4770 worth waiting for?

doveman · Post by **doveman** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:14 am

There's a complete lack of 4770 cards in the UK at the moment, so I'm wondering if I should just get a 4830 or 4850 instead. I've already bought an Accelero S1 to use on whatever card I get, which I think should be OK on any of these cards.

I'm not too bothered about power consumption, but if the 4770 is easier to underclock in 2D that would be handy. The only other things that I can think of that would make the 4770 more attractive is if the memory/MOSFETs are easier to cool than the 48xx cards or if it overclocks particularly well.

I really need a card with Dual DVI and component out (via the TV out/S-Video port), which all the 4770s have (although only a few companies include the component out adapter), whereas the 48xx cards come in a couple of flavours. There also seems to be more variance in quality with the 48xx cards, with some not having fan speed control, or using different memory chips which might limit the overclocking potential.

As for pricing, I'm looking at about Â£70 for a 4830, Â£85 for a 4850 and the 4770s are listed at about Â£80 currently.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Mon May 25, 2009 9:23 am

If i was going 4850, I would buy a higher end one with a better power design. the difference is noticable on idle and max.

I wouldn't cheap it out. the 4850 at higher resolutions and aa/af beats a 4770 solidly too.

doveman · Post by **doveman** » Mon May 25, 2009 10:53 am

Any particular 4850s you can recommend?

Just to clarify about my connectivity requirements. My CRT TV only has one DVI, which is already used, but has a spare component input. What I plan to do is connect the two DVIs on the graphics card to two LCD monitors and have the component out connected to the TV. That way, I can switch settings with CCC to use 2*LCDs/1*LCD+TV/TV.

I could do the same with a card with 2*DVI and an HDMI but then I'll need to buy a 2 port DVI switch, an HDMI-DVI lead and a DVI-DVI lead, which will come to about Â£22, whereas the other option only requires me to buy a component lead for about Â£7, so I'd rather do that if possible.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Mon May 25, 2009 1:01 pm

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/512MB-Po ... -HDTV-HDCP

Paste the whole URL, impossible to embed.

doveman · Post by **doveman** » Mon May 25, 2009 3:01 pm

Thanks but the PowerColor isn't the best choice for me, as it doesn't come with the HDTV cable (or HDMI adapter). According to their website, XFX include it and Sapphire have told me they do.

Scan charge Â£7 delivery as well, bringing the cost up to Â£90, so I'd rather wait for one of the suppliers who offer free shipping to get stock.

Entropy · Post by **Entropy** » Tue May 26, 2009 7:01 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:I wouldn't cheap it out. the 4850 at higher resolutions and aa/af beats a 4770 solidly too.

Uhm. No.
I sidegraded from a HD4870 to a HD4770. I should know. Incidentally, I'm happy with that exchange at the same money.
According to reviews, at stock clocks, a HD4850 is very slightly faster, at significantly higher power draw under load. I would personally sacrifice 3% game performance to save +50 Watts of system thermal load with associated cooling requirements and costs to keep quiet. Of course, I checked out at what clocks my HD4770 ran stably, and backed off a comfortable margin from there in order to ensure stable operation even under particularly adverse conditions. In my case, I run my HD4770 at 860MHz GPU, and 1050MHz memory. In all honesty, I just can't tell any difference at all in practical use when compared to my HD4870, in spite of the fact that I aways use 4xAA. 3DMark scores, and other benchmarks I have run confirm that even when using AA, the difference up to my (equivalently overclocked) HD4870 is 20% or so.

There is no doubt in my mind that the HD4770 is a better product overall than the HD4850.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue May 26, 2009 8:51 am

amazing that you say um no yet 100% of websites show that a 4850 cranks over the 4770 in every way.

add 1 gig to the 4850 and it uses it for another 5-10% gain again.

the 4770 is a cut down card with cheaper parts but pricier memory.

sidegraded? 4870 can double the frames of a 4770. you just dont have settings that high and games that use them.

Also note that getting 28 minimum frames vs 35 frames is a big difference. I dont know why im having this conversation. Just read any site at 1920x1200. The 4770 is just a less expensive way to go. 3% performance gain, while being a severely questionable number to throw around, is just an incorrect picture. the 4770 was supposed to be the SPCR savior card, but it turns out it is made so cheaply that its idle power draw is much higher than it needs to be, it is a short card with low quality components that arent compatible with most if not all silent cooling products, etc. I havent seen a fancy version of the 4770 out yet and there might not be one. One that has better power design, better caps, longer card for better cooling, etc.

Recommendaton: A gigabyte 1 gig 4850 has more effecient power compared to reference, comes with a stock passive heatsink. You get to keep the warranty by not having to put an s1 on it. Also, the s1 costs money and shipping making this particular recommendation pretty water tight. The wall you hit with 4770 is not found on the 4850. The power difference is negligable and much lower than a 4870. If the difference is 30 watts, what would a person do differently cooling wise? Nothing. the same equipment needed to run a quiet system. Neither could be passive, so why have a card with less headroom and less texture ability?

silo · Post by **silo** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:17 am

besides the super [junk] ati drivers ( HATE THAT CCC) i just cant find anything to complain about this card. love it. cool ( the 4850 is an oven) small ( the 4850 is larger) somewhat efficient ( again compared to the 4850) FAST. omg - 2 fps in some games, +4 fps in others, is virtually the same performance 2 me ( in fact is faster at the low res im using) + if you oc there is no going back. oh, and the crossfire thingy is not that stupid. btw initially i loled at the 4770, ugly messy video card! but frankly after using it this past few days... im blow away. what a pleasant surprise.

K.Murx · Post by **K.Murx** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:23 am

Did you notice that he overclocked his 4770? And if you do that, the performance is about the same, see Xbitlabs for a review with the card clocked to almost the same speed.
Of course, I do not know what the power consumption is with overclocking, but I doubt it will make up the 50W difference to the 4850.
Also, that the Card is shorter is a bonus to me (more space, more airflow). "Cheaper components" - well, they seem to do the job. I have not seen reports of massive failures of the cards. So, why bother?
You have a point with the aftermarket cooling, but I have not seen any trustworthy (SPCR) review of the actual cooling solution. It might actually be quiet enough, and even if not, you can always cut the fins of the Accelero.
So, to sum it up:

~El~Jefe~ wrote: Recommendation: A gigabyte 1 gig 4850 (...) passive heatsink.
(...) why have a card with less headroom and less texture ability?

Because:

It uses only half the power (or maybe 2/3 if the gigabyte is really that much more effective)
It retails for 2/3 of the price of the passive 4850 (in the U.S. at least)
OCed, it is just as fast in games (see Xbitlabs review)

Which is why I am waiting for a passive model to come out (which might retail for 80% of the cost of the gigabyte)

quest_for_silence · Post by **quest_for_silence** » Tue May 26, 2009 11:50 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:The power difference is negligable

Maybe I get you wrong but

22w to 51w doesn't seem to me such negligible difference (+22w is 79% more than 28w, +51w is 102% more than 50w, while the 4830 sports a 45% increase in power consumption in FurMark test): in my humble opinion a 50w card could be adequately passively cooled, but a 100w one definitely no (at least right now).

Regards,
Luca

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:31 pm

first off, the diamond is a sub-standard issue card. most 4850's and 4830's do not downclock on idle like the first test cards were showing. I am not talking about that one, I am talking about Gigabyte's.

2nd, if it is 50 watts max on load (ati lists it at just over 70 watts), the 4770 cannot be cooled in a completely passive system. You still need case flow. the same goes for a better built 4850 that is already passive. the total work and components and fan speeds in a 4770 system vs a 4850 system is the same to keep them near silent.

now, if a card was 25 watts on load, 7 watts idle, now you can go ultra slow moving, single fan on rear of case solution.

the psu would be the same, the same connectors, you would still want 2 case fans, one in front blowing across hd and passively cooled gpu..... same setup, less potential for gaming though on 4770.

the accelero s1 v2 is $34 dollars shipped. Oh, and you have to use metal sheers to rip off part of the end as it doesnt fit on the tiny card.

a 99 dollar 4770 card plus 34 dollars is 134 dollar video card. Now, the warranty is voided as well. No savings. Many are 109 dollars and it looks like most rebates have been yanked on the major sites (why give 10 bux back for sold out items I guess)

so, it could be 144 dollars total.... almost same price....

If the 4770 hada 125 dollar card that was passive and had higher quality components, sure, that would be best of all worlds and save money in long run.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue May 26, 2009 1:43 pm

quest_for_silence wrote:
~El~Jefe~ wrote:The power difference is negligable
Maybe I get you wrong but

22w to 51w doesn't seem to me such negligible difference (+22w is 79% more than 28w, +51w is 102% more than 50w, while the 4830 sports a 45% increase in power consumption in FurMark test): in my humble opinion a 50w card could be adequately passively cooled, but a 100w one definitely no (at least right now).

Regards,
Luca

I am referring to the better-than-reference designed Gigabyte that is already passive.

silo · Post by **silo** » Tue May 26, 2009 9:11 pm

complaining about the 4770 price @ ? the way i see it, you have a free s1 there, + a cheaper faster, cooler, smaller 4850. btw in my country the shitty -non reference- sapphire 4850 costs $55more sporting crapier @ fewer caps and even lesser components... ( electrolytic caps btw)

ah... coil whine? my sapphire 4770 has none. absolutely zero whine, buzzing, noise under any condition.Even with the fan TURNED OFF AND playing crysis. (yes, actually i tested this, s1 cooler btw) lol i was mentaly prepared for this " ok, lets see how bad this screams" WTF no noise ?

First videocard that i own that does not emit any high-pitched tone while playing crysis (or any other game) 8600gt makes noises, 9800gt also whines, 4670 squeals like a pig. ( terrible, even with a VF1000@ covered in ram heatsinks) tested @ used all those videocars. just another little detail.

Entropy · Post by **Entropy** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:26 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:amazing that you say um no yet 100% of websites show that a 4850 cranks over the 4770 in every way.

The review with the fullest selection of games and settings is the one from TechPowerUp, and their performance summary page is here. Depending on resolution and settings (see full review) the total performance span is 0-8%, with an average of 4%. Again, at default clocks, and there is little doubt that AMD intentionally reduced their GDDR5 clocks on the HD4770 for market positioning reasons, as no GDDR5 memory is sold that doesn't perform higher than the default settings, including the Qimonda that is actually installed (rated at 1000MHz rather than the 800 used).

sidegraded? 4870 can double the frames of a 4770. you just dont have settings that high and games that use them.

I don't?
Well, we could argue what constitutes a valid test endlessly - I have already conveyed my actual practical experience. In 3DMark06 I got 14100 with the HD4870 (higher clocks and twice the bandwidth over the HD4850) and the HD4770 gives me 13000. But wait, 3DMark06 doesn't utilize AA, and that's where the HD4770 should have its weakness with its 128-bit bus, right? Since I own the benchmark I can change settings, and with 4xAA enabled, the HD4770 scores 11300. So with AA the HD4770 scores 20% below the HD4870 without.

Also note that getting 28 minimum frames vs 35 frames is a big difference.

I'm sure, but I wouldn't know.
I have no idea where you've found data that show that the HD4850 performs significantly better than the HD4770, because I read them all before ordering the card. But review sites use settings and systems that try to isolate the performance of the graphics card. This makes some sense of course, but it doesn't necessarily reflect how people actually play games, since the frame rates can get ridiculously low. If you actually play a game as opposed to watch a game, control is critical.

I always use settings that get me rock solid frame rates at the resolution I game at, to optimize control. And that is how I evaluated the card from a practical perspective - since I typically use AA, I fully expected to have to reduce settings in order to maintain performance when I switched from the HD4870. But I've found that unnecessary, in practise the HD4770 has been a drop-in replacement for my HD4870, with approximately half the power draw.

silo · Post by **silo** » Wed May 27, 2009 7:19 am

1024 x 768 > thats the resolution i game on ( godly 19 CRT)

so my stock 4770 > 4850. and if i want more? oc.

btw i do have lcds.. 22" and 32" but nothing beats that old crt
+ internally "HD"consoles render at this res and lower-lol ps3- ( even lowering the resolution on the fly)

edit. 4 inch Alien found in Pakistan, shit got real

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOCbw9sNAd4

Post by **CA_Steve** » Wed May 27, 2009 8:44 am

Entropy: What monitor resolution do you run?

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Wed May 27, 2009 1:45 pm

on board video is fine to game with at 1024x768 on low settings.

I dont know how else to reply to that. hm.

If I was playing on a monitor at or below a 1280 resoluton, I wouldnt bother with anything more than my 3870 and just oc it a bit which would give like 20% boost at that resolution.

Not playing with AA at at least 2x and AF decently pumped is terrible visually. And graphics are visual things....

raw clocks and the new tech do great if you keep resolution low and detail low and the aa/af low...

That's not a good way to recommend a card.

no one has posted the wattage consumption of a 4770 oc'd compared to a 4850 oc'd. Buy whatever the hell you want, but dont think that you have a better card for gaming at HD resolution with textures cranked up.

For the argument sake, I took my 3870 card from 777 core and 1126mhz ram to 850/1280 last night. This is slightly below max stable which is 862/1310. I went from 120 fps in Lost cost bench (all cranked and 1920x1200) to 135 fps.

I can see the nice possibilities of oc'ing a 40 nm part if it's also a well made chip. I can't find a wattage usage chart on an OC vs non-oc though.

I am searching for 4850 overclocks as I type... hard to find. I went up 11% in speed in that benchmark, and the 4xxx series oc's better I hear. Also, adding 1 gig to the 4850 gives 2 frames on 1920x1200 resolution without oc'ing. that's two frames on top of low scores like 29-30 frames. just keep on doing the math I guess....

Edit: Well guru3d on the 4850 showed a stock oc (no watercooling like I have) yields 10-12% framerate increase. A linear jump. 4770 jumps a lot when you oc it. However, no one has both used the proven better 1 gig card, a non reference power designed card and OC'd it.

blech.

I am thinking I should wait for 5850 1 gig model now.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed May 27, 2009 2:13 pm

doveman wrote:There's a complete lack of 4770 cards in the UK at the moment, so I'm wondering if I should just get a 4830 or 4850 instead. I've already bought an Accelero S1 to use on whatever card I get, which I think should be OK on any of these cards.

Seems like AMD having a hard time making those chips. As a consequence they will lower the 4850 to â‚¬99.
Translation

Source

Not really surprising, prices have already dropped below â‚¬100 earlier this month.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Wed May 27, 2009 5:07 pm

Good prices in the US as well, here's one of the smallest 4850 I've seen.

silo · Post by **silo** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:56 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:on board video is fine to game with at 1024x768 on low settings

ok, now you are talking out of your arse....

are you one of those guys that think lulz but "higher resolution = better image quality" guess what? then you are 100% clueless, sir. 1) Again, im not using a shit lcd here, CRT so unlike you in not bound by native resolutions, take my word for it, crysis with this setup, using this"low res" completely shits on your setup from a really, really, really high distance ( that is IF YOU ARE A LCD, or budget plasma user) Even if you game on a 4870, Even if you use 10 times the resolution im using. it doesn't Mather. CRT is ALWAYS going to look@play a million times better. ALWAYS.

(CRTs color reproduction, motion handling, contrast ratios, response times, 0 imput lag, variable screen resolutions and refresh rates,=unmatched)

2) i didn't say anything about "low settings", what low settings? with this bad boy everything is always at "super ultra high", even using 8xAA @ 16xAF, and most console games look amazing at this res, bad luck if you just cant play it natively on your inferior lcd because scaling sucks.

btw, playing that new wolverine game at 1600 x 1200 > 62 fps locked at any resolution.Now with the 9800gt it goes up and down like mad, but never goes past that fps > 62 fps- your old 4850 is going to display the same fps 62 fps here, but sporting higher temps, power consumption, size and price. And shitier image quality. lcd

oh, the 4770 is also faster at 1360 x 768, thats the native res of my 32 LG lcd, so if i want a lil ( blurry lcd) big screen action, im also set.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Thu May 28, 2009 6:31 am

ok. well there's a thing called Valium. It is cheaper than a new card you know?

I own a 22" mitsubishi CRT color corrected monitor that is said to be the best ever. (without being over 2k dollars). It is in my basement collecting dust. I am using a IPS 26" monitor at the moment. it is used for graphic arts. I don't think anyone actually buys in 2009 a monitor that is less than 1920x1200. Widescreen is either 1400 x 900 or 1920 x 1200. For those buying under, it would just be for space requirement. I dont even think a decent PVA monitor is non widescreen anymore. I know of no current selling IPS lcd screen under 24". there was one 22" one that was less than HD resolution, but that was like 800 dollars and is probably not being made anymore.

I suggest you look at monitors that are above the 500 dollar price point, and are IPS. (tn film is what you own, pva is what forum people like, ips is 4x better than PVA but is like 300 more than pva)

shrugs?

the 10 mg's go for less than 10 bucks btw.

lechuck · Post by **lechuck** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:28 am

You are starting to change topic here...
... and there is no final answer to which monitor suits who. Some people stick with CRT's until they don't explode - like mine (after 9 years).

But then they ussualy buy new LCD. Btw, IPS is not best of the best. Things change all the time. I'd vote for S-PVA!
Don't argue over monitors, it's pointless.

Back to the question: 4770 worth waiting for?
I'd say no, maybe later when they polish the production and at that time also idle consumption will be better.

Evidence of troubles with 40nm process is new 4730, which uses old 55nm core...

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu May 28, 2009 8:48 am

lechuck wrote:Evidence of troubles with 40nm process is new 4730, which uses old 55nm core...

Or what I posted yesterday.

quest_for_silence · Post by **quest_for_silence** » Thu May 28, 2009 9:54 am

lechuck wrote:Back to the question: 4770 worth waiting for?

Maybe. And maybe different generations can't be compared "apple to apple" (see G80-G92 vs G200).

lechuck wrote:Evidence of troubles with 40nm process is new 4730, which uses old 55nm core...

AFAIK it's just a matter of scarcity of 40nm cores and economics of older process: just sit and wait and even other cards will go with that die shrink.

Regards,
Luca

silo · Post by **silo** » Thu May 28, 2009 10:33 am

~El~Jefe~ wrote:ok. well there's a thing called Valium. It is cheaper than a new card you know?

I own a 22" mitsubishi CRT color corrected monitor that is said to be the best ever. (without being over 2k dollars). It is in my basement collecting dust. Yes, i know the feeling, my Maserati is also in my basement collecting dust. crazy much?

I am using a IPS 26" monitor at the moment. ( well enjoy your inferior viewing angles, subpar and uneven color reproduction, shit contrast -shadow detail? gone- but you have some fine black crush there + limited refresh rates, shity motion handling and constant blurring, ( move your mouse a lil, trail of blurrrr, backligth bleed? quite possible. go tho the basement right now, wtf are you doing? the blindness is strong with this one and ips? my blurry 32 lg is also ips, so what? why dont you fkn understand? lcd no mater what kind of panel = shit it is about it is used for graphic arts. I don't think anyone actually buys in 2009 a monitor that is less than 1920x1200. Widescreen is either 1400 x 900 or 1920 x 1200. For those buying under, it would just be for space requirement. I dont even think a decent PVA monitor is non widescreen anymore. I know of no current selling IPS lcd screen under 24". there was one 22" one that was less than HD resolution, but that was like 800 dollars and is probably not being made anymore.

I suggest you look at monitors that are above the 500 dollar price point, and are IPS. (tn film is what you own, ( yes i do have one of those, samsung t220, also shit, ok for web browsing) pva is what forum people like, ( yes input lag, fantastic choice) ips is 4x better than PVA but is like 300 more than pva)

shrugs?

the 10 mg's go for less than 10 bucks btw.

edit, yes, the 4770 is worth waiting for. wait for the inevitable oc version with all the missing caps and extra shit and fancy cooler. or better yet, whait for the dx 11 version. for me? h. im done waiting, and it was so cheap, so no regrets, to me its more than enough.

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu May 28, 2009 11:05 am

What a great thread! doveman must be very grateful for all these replies.
For those who doesn't know what Mitsubishi Electric does can have a look over here, we're not talking about cars here...

Oh and if anyone feels like giving me a reply, please don't edit quotes from me, and dont use the word SHIT.

doveman · Post by **doveman** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:32 pm

Well, I've got the HD3200 on my 780G motherboard to keep me going for now, so I think I'll just play the games that can handle whilst I wait for the supply problems to get sorted out, at which point prices might drop a bit as well. Of course, by then I might be considering waiting for the 5xxx cards

Mats · Post by **Mats** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:45 pm

doveman wrote:Well, I've got the HD3200 on my 780G motherboard to keep me going for now, so I think I'll just play the games that can handle whilst I wait for the supply problems to get sorted out, at which point prices might drop a bit as well. Of course, by then I might be considering waiting for the 5xxx cards

It's a very impressive IGP! I remember when I tried the 690G the first time, what a surprise!
Saving for a 5000-series card seems like a good idea if you don't need it now anyway. Better things to do during the summer I guess.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:46 pm

Mats wrote:What a great thread! doveman must be very grateful for all these replies.
For those who doesn't know what Mitsubishi Electric does can have a look over here, we're not talking about cars here...

Oh and if anyone feels like giving me a reply, please don't edit quotes from me, and dont use the word SHIT.

nice right?

My monitor has less than 1 frame of input lag which is imperceptable.
yes, I do have that monitor in my basement. It awaits someone who has enough room and not enough cash for a decent monitor. It weighs over 50 lbs though. this one is like 15 lbs, almost all from the base weight.

you can also get an LG pva monitor that has about 1.x frame of lag, which is also imperceptable. that runs about 450 dollars.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Thu May 28, 2009 1:52 pm

doveman wrote:Well, I've got the HD3200 on my 780G motherboard to keep me going for now, so I think I'll just play the games that can handle whilst I wait for the supply problems to get sorted out, at which point prices might drop a bit as well. Of course, by then I might be considering waiting for the 5xxx cards

that is a decent on board video actually. Just lower resolution and its smooth. the 5xxx is kinda overkill comparitively. that also is in end of november. Last time, the 3870's debuted at that time but i couldnt get one until January, all out of stock. so it migh be January, 9 months I would say, until you see a 5850 in your house. the lower ones, like a 5770 version, I would say this time next year if they keep repeating their setups.

a year with on board video

4770 worth waiting for?

4770 worth waiting for?

Re: 4770 worth waiting for?