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

[_jM]

ehh.. Im personally not sold. The games I play on this res, i like my 512 interface compared to the usual 256 bit...

 

[HTC]

The HD4770 is legit. Better than the Hd4850.

Nope: it's better then the 4830 but worse then the 4850.

I really hope that they make 1GB variants as they would remove 1 of the 4770's weaknesses: high resolution performance with AA and AF being used.

 

[SonDa5]

Nope: it's better then the 4830 but worse then the 4850.

I really hope that they make 1GB variants as they would remove 1 of the 4770's weaknesses: high resolution performance with AA and AF being used.

No it is better. In the last few days I have played with HD4890 and 2 HD4770s.

I have been playing with HD4850s for a few months now and know it well.



HD4770 in Xfire> HD4890 > HD4850 in Xfire.



A few days ago I was posting comments like you but now I know the truth.

 

[HTC]

No it is better. In the last few days I have played with HD4890 and 2 HD4770s.

I have been playing with HD4850s for a few month now and know it well.



HD4770 in Xfire> HD4890 > HD4850 in Xfire.

You are referring to XFired 4770s VS XFired 4850s: i was referring to single 4770 VS single 4850.

Still, good to know

I really hope the W1zzard makes a review of XFired 4770s.

 

[SonDa5]

You are referring to XFired 4770s VS XFired 4850s: i was referring to single 4770 VS single 4850.

Still, good to know

I really hope the W1zzard makes a review of XFired 4770s.

Actually the HD4770 does better than a single HD4850 as well. It's just a better card. Right now the HD4770 is bare bones in time I sure there will be some nice configurations that will enhance the cool and power efficient GPU. It's an awesome card.

 

[HTC]

Actually the HD4770 does better than a single HD4850 as well. It's just a better card. Right now the HD4770 is bare bones in time I sure there will be some nice configurations that will enhance the cool and power efficient GPU. It's an awesome card.

Not according to W1zzard's review: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4770/28.html

It's quite close, though: it even matches the 4850 @ 1024 by 768 but, as the resolution goes up, the 4850 get's slightly ahead.

I do agree, though: it's an awesome card. If i didn't have a 4670, i would definitely buy this card.

 

[AsRock]

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. What you are asking is for the HD4770 to have the same memory bandwidth as the HD4890. 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...

Stomps my ass it rips crap out of it and then spits it out.. My 2900XT has trouble running lets say Armed Assault with v high textures 16 AF and no AA at 1600x1200 or 1920x1080 with a viewing distance of no more than 2000 meters and as low as 1000 meters in dence wooded area's with shaders low at best

How ever the 4890 can do those resolutions with 2500m-3000m with max AF High AA shaders medium. it's twice as good due to the shaders and Arma loves CPU and loads of shaders to run on.

More on topic i like single card over double as not all games work with SLI\CF or you have to wait for better support for it then there is the hassles of turning it on \ off for some games so just a pain in da ass.

 

[Ketxxx]

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.

I never said the card should have a 256bit bus AND GDDR5, just that GDDR5 on a 128bit bus is utterly pointless, and expensive. What you said about filling the gap is basically what I already said only put in different terms. My point is with a card like the 4770, the whole point in it is to be cheap as chips to make, its a entry level midrange card. As such it makes no sense what so ever using expensive GDDR5 when it would of been cheaper to use a 256bit bus and GDDR3.

 

[Binge]

Is anyone really surprised with these results? I don't see a huge improvement over the 4830 CF.

 

[Ketxxx]

OC both cards, and I bet the 4830 beats the 4770 out. A lot of people seem to get close to 800MHz for the 4830s core, while the 4770 tops around 850 (I'm not including voltmods) 50MHz or so on the core won't make a huge difference in that way, bandwidth between cards are practically identical, but the 4830 has that all important 256bit bus, which when both cards are on more or less equal ground (OCd), will make the 4830 better in higher resolutions. By all means, if your happing gaming @ 1280*1024 on a 19" screen, then get the 4770, otherwise it A: Makes no sense to, and B: From a engineering standpoint ATi made a wrong turn, and made the card more expensive to make by using GDDR5 instead of GDDR3 and a 256bit bus. As such I really doubt if the 4770 will ever really sell for what its worth.

 

[Darren]

OC both cards, and I bet the 4830 beats the 4770 out. .

Based on what evidence, reviews show otherwise.

OC both cards, and I bet the 4830 beats the 4770 out..

but the 4830 has that all important 256bit bus, which when both cards are on more or less equal ground (OCd), will make the 4830 better in higher resolutions.

Why would the 4830 be more powerful at higher resolutions, I thought that Darknova proved mathematically that the 4770 has more memory bandwidth, fillrate and over all processing power?

"

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.

From a engineering standpoint ATi made a wrong turn, and made the card more expensive to make by using GDDR5 instead of GDDR3 and a 256bit bus. As such I really doubt if the 4770 will ever really sell for what its worth.

Like I said in my previous post, why do you care about ATIs production costs? When Nvidia was lowering production costs with the GTS250 you shouted rebadge 9800 GTX!

 

[Weer]

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.

Who knows? Maybe ATi needs to burn their supply of GDDR5 for the next gen which will use different chips. Maybe it's cheaper for them to produce GDDR5 cards when adding an extra 128-bit to the memory bus is also expensive, maybe just as expensive. It does look ridiculous to have a 2004-style 128-bit memory bus and friggin' GDDR5 memory, but it's cool to the consumer who takes a moment to look at it. It's not like using 1GB of vRAM on GDDR2, which is just plain ridiculous. This, is like taking the G71 core to 40nm and overclocking it to 1.5Ghz making it as powerful as the 8800 GTX. I think it's neat.

 

[Weer]

Like I said in my previous post, why do you care about ATIs production costs? When Nvidia was lowering production costs with the GTS250 you shouted rebadge 9800 GTX!

Maybe because he has an HD 4830.

 

[Ketxxx]

Based on what evidence, reviews show otherwise.

Why would the 4830 be more powerful at higher resolutions, I thought that Darknova proved mathematically that the 4770 has more memory bandwidth, fillrate and over all processing power?

Like I said in my previous post, why do you care about ATIs production costs? When Nvidia was lowering production costs with the GTS250 you shouted rebadge 9800 GTX!

Because I'm a engineer. I don't like seeing any product slap-dashed together. Additional bandwidth etc is purely theoretical, in practice it does not exist in the 4770s case. At best I've seen a 4770 beat a 4830 (both stock) by 5FPS, that difference is easily accountable by GPU core speed difference, the 4770 is a whole 100MHz faster on its core than the 4830, and it can only muster 5FPS more. Couple everything I have said with the fact the 4770 is actually selling for more than a 4830... and that settles the case. Just go look on ebuyer.

Not exact, but the closest I can find on hardwarecanucks.

4770 @ 830/3.4GHz 3D06 score: 13.8k
HD4850 @ 700/2.2GHz 3dM06 score: 15.8k.

Now before you go crying its a 4850, you would do well know 90%+ 4830s reach 700MHz+ on the core, and 2.1GHz+ memory. There is the deficite of shaders on the 4830, but as has been discussed to death in other threads 640 vs 800 shaders the performance difference is negligable. Baring that in mind, a 4830 with similar clocks you can say would score around 14.5k+ vs. the 4850s 15.8k. Eitherway you slice it, the 4770 is slower, and costs that bit more compared to a 4830.

Lastly, to whoever it was who said it, the nvidia GTS250 is nothing but a rehash of a old architecture, there is nothing special or new about it. ATi have not simply renamed a existing product with the 4890, it has a extra 3 million transistors accomidating various architectural tweaks and changes.

 

[Darknova]

OC both cards, and I bet the 4830 beats the 4770 out. A lot of people seem to get close to 800MHz for the 4830s core, while the 4770 tops around 850 (I'm not including voltmods) 50MHz or so on the core won't make a huge difference in that way, bandwidth between cards are practically identical, but the 4830 has that all important 256bit bus, which when both cards are on more or less equal ground (OCd), will make the 4830 better in higher resolutions. By all means, if your happing gaming @ 1280*1024 on a 19" screen, then get the 4770, otherwise it A: Makes no sense to, and B: From a engineering standpoint ATi made a wrong turn, and made the card more expensive to make by using GDDR5 instead of GDDR3 and a 256bit bus. As such I really doubt if the 4770 will ever really sell for what its worth.

Prove it and I'll happily hold my hands up and say I'm wrong.

However, looking it at from both the reviews currently out there, and from the raw specs. The 4770 is the better card.

 

[Ketxxx]

^^. I'll also be glad to prove my point, even though I already have, when my new 4830s arrive tomorrow. Paper specs mean nothing. Thats the same foolish outlook as a newb who goes and buys a Powmax PSU because its rated for 650w, just because it says 650w on the label, does not mean it can actually handle that.

and in case you missed it;

Because I'm a engineer. I don't like seeing any product slap-dashed together. Additional bandwidth etc is purely theoretical, in practice it does not exist in the 4770s case. At best I've seen a 4770 beat a 4830 (both stock) by 5FPS, that difference is easily accountable by GPU core speed difference, the 4770 is a whole 100MHz faster on its core than the 4830, and it can only muster 5FPS more. Couple everything I have said with the fact the 4770 is actually selling for more than a 4830... and that settles the case. Just go look on ebuyer.

Not exact, but the closest I can find on hardwarecanucks.

4770 @ 830/3.4GHz 3D06 score: 13.8k
HD4850 @ 700/2.2GHz 3dM06 score: 15.8k.

Now before you go crying its a 4850, you would do well know 90%+ 4830s reach 700MHz+ on the core, and 2.1GHz+ memory. There is the deficite of shaders on the 4830, but as has been discussed to death in other threads 640 vs 800 shaders the performance difference is negligable. Baring that in mind, a 4830 with similar clocks you can say would score around 14.5k+ vs. the 4850s 15.8k. Eitherway you slice it, the 4770 is slower, and costs that bit more compared to a 4830.

Lastly, to whoever it was who said it, the nvidia GTS250 is nothing but a rehash of a old architecture, there is nothing special or new about it. ATi have not simply renamed a existing product with the 4890, it has a extra 3 million transistors accomidating various architectural tweaks and changes.

 

[KainXS]

im gonna call bs on this, faster than HD4890 but slower than a GTX280{

thats bs, a GTX280 is actually a tiny bit slower than a HD4890

and yes a HD4830 would proabably beat out a HD4770 if they were both at the same clock but the HD4770 would overclock more and the HD4830 would be outperformed

unless it was the 800SP version of the HD4770, then the HD4770 would probably be outperformed totally at about 750 on its core

 

[silkstone]

Remember guys - we need in game tests. Vantage scores prove nothing.

 

[Ketxxx]

Canucks only did 3DM06 for their OC tests. It does highlight my point though. The 4850, clocked 130MHz slower on the core and a whopping 1.2GHz slower on the memory, still scores 2000pts more than the 4770, which at the clocks canucks got, was likely on the verge of spontaniously combusting.

 

[Darren]

Because I'm a engineer. I don't like seeing any product slap-dashed together. Additional bandwidth etc is purely theoretical, in practice it does not exist in the 4770s case. At best I've seen a 4770 beat a 4830 (both stock) by 5FPS, that difference is easily accountable by GPU core speed difference, the 4770 is a whole 100MHz faster on its core than the 4830, and it can only muster 5FPS more. Couple everything I have said with the fact the 4770 is actually selling for more than a 4830... and that settles the case. Just go look on ebuyer.

Not exact, but the closest I can find on hardwarecanucks.

4770 @ 830/3.4GHz 3D06 score: 13.8k
HD4850 @ 700/2.2GHz 3dM06 score: 15.8k.

Now before you go crying its a 4850, you would do well know 90%+ 4830s reach 700MHz+ on the core, and 2.1GHz+ memory. There is the deficite of shaders on the 4830, but as has been discussed to death in other threads 640 vs 800 shaders the performance difference is negligable. Baring that in mind, a 4830 with similar clocks you can say would score around 14.5k+ vs. the 4850s 15.8k. Eitherway you slice it, the 4770 is slower, and costs that bit more compared to a 4830.

As an Engineer you are suppose to be a man of science.

Showing a review of a 4850 vs a 4770 is hardly ethical or scientific.

The matter at hand is the 4830 vs the 4770. Show me reviews of the 4830 being better overall or better at those higher resolutions and hence making use of that self-proclaimed 256-bit interface, until that evidence surfaces I can only judge the facts which is 4770>4830.

Lastly, to whoever it was who said it, the nvidia GTS250 is nothing but a rehash of a old architecture, there is nothing special or new about it. ATi have not simply renamed a existing product with the 4890, it has a extra 3 million transistors accomidating various architectural tweaks and changes.

We were not talking about the 4890 in this rehashing debate.

You (Ketxxx) made a suggestion that ATI should of used a 256-bit interface whilst utilising DDR3 memory. This would of meant that the 4830 and 4470 would of been almost identical in shader unit and ROPs, the only major difference would of been its move to 40nm!

If you truly think this option is better, why did you bash the GTS250 for keeping identical specs from its 9800 GTX cousin apart from its move to 55mn

My point is your suggestion is almost exactly what Nvidia did a few months back, but you condone it for ATI and begrudge it for Nvidia?

 

[silkstone]

This card would actually be a good deal for me. Where i live a decent 4850 clocks in at $200usd and a 4770 at $130 so i'm very interestd in seeing more comparisons. Especially when in xfire, as i might sell the 4850 and go with 2x4770's if the performance is "all that"

 

[KainXS]

This card would actually be a good deal for me. Where i live a decent 4850 clocks in at $200usd and a 4770 at $130 so i'm very interestd in seeing more comparisons. Especially when in xfire, as i might sell the 4850 and go with 2x4770's if the performance is "all that"

if your 4850 is at 745 right now, you would need about 950+ on the HD4770 to beat that so you might as well keep your HD4850 and sell it when the HD48XX series is going out and get a HD5670

 

[silkstone]

if your 4850 is at 745 right now, you would need about 950+ on the HD4770 to beat that so you might as well keep your HD4850 and sell it when the HD48XX series is going out and get a HD5670

No, was thinking going xfire 4770 depending on how much of a performance increase it would get over a single 4850

 

[DrPepper]

ehh.. Im personally not sold. The games I play on this res, i like my 512 interface compared to the usual 256 bit...

If your talking about yout card it doesn't have a 512 interface its 448 unless you have a new card.

I don't like the look of the 4770 aesthetically. I also don't like how people aren't screaming rebadged when its pretty much a low cost 4830 with a higher clock speed.

 

[Darren]

I also don't like how people aren't screaming rebadged when its pretty much a low cost 4830 with a higher clock speed.

Indeed,

No rebadge screams when its ATI.

But rebadge screams when its Nvidia (GTS 250 *cough cough*)