PDA

View Full Version : 4870 vs 5750



at0m1c
11-01-09, 05:29 AM
PowerColor HD 4870 1GB GDDR5

PowerColor HD 5750 1GB GDDR5

The above two cards are about the same price so I'm not sure which to buy. The 4870 seems to own in current games but what about in 12 to 18 months time when games start to list DirectX 11 as the minimum requirements (before anyone says it, I dont plan to upgrade that soon)? Will the 4870 start to suck?

EarthDog
11-01-09, 05:59 AM
All things considered, get the 5750/5770.

rezy
11-01-09, 11:35 AM
Get a 5770, you wont regret ;)

DragoXT
11-01-09, 11:04 PM
Are you guys crazy? Have you even looked at any freaking reviews? 4870 is still 5-10% faster than the 5770, and it will be even more than a 5750. Unless you think that a driver tweak can miraculously change a crappy 128bit card to suddenly out perform a 256bit card, then by all means get the 5750.

4870 is my choice and my recommendation. Just go read some reviews and you will see that the 4870 is better on average than the 5770 and way better than the 5750. Both the 57xx cards are crippled horribly by the 128bit interface.

Back in the day, the Nvidia 6600GT was a 128bit card, and could clock very well, but to reach the 256bit 6800 vanilla performance you had to oc it and yeah you could make it better than the Nvidia 6800 vanilla, but the 6800 vanilla could oc and beat out and oced 6600GT. If you keep things at stock, dont hurt yourself with the cut in half memory interface, it really slows down the performance of the card.

I still recommend the 4870 and 4890 over any of the 57xx series cards. A nicely overclocked 4890 can match the performance of a stock 5850 in some cases, but once you oc the 5850, it wins hands down. For the money, the 57xx series is far to expensive for the performance they give. As always the high end cards of last gen are better than the mid range cards of the new gen. DX11 is a very moot point as well there are no DX11 games. Unless you plan on keeping your vid card for the next 4 years, then you might have to worry about having DX11 support, though all you really miss are some fancy visual things. If that is important then you might want to get the 57xx series, just note that by the time dx11 games come out you will likely only be able to run that game at medium settings on the 57xx cards.

Flurp
11-01-09, 11:10 PM
I'd recommend the 57XX... As what DragXT pointed out the 4870 may have more performance.... the 57XX still has the integrated HD Audio controller, DX11, and once the driver tweaks are out there... I'd say that it won't bring it above the performance of a 4870 but will bring it very close to or right at the performance. and then factor in the DX11, Audio and all the other extras the 5XXX series has... I'd put it just above the 4870... though if you aren't upgrading too soon... I'd ask again on the forums and read more reviews when you are a week to a few days before you buy one or the other... as plenty things can change in a month and such...

Bobnova
11-02-09, 10:51 AM
My 4830 has audio over HDMI. Does the 5xxx have a plug for front-panel sound or something?

EarthDog
11-02-09, 10:58 AM
I'd recommend the 57XX... As what DragXT pointed out the 4870 may have more performance.... the 57XX still has the integrated HD Audio controller, DX11, and once the driver tweaks are out there... I'd say that it won't bring it above the performance of a 4870 but will bring it very close to or right at the performance. and then factor in the DX11, Audio and all the other extras the 5XXX series has... I'd put it just above the 4870... though if you aren't upgrading too soon... I'd ask again on the forums and read more reviews when you are a week to a few days before you buy one or the other... as plenty things can change in a month and such...Great post. That should cover the thought if we are "freaking crazy" pretty well. :)

Badbonji
11-02-09, 01:25 PM
The HD5750 won't be that powerful, definately will not ever beat a HD4870... So it is unlikely to be strong enough to run games high enough to take full advantage of DX11 features, and you should be looking at a HD5770 which is about 5-10% slower than the HD4870 in games. What resolution do you play?

at0m1c
11-02-09, 03:23 PM
The HD5750 won't be that powerful, definately will not ever beat a HD4870... So it is unlikely to be strong enough to run games high enough to take full advantage of DX11 features, and you should be looking at a HD5770 which is about 5-10% slower than the HD4870 in games. What resolution do you play?

I'll be gaming at low resolutions like 1280 x 768 on wide screen.

The HD5770 is more than I want to spend. It really has to be a HD5750 or HD4870 (I'm already going over budget by getting a Phenom II 940 BE)

How much loss of speed is there if your card doesn't support the latest DirectX? As an example, how well did DirectX 9.1 cards handle DirectX 10 games? Is there a performance loss?
If not, I might just get the HD4870.

EarthDog
11-02-09, 03:25 PM
DX9 cards CANNOT run games in DX10. Well, at least it cannot use the features that make DX10, DX10. Same with DX11. But in this API change, there are only a few minor additions.

With that low of a res, the 5750/5770 will be just fine. That resolution is quite CPU bound.

Joeteck
11-02-09, 03:29 PM
Are you guys crazy? Have you even looked at any freaking reviews? 4870 is still 5-10% faster than the 5770, and it will be even more than a 5750. Unless you think that a driver tweak can miraculously change a crappy 128bit card to suddenly out perform a 256bit card, then by all means get the 5750.

4870 is my choice and my recommendation. Just go read some reviews and you will see that the 4870 is better on average than the 5770 and way better than the 5750. Both the 57xx cards are crippled horribly by the 128bit interface.

Back in the day, the Nvidia 6600GT was a 128bit card, and could clock very well, but to reach the 256bit 6800 vanilla performance you had to oc it and yeah you could make it better than the Nvidia 6800 vanilla, but the 6800 vanilla could oc and beat out and oced 6600GT. If you keep things at stock, dont hurt yourself with the cut in half memory interface, it really slows down the performance of the card.

I still recommend the 4870 and 4890 over any of the 57xx series cards. A nicely overclocked 4890 can match the performance of a stock 5850 in some cases, but once you oc the 5850, it wins hands down. For the money, the 57xx series is far to expensive for the performance they give. As always the high end cards of last gen are better than the mid range cards of the new gen. DX11 is a very moot point as well there are no DX11 games. Unless you plan on keeping your vid card for the next 4 years, then you might have to worry about having DX11 support, though all you really miss are some fancy visual things. If that is important then you might want to get the 57xx series, just note that by the time dx11 games come out you will likely only be able to run that game at medium settings on the 57xx cards.


What reviews have you've been reading??

Looky here (http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-test/14)? 5770 kickin some major butt!!

The GTX 285 has a 512bit Memory interface... Losing against the 128bit on the 5770...

GDDR3 vs GDDR5 at this point!

GT3mich
11-02-09, 04:59 PM
I bought 2 4870's over the last 2 months to run Crossfire because of price. $109.99 each with free shipping. You can have your 57xx's and DX11.

DragoXT
11-03-09, 05:11 PM
What reviews have you've been reading??

Looky here (http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-test/14)? 5770 kickin some major butt!!

The GTX 285 has a 512bit Memory interface... Losing against the 128bit on the 5770...

GDDR3 vs GDDR5 at this point!

guru3d is known to have a heavy ATI bias. I am sure if you find the right benchmark where gddr3 is a big looser compared to Gddr5 then sure the 5770 might look better in that instance. We are compareing the 4870 to the 57xx cards not anything to nvidia. The truth still remains, the 4870 is still better than the 57xx series cards in raw performance. If DX11 is a major concern for you then imo you are jumping the gun as there are no DX11 games out yet, and rest assured, when they do come out the 57xx series will only be able to play them at medium settings at best.

vixro
11-03-09, 05:14 PM
4870 is a better buy for sure.

Zantal
11-04-09, 12:27 PM
What reviews have you've been reading??

Looky here (http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-review-test/14)? 5770 kickin some major butt!!

The GTX 285 has a 512bit Memory interface... Losing against the 128bit on the 5770...

GDDR3 vs GDDR5 at this point!


erm looks like the gtx285 is beating the hd5770. even the CF ones.

or maybe i read it wrong Oo

Joeteck
11-04-09, 01:50 PM
erm looks like the gtx285 is beating the hd5770. even the CF ones.

or maybe i read it wrong Oo


Yes, I think you're reading it wrong... Higher values are better...

Attomsk
11-04-09, 02:13 PM
I had that same question recently and went with a 4890. I have been able to run pretty much everything at max settings so far and I am very happy with my purchase.

I will pick up a DX11 card once DX11 is actually used. I will probably be able to get a cheaper DX11 card with better performance than a 5870 at that point anyhow. :beer:

Joeteck
11-04-09, 02:18 PM
You guys realize that DX11 cards can STILL play DX10, 9, and 8 games, right? <giggle>

And the benchmarks in that review are DX 10 games...

Badbonji
11-04-09, 03:29 PM
You guys realize that DX11 cards can STILL play DX10, 9, and 8 games, right? <giggle>

And the benchmarks in that review are DX 10 games...

You might want to re-read that review. The HD5770 is around the same or a bit slower than tha HD4870 in every game...
The GTX285 is faster than the single HD5770, then slower than the Crossfire HD5770...
All I see is that it does worse than the previous gen card with the same sp's

jason4207
11-05-09, 12:35 PM
I'd go 4870 given the choices. It's cheaper and more powerful.

Or 5850 if more money was available.


At 1280x768 you don't even need something as powerful as the 4870. If you're worried about the pretty graphics that DX11 might bring to the table then you need to upgrade your monitor first so you can see them.

vixro
11-05-09, 01:00 PM
I'd go 4870 given the choices. It's cheaper and more powerful.

Or 5850 if more money was available.


At 1280x768 you don't even need something as powerful as the 4870. If you're worried about the pretty graphics that DX11 might bring to the table then you need to upgrade your monitor first so you can see them.

That's practically a CRT resolution. Is he still on a 19" CRT? lol

Joeteck
11-05-09, 02:09 PM
You might want to re-read that review. The HD5770 is around the same or a bit slower than tha HD4870 in every game...
The GTX285 is faster than the single HD5770, then slower than the Crossfire HD5770...
All I see is that it does worse than the previous gen card with the same sp's


it wins some and loses some.. Not bad for a 128bit memory controller... the 285 has a 512bit, and the GTX 260 216 has a 448bit, which the 5770 just lagging behind...

Non-the-less. AMD has got it right. Imagine if they used a 512bit memory controller? JEEZ! AMD only has 128 and 256bit... Not too shabby AMD!
Impressed!

The cost for two 5770 is pretty cheap, and would be the way I would go instead of one 4870.. The 5770 is essentially the same as a 4870 minus 128bit and faster clocks on core and memory... and it still keeps up... Plus it uses less power...

DragoXT
11-05-09, 06:14 PM
You do realize that the nvidia cards are using GDDR3 while the ATI cards are using GDDR5. The speed of GDDR3 vs GDDR5 is quite a bit, so it is only natural that to get similar performance of a 512bit card with GDDR3 RAM vs one with 128bit GDDR5. Put a big enough engine and nos in a ford pinto and it can go just as fast as a corvette, though the ride might not be near as smooth in the pinto.

EarthDog
11-05-09, 06:37 PM
You do realize that the nvidia cards are using GDDR3 while the ATI cards are using GDDR5. The speed of GDDR3 vs GDDR5 is quite a bit, so it is only natural that to get similar performance of a 512bit card with GDDR3 RAM vs one with 128bit GDDR5.+1!!!!! :beer:

Joeteck
11-05-09, 10:50 PM
You do realize that the nvidia cards are using GDDR3 while the ATI cards are using GDDR5. The speed of GDDR3 vs GDDR5 is quite a bit, so it is only natural that to get similar performance of a 512bit card with GDDR3 RAM vs one with 128bit GDDR5. Put a big enough engine and nos in a ford pinto and it can go just as fast as a corvette, though the ride might not be near as smooth in the pinto.


Yes I do... posted (http://www.ocforums.com/showpost.php?p=6286941&postcount=11) that already

jason4207
11-06-09, 09:38 AM
You do realize that the nvidia cards are using GDDR3 while the ATI cards are using GDDR5. The speed of GDDR3 vs GDDR5 is quite a bit, so it is only natural that to get similar performance of a 512bit card with GDDR3 RAM vs one with 128bit 256bit GDDR5. Put a big enough engine and nos in a ford pinto and it can go just as fast as a corvette, though the ride might not be near as smooth in the pinto.

FTFY!

128-bit GDDR5 is similar to 256-bit GDDR3 (4850, GTS250) in bandwidth, not the big boys.

Bandwidth breakdown from greatest to least:

384-bit GDDR5 (GTX380?)
320-bit GDDR5 (GTS360?)
256-bit GDDR5 or 512-bit GDDR3 (4870, 4970, 5850, 5870, GTX280, GTX285)
448-bit GDDR3 (GTX260, GTX275)
384-bit GDDR3 (8800GTX)
320-bit GDDR3 (8800GTS-320/640)
128-bit GDDR5 or 256-bit GDDR3 (5770, 5750, 4770, GTS250, 9800GTX, 8800GTS-512)


And remember guys...5770 is not a choice according to the OP. It's the 5750 and the 4870 that are the same price and in the OP's price range. IMO the 4870 is the obvious choice here.