Bo_Fox
New Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 480 (0.09/day)
- Location
- Barack Hussein Obama-Biden's Nation
System Name | Flame Vortec Fatal1ty (rig1), UV Tourmaline Confexia (rig2) |
---|---|
Processor | 2 x Core i7's 4+Gigahertzzies |
Motherboard | BL00DR4G3 and DFI UT-X58 T3eH8 |
Cooling | Thermalright IFX-14 (better than TRUE) 2x push-push, Customized TT Big Typhoon |
Memory | 6GB OCZ DDR3-1600 CAS7-7-7-1T, 6GB for 2nd rig |
Video Card(s) | 8800GTX for "free" S3D (mtbs3d.com), 4870 1GB, HDTV Wonder (DRM-free) |
Storage | WD RE3 1TB, Caviar Black 1TB 7.2k, 500GB 7.2k, Raptor X 10k |
Display(s) | Sony GDM-FW900 24" CRT oc'ed to 2560x1600@68Hz, Dell 2405FPW 24" PVA (HDCP-free) |
Case | custom gutted-out painted black case, silver UV case, lots of aesthetics-souped stuff |
Audio Device(s) | Sonar X-Fi MB, Bernstein audio riser.. what?? |
Power Supply | OCZ Fatal1ty 700W, Iceberg 680W, Fortron Booster X3 300W for GPU |
Software | 2 partitions WinXP-32 on 2 drives per rig, 2 of Vista64 on 2 drives per rig |
Benchmark Scores | 5.9 Vista Experience Index... yay!!! What??? :) |
A quick review of today's cards to buy (1GB configurations for all versions will be compared against each other):
___
Radeon HD 4770: 750 MHz, 640 shaders / 32 TMU's, 51.2 GB/s
Radeon HD 4850: 625 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 64 GB/s (result: 8% faster than 4770 overall)
Radeon HD 5750: 700 MHz, 720 shaders / 36 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 74 GB/s (result: 16% faster than 4770 overall)
___
Radeon HD 5770: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 77 GB/s (result: 35% faster than 4770 overall) (25% faster than 4850)
Radeon HD 4870: 750 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (20% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 115 GB/s (result: 45% faster than 4770 overall)
Radeon HD 4890: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 125 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4770 overall)
___
Radeon HD 5850: 725 MHz, 1440 shaders / 72 TMU's / 32 ROP's (54% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 128 GB/s (result: 32% faster than 4890)
Radeon HD 5870: 850 MHz, 1600 shaders / 80 TMU's / 32 ROP's (100% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 154 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4890)
___
(A 4870 X2 is practically equal to two 4870 1GB's in Crossfire, and a 5970 is right in between two 5850's and two 5870's in Crossfire).
Enjoy the numbers!!!!
The 4770 and the 5xxx series are made on 40nm process. A 5750 should eat around half the power that a 4850 requires, and still be faster. All of the 40nm GPU's are incredibly energy-efficient when idle.
The 5xxx series come with DX11 support (and tiny bit better I.Q. with AF and new SSAA modes) which is another plus, but hardly makes up for relatively low bandwidth. The 5750 seems to be the least bandwidth-bottlenecked of all the 5xxx cards.
Also, just avoid the 512MB version if you can. It hardly makes sense to buy a card because of DX11 support, but with 512MB instead of 1GB (unless you game at lower than 1680x1050 for the next 2 years). A 1GB version is usually only $20 more or so.
Try to avoid anything with a lower number than the 4770 (or 4830 which is 5% slower than 4770), if you plan on using the video card for more than 2 years, and still play games. Even if those cheaper video cards are newly released, they will have difficulty running some of today's demanding games at 1680x1050 resolution with normal or default settings. You would have to bother turning down the settings in Crysis, Neverwinter Nights 2, Stalker Clear Sky, etc.. with anything considerably slower than a 4770. With cards as bad as integrated graphics, you might not even be able to play some of the newer games at all.
Hope this post is helpful for newcomers who try to decide on which card to buy this year. Merry Christmas, y'all!
(Here's a similar guide on Nvidia's cards of 2009: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=109006 )
TPU has a wonderful performance summary (some numbers might be a bit different with 512MB versions--just add around 5% for 1GB versions):
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5750_PCS/30.html
___
Radeon HD 4770: 750 MHz, 640 shaders / 32 TMU's, 51.2 GB/s
Radeon HD 4850: 625 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 64 GB/s (result: 8% faster than 4770 overall)
Radeon HD 5750: 700 MHz, 720 shaders / 36 TMU's (roughly equal GPU fillrate to 4770), 74 GB/s (result: 16% faster than 4770 overall)
___
Radeon HD 5770: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 77 GB/s (result: 35% faster than 4770 overall) (25% faster than 4850)
Radeon HD 4870: 750 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (20% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 115 GB/s (result: 45% faster than 4770 overall)
Radeon HD 4890: 850 MHz, 800 shaders / 40 TMU's (36% more GPU clock than HD 4850), 125 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4770 overall)
___
Radeon HD 5850: 725 MHz, 1440 shaders / 72 TMU's / 32 ROP's (54% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 128 GB/s (result: 32% faster than 4890)
Radeon HD 5870: 850 MHz, 1600 shaders / 80 TMU's / 32 ROP's (100% more GPU fillrate than HD 4890), 154 GB/s (result: 60% faster than 4890)
___
(A 4870 X2 is practically equal to two 4870 1GB's in Crossfire, and a 5970 is right in between two 5850's and two 5870's in Crossfire).
Enjoy the numbers!!!!
The 4770 and the 5xxx series are made on 40nm process. A 5750 should eat around half the power that a 4850 requires, and still be faster. All of the 40nm GPU's are incredibly energy-efficient when idle.
The 5xxx series come with DX11 support (and tiny bit better I.Q. with AF and new SSAA modes) which is another plus, but hardly makes up for relatively low bandwidth. The 5750 seems to be the least bandwidth-bottlenecked of all the 5xxx cards.
AzN (from another forum) said:Bandwidth plays a vital role in minimum frame rates where 4890 has whole lot of. You go back track some reviews of the 5770 vs 4870/4890 and the average frame rate difference and minimum frame rate difference show quite a bit of discrepancy. So if 5770 was 10-15% slower in avg frame rates it might be 25% slower in minimum frame rates which matter more to a gamer than peak frame rates.
Also, just avoid the 512MB version if you can. It hardly makes sense to buy a card because of DX11 support, but with 512MB instead of 1GB (unless you game at lower than 1680x1050 for the next 2 years). A 1GB version is usually only $20 more or so.
Try to avoid anything with a lower number than the 4770 (or 4830 which is 5% slower than 4770), if you plan on using the video card for more than 2 years, and still play games. Even if those cheaper video cards are newly released, they will have difficulty running some of today's demanding games at 1680x1050 resolution with normal or default settings. You would have to bother turning down the settings in Crysis, Neverwinter Nights 2, Stalker Clear Sky, etc.. with anything considerably slower than a 4770. With cards as bad as integrated graphics, you might not even be able to play some of the newer games at all.
Hope this post is helpful for newcomers who try to decide on which card to buy this year. Merry Christmas, y'all!
(Here's a similar guide on Nvidia's cards of 2009: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=109006 )
TPU has a wonderful performance summary (some numbers might be a bit different with 512MB versions--just add around 5% for 1GB versions):
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5750_PCS/30.html
Last edited: