4770 Godlike-ish?

[ibuddha]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/28/ati-radeon-hd-4770-gpu-review-roundup/

Saw this on engadget has a link to severall reviews on the New 4770 GPU's. are they really that Godlike, lol.

[CGR]

They are fairly good. It was a bad choice for AMD to name it that though because its really faster than the lower 48xx series cards like the 4830. In fact its pretty close to the 4850 in performance.

[Evilsizer]

here are other links
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295&Itemid=72
http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-radeon-hd-4770-review/
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/17320-ati-radeon-hd-4770-512mb-gddr5-review.html
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18202
http://hothardware.com/articles/ATI-Radeon-HD-4770-40nm-GPU/
http://legionhardware.com/document.php?id=826
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1881_1.html
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/hd4770launch/
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=700
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/HD_4770
http://www.techspot.com/review/163-radeon-hd-4770/
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd4770.html

[uberwoot]

I just checked them out and not to fond of the 128bit.

[chuck4456]

Better off just spending 79.99 on an HD3870 or two.

[Kuroimaho]

I don't think so.

[Malakai]

It outperforms or ties the 4850 for 100 bucks, runs cool, low power, great overclocker.

Sorry whats not to like? It's better than a 4830 for the same price. I got my 4830 for 100, overclocked it is probably as fast as that card stock.

[necrokiller]

Its a decent card. yeah on paper 128-bit doesnt sound all that much...but just look at the performance its pulling off at high resolutions.

[ratbuddy]

Better off just spending 79.99 on an HD3870 or two.

That was a joke right?

[Old Thrashbarg]

I just checked them out and not to fond of the 128bit.

People keep getting hung up on that point, without understanding how the memory works. GDDR5 is actually quad data rate, so 128bit GDDR5 has equal bandwidth to 256bit GDDR3 at the same clockspeed.

I imagine those cards will overclock quite nicely too. Asus is apparently coming out with a voltage-boosted version running at... I think it was 970mhz core and 1100mhz memory, something like that. Not sure how the actual performance scales with that, but I'd expect that much clockspeed increase should give at least somewhat of a boost.

[Evilsizer]

umm GDDR5 is not quad data rate that would then make it GQDR5.... its still double data rate but just much higher speeds. its like comparing DDR2 to DDR3 ram, both are 64bit wide buss but DDR3 can operate at higher effective speeds.

[Upgrayedd]

But still, the higher speed of the gddr5 gives the card close to the same memory bandwidth as the 4850 despite the 128bit interface.

[MadMan007]

It's not Godlike, no, but it's a great card for ~$110 and nearly obsoletes the 4850. Almost normal progress I'd say.

[Quailane]

umm GDDR5 is not quad data rate that would then make it GQDR5.... its still double data rate but just much higher speeds. its like comparing DDR2 to DDR3 ram, both are 64bit wide buss but DDR3 can operate at higher effective speeds.

Actually GDDR5 doesn't clock any higher but it still has double the throughput vs GDDR2-4. It isn't quad data rate but each chip has parallel input/output buses, doubling the bandwith vs memory with a single bus.

[johan851]

I was hoping for something like a 4730 or 4750 that doesn't require a six pin plug, doesn't take too much power, and outperforms the 4670. I would expect those to follow the 'flagship' 4770 (if it can be called that) shortly?

[Kuroimaho]

Depends on the yields of the 4770, if it gets cheaper to make the dice on it they will move the rest to it as well.

[Dapman02]

Depends on the yields of the 4770, if it gets cheaper to make the dice on it they will move the rest to it as well.

40nm 4890/70 here we come (hopefully)

[Kuroimaho]

I would but with the rumor that nexxt gen will be here this summer it is unlikely.

[Old Thrashbarg]

It isn't quad data rate but each chip has parallel input/output buses, doubling the bandwith vs memory with a single bus.

So, I'm not quite clear on this: from what I understand, QDR is 4 bits per clock cycle, achieved by using separate read and write buses in parallel. That sounds the same as what GDDR5 does... what's actually the difference that makes one QDR and the other not?

[ravaneli]

Godlike-ish? Hm.. You, my friend are using terms rather losely : ) For 109 it's not even a great deal. I saw 4870s running for 145 after all rebates (free shipping too!).. That's a big leap from your godish card for $35 more.. - I would rather spend it..

[Quailane]

So, I'm not quite clear on this: from what I understand, QDR is 4 bits per clock cycle, achieved by using separate read and write buses in parallel. That sounds the same as what GDDR5 does... what's actually the difference that makes one QDR and the other not?

GDDR5 does transmit 4x the data per clock cycle as SDR memory. Don't blame me, blame JEDEC naming conventions. Anyway, this is more akin to running dual-channel memory instead of single channel on the desktop. DDR memory actually does transmit twice the data per clock cycle on the same sized connections; 2 bits per clock instead of 1. GDDR5 does it the same as regular DDR, but pretty much makes it dual channel at the memory chip level.

[Old Thrashbarg]

Right, but what I'm asking is:

GDDR5 transmits 4 bits per clock cycle, using parallel buses for reads and writes. QDR, from what I can tell, transmits 4 bits per clock cycle, using parallel buses for reads and writes. That is, both seem to work somewhat akin to a dual channel setup. The only difference I can find is that QDR uses separate pins for the read/write, while GDDR5 uses a wider buffer on a single pin. I think. Functionally, though, it appears to work in the same way. So, considering that, why is one considered QDR, while the other isn't?

[Neuromancer]

How long before someone "unlocks" the ability to quadfire???

Would be great to get 4 of these running on my 790FX board :) For the price of a single 4870X2 :)

[Quailane]

Right, but what I'm asking is:

GDDR5 transmits 4 bits per clock cycle, using parallel buses for reads and writes. QDR, from what I can tell, transmits 4 bits per clock cycle, using parallel buses for reads and writes. That is, both seem to work somewhat akin to a dual channel setup. The only difference I can find is that QDR uses separate pins for the read/write, while GDDR5 uses a wider buffer on a single pin. I think. Functionally, though, it appears to work in the same way. So, considering that, why is one considered QDR, while the other isn't?

Like I said, blame JEDEC, because they approved both standards, and the companies that decided to name them that way. The thing is that QDR memory was developed and named by an independent company or companies at least a few years before JEDEC approved it to make it a standard. GDDR5, which was developed years after that approval, should have been named GQDR(1) if it was up to me. That way it is a lot more open about what it really is and we wouldn't have all the confusion like there was earlier in this thread.

While not related to memory, Intel's QDR is a more appropriate use of the term, as it is basically DDR but the interface is humming along at twice the frequency of the chips that are communicating.

[Old Thrashbarg]

Ok, "JEDEC is just weird like that" is an acceptable explanation. :D

I was just wondering if there was some little technicality I was overlooking.

[Kuroimaho]

I just bumped into this: TSMC Claims 40nm Process Technology Has Yield Issues (http://xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20090430233305_TSMC_s_Latest_Production_Technology _Has_Yield_Issues__Company.html)

This could explain why no 40nm 4870 and 4890 ES boars were spotted and maybe even the huge max clockspeed differences on these 4770 cards.

[Firestrider]

I just bumped into this: TSMC Claims 40nm Process Technology Has Yield Issues (http://xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20090430233305_TSMC_s_Latest_Production_Technology _Has_Yield_Issues__Company.html)

This could explain why no 40nm 4870 and 4890 ES boars were spotted and maybe even the huge max clockspeed differences on these 4770 cards.

Is there any other issue with TSMC's 40nm process: like not hitting power and clockrate targets? The 4770 looks good on performance and power on load, but it's idle power isn't ideal. Maybe that is a problem with GDDR5 and PowerPlay?

[Kuroimaho]

Some says they have problems with leakage, that would cover both the clockrate and power issues on idle.
We don't know any detail, so I wonder if that they "know the cause" means they can fix it. AMD couldn't ever fix their problems on 65nm which would mean real good next gen cards come only H1 next year on 28nm.

[Firestrider]

AMD couldn't ever fix their problems on 65nm which would mean real good next gen cards come only H1 next year on 28nm.

Or Intel's 45nm process for Larrabee...

[PhysX]

I just checked them out and not to fond of the 128bit.

SO buy two :)

[Badbonji]

SO buy two :)

Or 10 with a lucid hydra chip. I think I might kill myself if it isn't released soon, 1 because I have waited for so long and 2 as my friend is now bugging me about it every day XD

[Quailane]

The idle power problem is memory related. I can get my core to 900Mhz completely stable with a tiny bit more voltage via Asus SmartDoctor, and the memory to 1100Mhz completely stable. I can get higher on the mem but only with reduced core clocks because they seem to be temperature limited. The core on the other hand right now seems to be limited by the lack of power regulation circuitry and cooling of said circuitry. Right now I'm trying to get the parts to fill out the empty spots on the PCB. The highest speeds I have gotten (not stable) was 954Mhz core on the stock cooler at 1.07 volts, and 1200Mhz memory.

[Rinne]

that's already a great start,
are you going to put a new heatsink on the card?

[Quailane]

that's already a great start,
are you going to put a new heatsink on the card?

Oh, I forgot to mention that. I installed the Accelero S1 later the same day that I bought it and it did not improve the overclock at all, even though it does run much cooler. Also no matter the voltage it will still not go past 900Mhz stable. That is why I am pretty sure the power circuit is holding this card back big time. A thing to note is that the core is kind of close to the rear of the card so I had to bend all fins after the last heatpipe 90 degrees to fit the card in the case with the Accelero on there.

[AngelfireUk83]

So how with the 128bit bus effect the GDDR5 memory are we talking a massive drop in points via 3dmark or just par level with a GDD3 256bit bus card. I am interested in upgrading to this should be better than my 8600GT I want to go ATi because of my set-up below just finish off the family so to speak.

I have no issues with my 8600GT its played really well can't grumble of winning it off ebay at £12 lol but think it's time to upgrade but still considering a 4870 after my memory and HDD purchase.

[xtkxhom3r]

The idle power problem is memory related. I can get my core to 900Mhz completely stable with a tiny bit more voltage via Asus SmartDoctor, and the memory to 1100Mhz completely stable. I can get higher on the mem but only with reduced core clocks because they seem to be temperature limited. The core on the other hand right now seems to be limited by the lack of power regulation circuitry and cooling of said circuitry. Right now I'm trying to get the parts to fill out the empty spots on the PCB. The highest speeds I have gotten (not stable) was 954Mhz core on the stock cooler at 1.07 volts, and 1200Mhz memory.

i hope your planning on making a thread with some pics during and after your done with your upgrade lol...with all the work your doing to the card you shoulda gotten a 4890 :P jk good luck to ya man hope to see some results soon:beer:

[Quailane]

i hope your planning on making a thread with some pics during and after your done with your upgrade lol...with all the work your doing to the card you shoulda gotten a 4890 :P jk good luck to ya man hope to see some results soon:beer:

Well I picked this card up just for fun as I already have an HD4850 I bought over a month ago. For all this money I could have bought an HD4850 X2 or something better. I'm going on a trip Thursday, and hopefully the parts will be here next Tuesday when I get back. I still need to order some good copper cpu heatsinks to cut up.