a 256bit memory bus. That lesson was briefly learned by both nvidia and ATi, now they are backtracking.

The whole point in midrange is absolute minimal cost in production, with a good performance return. Using GDDR5 on the 4770 is going to be no doubt more expensive that a 256bit bus GDDR3 combo, which as somebody has already pointed out, returned the same bandwidth as the 128/GDDR5 combo, the advantage in the former, is lower cost. That benefits both the manufacturer and the consumer.

 

[aCid888*]

Your all forgetting one thing, this card is purely meant to fill a gap..it doesn't matter if it has GDDR3, GDDR5 or anything else...AMD used this card to milk more money out of people, that's why its priced as it is.

4770 > 4830 > 4850 > 4870 > 4890

Now, if the 4770 had 256bit bus, with its GDDR5 vRAM and 40nm process, why would you want to buy the 4830 and 4850?
Answer is, you wouldn't. AMD/ATI know this so they crippled the card with a 128bit bus, this allows them to keep selling it under the 4830/4850.

I dare say, without the 128bit BS and another 512mb vRAM this card wouldn't be so far behind a 4870, and that, my friends, would kill profits.


I doubt we have seen even 60% of the potential of this 40nm process and if this card is anything to go by, the next lineup from AMD will be monsters and that is only a good thing or us consumers.

 

[Darren]

I dare say, without the 128bit BS and another 512mb vRAM this card wouldn't be so far behind a 4870, and that, my friends, would kill profits.

Exactly, they could have easily of beefed the 4770 with an 256 bit interface, but the high-end fanboys would be crying that it is whipping their ATI 4870s asses!

Heck it appears in this thread some people are already crying that its whipping their ATI 4830s asses! and crying that it is nipping at their ATI 4850s asses. They would definitely commit suicide if a 256-bit equipped 4770 whopped their 4870s asses!

 

[johnnyfiive]

I wish the reference design was what companies sold them as. The piss poor excuse they give you currently makes me look at it, laugh, and then scoff at the $100+ price tag. I will pay $100+ when it has a proper cooling setup. Single slot? GTSOH. (Get that s#it outta here.)

 

[Darknova]

Its faster, but theres absolutely no point in GDDR5 on a card that kills it with a 128bit bus. Make no mistake, the memory bus is important. With the continuing trend of bandwidth hungry 3D applications (yes 3D applications I'm not restricting thought to games like most seem to be doing) a 128bit bus is strictly budget, entry level crap these days. The kind of thing you would expect to see on a £40 graphics card. Any higher midrange to top-tier graphics card should have a 256bit memory bus. That lesson was briefly learned by both nvidia and ATi, now they are backtracking.

The whole point in midrange is absolute minimal cost in production, with a good performance return. Using GDDR5 on the 4770 is going to be no doubt more expensive that a 256bit bus GDDR3 combo, which as somebody has already pointed out, returned the same bandwidth as the 128/GDDR5 combo, the advantage in the former, is lower cost. That benefits both the manufacturer and the consumer.

"bandwidth hungry" *sigh*

Let's take a look at the raw specs shall we?

On a stock speed, reference card, the 4770 has a memory bandwidth of 51.2GB/s on it's "measly" 128bit bus. The 4830 has a memory bandwidth of 57.6GB/s.

The "effective" memory clock of the 4770 is 3.2Ghz, the "effective" memory clock of the 4830 is 1.8Ghz.

Slightly under double the memory clock and half the bus width gives a bandwidth of slightly under the 4830.

The 4770 has a fillrate of 12GT/s, the 4830 has a Fillrate of 9.2GT/s.

The 4770 has an overall processing power of 960 GFLOPs, the 4830, only 736 GFLOPs.

 

[DaMulta]

I bet GDDR5 also sells better than GDDR3. It just sounds better.

They don't sell very many flagship cards, but they do sell a TON of cards like this.

 

[Pinchy]

Now, if the 4770 had 256bit bus, with its GDDR5 vRAM and 40nm process, why would you want to buy the 4830 and 4850?
Answer is, you wouldn't. AMD/ATI know this so they crippled the card with a 128bit bus, this allows them to keep selling it under the 4830/4850.

Exactly, they could have easily of beefed the 4770 with an 256 bit interface, but the high-end fanboys would be crying that it is whipping their ATI 4870s asses!

Heck it appears in this thread some people are already crying that its whipping their ATI 4830s asses! and crying that it is nipping at their ATI 4850s asses. They would definitely commit suicide if a 256-bit equipped 4770 whopped their 4870s asses!

Lol, I don't think you guys are reading what Ket is actually saying.

He isnt saying to give the 4770 a 256-bit bus and keep the GDDR5...he is saying why would you limit GDDR5 to 128-bit when you can put (cheaper) GDDR3 on the card and use a 256-bit bus. (Making the card cheaper to produce and still giving the same performance).

Ok, and what happens when you put it in a motherboard that doesn't give each card the full x16 bandwidth. What does the ~10% performance hit from this situation do to the numbers?

Most motherboards do have two PCI-E x16 slots, but only the expensive ones give true x16 slots. The affordable ones only usually give x8 slots. The $30 savings on the cards doesn't really help if you have to pay $30+ more for the motherboard. There is a huge difference in price between X48 boards and P45 boards.

Granted, if you are going i7, you don't really have much to worry about, but the Core 2 Duo and AM2 buyers have to pay for more expensive motherboards.

You reckon these cards would be limited by a x8 2.0 slot? My *guess* would be that it isnt lol.

I bet GDDR5 also sells better than GDDR3. It just sounds better.

They don't sell very many flagship cards, but they do sell a TON of cards like this.

I reckon thats where its at lol...marketing.

--

I dont really see what the big surprise with the article is though. Most times (well, since the new CF), the mid range cards in crossfire do better than the high end cards. (4670 cf vs 4850?) But then you need to consider heat, power, airflow, etc.

 

[Darren]

Lol, I don't think you guys are reading what Ket is actually saying.

He isnt saying to give the 4770 a 256-bit bus and keep the GDDR5...he is saying why would you limit GDDR5 to 128-bit when you can put (cheaper) GDDR3 on the card and use a 256-bit bus. (Making the card cheaper to produce and still giving the same performance).

I smell hypocrisy.

If the ATI 4770 kept DDR3 with a 256-bit interface it would be almost identical to the ATI 4830 and then everyone would be shouting "rebadge product". But since it is ATI its ok and rebadging doesn't matter?

However,

When Nvidia attempted to make "the card cheaper to produce and still giving the same performance" by moving to 55nm with the GTS 250 everyone shouted rebadged 9800 GTX, despite the obvious performance increase.


Hmm, I smell double standards, its ok for a 4770 with 256-bit DDR3 40nm (Ketxxx' theory) which would be an adapted 4830. But we can not have a GTS 250 with a 55nm which is an adapted 9800 GTX+ without people "shouting rebadged it sucks".


And Ket’ was one of those people that frowned upon Nvidia rebadges of the 9800GTX/GTS 250!

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=90550&page=2

 

[a_ump]

also, i was under hte impression that the 256-bit bus increases price much more than using GDDR5 over GDDR3 does, and 256-bit also increases PCB complexity, adding more to production costs. I'd say using GDDR5 with a less complex PCB and memory bus saves more than GDDR3 with 256-bit memory bus and more complex PCB. that is just my speculation i could be very wrong

 

[aCid888*]

Come on people, lets not shit on the 4770....its clear its a good card and pretty much wraps up the sector it sits in.


AMD/ATI's 5xxx series cards should show the potential the 4770 hinted at.....lets wait and see before we go starting flame wars and all that crap.

 

[newtekie1]

All that does is prove my main point exactly. Why use expensive GDDR5 when the much cheaper GDDR3 can produce the same result and all ATi need do is keep a 256bit bus.

Look at things this way;

4830 = 256bit bus, GDDR3, 55nm process
4770 = 128bit bus, GDDR5, 40nm process

IMO what ATi should of done is simply keep the die shrink on the revamed architecture along with the cheaper GDDR3 and a 256bit bus. Production costs would likely be much cheaper still, which makes a mainstream card all the more affordable. Just because a certain technology is newer, in this case GDDR5, it does not mean its better in every scenario.

The extra die size and the extra complexity of the PCB would have negated the cost benefit of GDDR3 with 256-bit, IMO. Last I heard, GDDR5 was not all that much more expensive than GDDR3.

Its faster, but theres absolutely no point in GDDR5 on a card that kills it with a 128bit bus. Make no mistake, the memory bus is important. With the continuing trend of bandwidth hungry 3D applications (yes 3D applications I'm not restricting thought to games like most seem to be doing) a 128bit bus is strictly budget, entry level crap these days. The kind of thing you would expect to see on a £40 graphics card. Any higher midrange to top-tier graphics card should have a 256bit memory bus. That lesson was briefly learned by both nvidia and ATi, now they are backtracking.

The whole point in midrange is absolute minimal cost in production, with a good performance return. Using GDDR5 on the 4770 is going to be no doubt more expensive that a 256bit bus GDDR3 combo, which as somebody has already pointed out, returned the same bandwidth as the 128/GDDR5 combo, the advantage in the former, is lower cost. That benefits both the manufacturer and the consumer.

128-bit with GDDR5 or 256-bit with GDDR3, the memory bandwidth is the same. So what difference does it really make. Now you are bitching about bandwidth, when what you want doesn't give any better bandwidth. A 256-bit bus with GDDR3 is just as pointless as a 128-bit with GDDR3.

I believe you are wrong about GDDR5 route is more expensive that GDDR3.

You reckon these cards would be limited by a x8 2.0 slot? My *guess* would be that it isnt lol.

A single card, no. Two in crossfire, yes. Tom's article on the subject showed that even an HD3850 would gain overall 15% in x16 slots vs. x8, and I think we can call agree the HD4770 is more powerful than an HD3850.

 

[a_ump]

The extra die size and the extra complexity of the PCB would have negated the cost benefit of GDDR3 with 256-bit, IMO. Last I heard, GDDR5 was not all that much more expensive than GDDR3.



128-bit with GDDR5 or 256-bit with GDDR3, the memory bandwidth is the same. So what difference does it really make. Now you are bitching about bandwidth, when what you want doesn't give any better bandwidth. A 256-bit bus with GDDR3 is just as pointless as a 128-bit with GDDR3.

I believe you are wrong about GDDR5 route is more expensive that GDDR3.

that's what i was getting at, i thk the 256-bit+more complex PCB is a more expensive route than just using GDDR5

 

[mastrdrver]

4770 > 4830 > 4850 > 4870 > 4890

Exactly!

This isn't suppose to be slotted between 4830 and 4850, but between 4670 and 4830. BTW, its priced for it.

Yes, the problem is born out of AMD's attempt at sensible, appropriate naming. The problem is that AMD seems to want to associate that "family" number with the physical GPU than with the a performance class. This is despite the fact that they generally use increasing numbers for "families" that are generally faster. Thus, the 40nm RV740 needs a new family name, and they can't really choose 49xx presumably (by us) because people would be more upset if they saw a high number and got lower performance than if they saw a lower number and got higher performance. So Radeon HD 4770 it is.

It was designed, though, to perform between a 4830 and 4850. Which is probably the reason it was limited to 2 gpus in crossfire.

First things first: the Radeon HD 4770 is faster than existing 4800 series hardware (namely the 4830). Yes, this is by design.

 

[SonDa5]

All this talk about this card. Got me wondering if it is legit.

 

[Scrizz]

so who wants to buy my 4850s
i'm in need of some Gddr5

 

[SonDa5]

so who wants to buy my 4850s
i'm in need of some Gddr5

Not I.

I might be selling my Hd4850 Xfire set up as well to get me some HD4770 Xfire action.


Really.

I just got me 2 HD4770s to see what the fuss is all about. If they prove worthy I'll probably stick with them. The low heat and 3D eye candy reviews has got my attention. Not only that but the low power usage should allow for a more stable system OC IMO.

 

[a_ump]

This isn't suppose to be slotted between 4830 and 4850, but between 4670 and 4830. BTW, its priced for it.



It was designed, though, to perform between a 4830 and 4850. Which is probably the reason it was limited to 2 gpus in crossfire.

eh, yes when it was being leaked and all the rumors were about, everything speculated it would perform better than the HD 4830 but below an HD 4850. it's always been rumored to be priced at around $100, and it is. and it's not priced between the HD 4670 and HD 4830, it's priced between the HD 4830 and HD 4850, as it should be. Your reason for crossfire doesn't really make sense to me, though i believe the reason for no more than 2x xfire is bc who xfire's more than 2 cards anyways unless they're high end? and it'd just be more work for the dev's to write drivers for 3x/4x xfire so it saved money and time not to support it.

 

[mastrdrver]

Go check newegg prices again. With all the rebates being thrown around on ATI cards it can get crazy quick. If you look at the price before rebates though:

4670: $50-60
4770: $99-110
4830: $89-130

How would not writing drivers for 3 or 4 xfire save time when you can tri/quadfire just about any 4 series card? Now, I understand those are going to be rarer than tri/quadfire 4850 and up models, but its not like they have to work overtime to write drivers for these cards and optimize them like they did for the 4890. If anything though, its really priced to take over where the 4830 left off.

I was just pointing out though that according to the card number, it should be below the 4830. Which it will be once they swap it out for the 4770 and it will still be below the 4850. So it all works out well.

 

[hat]

@ all the posts regarding the memory bus. because GDDR5 multiplies the base clock by 4 and not 2, 128-bit gddr5 is roughly equivilant to 256-bit gddr3 running at the same base clock.

 

[Scrizz]

Not I.

I might be selling my Hd4850 Xfire set up as well to get me some HD4770 Xfire action.


Really.

I just got me 2 HD4770s to see what the fuss is all about. If they prove worthy I'll probably stick with them. The low heat and 3D eye candy reviews has got my attention. Not only that but the low power usage should allow for a more stable system OC IMO.

well I'm talking 4890 gddr5 love

 

[Pinchy]

I smell hypocrisy.

If the ATI 4770 kept DDR3 with a 256-bit interface it would be almost identical to the ATI 4830 and then everyone would be shouting "rebadge product". But since it is ATI its ok and rebadging doesn't matter?

However,

When Nvidia attempted to make "the card cheaper to produce and still giving the same performance" by moving to 55nm with the GTS 250 everyone shouted rebadged 9800 GTX, despite the obvious performance increase.


Hmm, I smell double standards, its ok for a 4770 with 256-bit DDR3 40nm (Ketxxx' theory) which would be an adapted 4830. But we can not have a GTS 250 with a 55nm which is an adapted 9800 GTX+ without people "shouting rebadged it sucks".


And Ket’ was one of those people that frowned upon Nvidia rebadges of the 9800GTX/GTS 250!

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=90550&page=2

IDC what companies do...all I want to see is performance .

On another note, I wasnt agreeing with Ket, I was just regurgitating what he was trying to say. (because it seemed like you's were missing his point). I don't know how much anything costs...and tbh I dont really care lol.

A single card, no. Two in crossfire, yes. Tom's article on the subject showed that even an HD3850 would gain overall 15% in x16 slots vs. x8, and I think we can call agree the HD4770 is more powerful than an HD3850.

Interesting, didnt know that. Thx .

 

[Hayder_Master]

yeah , i read this yesterday , wow really great performance , cool performance per dollar chose

 

[SonDa5]

The HD4770 is legit. Better than the Hd4850.