[Freddy]

Been doing some graphic card research.  We were talking about other ATI cards in the Windows 7 thread, but I thought I would start up a new topic.

Well briefly I am seriously considering this card over something like a HD 4890/70 based card.

Take a look at the specs (may take a while to load) of a Sapphire card :

• Sapphire HD 5770 Vapor X

Okay it only has a 128 bit bus, but reports and reviews I have read say it more or less matches the 4870 in performance and quicker in some cases.  It's about the same price too and it's next generation - supports Direct X 11 and Shader Model 5.0

So it would seem that somehow they have got these cards to perform just as well but with only a 128 bit bus.

Here's a review of an XFX branded card, but I will link you straight to the power specs :

• HD 5770 - Power Consumption

You can see the rest of the review (lengthy) using the menu there.

But about the power consumption:

• HD 5770 - 22 W Idle, 115W loaded
• HD 4870 - 58 W Idle, 166W loaded

The figures I quoted for the HD 4870 is at their lowest consumption - most of the 4870/90's pull a LOT more.  I have my PC on most of the day, so the 5770 seems ideal for me in this respect.

The other thing is Cross-Fire - well a nice idea, but I read that most of the time it isn't worth the effort because you don't get the kind of performance gain you would expect.  But these 5770's actually do work well in Cross Fire, a lot better. That review I linked to above will show you how good Crossfire is with these cards.

So to summarise - 40nm, DirectX11, Shader Model 5, low power consumption, good price, good with Crossfire, next generation and if you go with Sapphire you get great cooling.

Ok now, go ahead and tear me to pieces  

[Data]

Freddy have you lost your mind?
What are you thinking LOL

Actually it does look like a pretty good card, and I think it comes down to personal choice, I was considering one of them or the HD4890 the price is quite close, in the end I went for the HD4890.

My Reasoning:
The HD4890 is a faster card and FPS is king in games.

DirectX 11, I have been looking into it, it has the ability to make a 3D object out of a flat texture and can give objects and environments a more detailed appearance, clever if you ask me, but there is a problem all this extra detail actually takes a lot of GPU calculations to do, now the HD 5770 can do DirectX 11 but it is an early mid range card and when the DirectX 11 games come out I have my doubts about its ability to run them at descent resolutions in DirectX 11, So I would probably end up playing them in Direct X 10 (if the game allowed) to get a good FPS at a good resolution.

Power consumption is something I consider and its good to see that the newer cards take less, has to be a good thing. If you take the time and use ATI tray tools you can underclock the HD4890 or 70 in normal desktop usage and reduce its power consumption buy, (according to my power consumption gadget) 35 watts. Not something that is widely known about but it works and has no negative effect to windows.

It does seem that crossfire has improved on the next-gen cards, but my motherboard doesn’t support it and I don’t think yours does Freddy.

So for me the HD4890 did seem the way to go, and if I had to make the choice today it would still be the same.

But we are not all the same and if you choose to get one Freddy I will respect your decision.

Good thread 

[Freddy]

  Not quite lost my mind, but there's so much to take in sometimes it seems that way.

But yes, I too wondered if getting an early DX11 card was wise, maybe it's worth waiting to see what else comes out - I don't plan on getting this too soon, so I can wait.

I think I would go for the HD 4890 over the HD 4870 too really, so yes a bit faster card (not sure how much atm)  for much the same price.

The power consumption was a big thing for me - under-clocking might be an option for me though, thanks for that tip.

You are right; this motherboard doesn't do Crossfire.  In the past I have planned to use SLI and never found the need for it, so when I got this board I dismissed the idea of dual cards.  They sound like a good idea, but I am not convinced of the benefits if indeed there are any for most of them.

Hmmm...future DirectX 11 games and this card.... undecided, but know what you mean....  I guess I would buy the better card when it comes out and sell the old one on eBay !

I will think on...

[Data]

Here is a chart that might help with the decision,

NOTE:
The HD4890 is almost 10fps faster than the HD5770 in Crysis, in that game 10fps is quite a lot.

And its all down to the 128bit memory bus on the HD5770.


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5770,2446-7.html

[Freddy]

Very interesting, thanks for that.  I had tried to find something like this, but had failed.  Hmm, looks like the HD 4890 is the way to go then.  At least price isn't an issue on this choice.  Still tempted by the low wattage though...hehe  I will see...Many thanks

[Freddy]

I think it’s our second-to-last page that’s the most telling here, though. Stepping from a 2.66 GHz Core i5-750 to the same chip running at 3.8 GHz makes almost no difference to the gamers running at 1920x1200. If it means saving a few bucks on a less expensive CPU so that you can step up to a Radeon HD 5850, that’s the move I’d most likely make.

That comes from the conclusion and I find that interesting.  It also seems that the 5850 can more or less hold it's own against the 5770 crossfired.  I've seen 5850's at dabs for about £220.  If you got two 5770s you'd be looking at around £280.  So you might as well get the single 5850 card.

I am now thinking of getting a cheaper CPU with the 5850.  I was looking at the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 for about £200.00 - might just go for something cheaper as the reviewer suggests.

Or just go mad and get them both !

[Data]

Now your talking Freddy 

The HD5850, is indeed a good card, none of that nasty 128bit bus rubbish. If I had the money I would have got one instead of the HD4890 without a doubt.

I built a PC with a Q9550 CPU last week (for my job not for me). Once I had it running Windows 7 with all drivers in I did a WEI benchmark on it and got a score of 7.3 for the CPU, now remember I get a score of 7.4 out of my Q9400 clocked at 3.4GHz.

I guess what I’m trying to say is if you like tweaking computers, like me, you can save some £’s and get the cheaper CPU clock it up and have a faster PC for less money.

If your not happy overclocking then a  Quad core CPU at  around 3GHz seems to be the way to go, because you really need 3GHz to get the most out of the HD5850 card.

[Freddy]

I think I would be happier come the time if you could give me some guidance on over clocking.  Presumably the Q9550 could be over clocked too ?  That might be a beast !

I think I will at the very least get the Q9400 as it seems a good price option like you say.  I will see what money I am prepared to spend.   Still waiting for RAM to come down and the Q9550 actually went up £15 this past week

BTW, they (Sapphire) don't appear to have the HD 5850 in the Vapor range, hopefully they will release one as I like the sound of the cooling on those.

[Data]

From what I have read on an overclockers forums the maximum speed these Q9’s can hit is about 3.9GHz on air cooling, that’s all the chips, I have said it before but it is widely known that all the Q9’s are actually the same chip, Intel just set the multiplier lower on some and laser off some of the cash on others.

Personally I don’t like pushing the chip that far, but even if I wanted to my motherboard will not go past 3.4GHz and nor would yours Freddy, we have a P43 chip-set mobo and they max out at around 420bus, giving us around 3.4GHz on a Q9400 or 3.6GHz on a Q9550.

The extra cache on the Q9550 is a plus point (more is better) but in games it actually doesn’t seem to make any or very little improvement.

I would gladly help you tweak you new rig Freddy, I’m pretty sure your mobo has the 1600mhz fsb overclock built in, meaning you use a 1600mhz fsb in stead of 1333mhz, that would give you 3.2GHz on a Q9400 or 3.4GHz on a Q9550. You wouldn’t need to get any special heatsink or use insane voltages to do that either. (as long as your case has half decent cooling fans).

One thing that is on my mind is the multiplier used on the Q9550 its a strange one, its 8.5X (8 and a half) now I’m not sure if your motherboard has the ability to have a .5 multiplier, some don’t, it could be that you get the Q9550 but it will run (without any clocking) at 2.66GHz and not 2.8.

I can’t find the post you made about your mobo, could you post again and I will give it a good check out for you.

[Freddy]

It all seems to point to a Q9400 doesn't it - meaning I could get the better graphics card.

I'm not very clued up about how the FSB works - does this have anything to do with the memory speed too ?  I know it's about communication between components but that's about all I know on that one.

Here's the MB :

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/asus_p5qle/7.htm

Yes it does do 1600mHz...

Only one chassis cooling fan in there at the moment, working well though - a lot of room for more if needed.

it could be that you get the Q9550 but it will run (without any clocking) at 2.66GHz and not 2.8.

Not good.. 

So to over clock all I need to do is increase the FSB speed ?  And then say a prayer ?

I really appreciate all your help and advice my friend, you really know your stuff - it's a good job I asked or I would have created a monster.  I better stick to coding !

[Data]

Yes it is a nice board; this guy on you tube likes it and I see it has the FSB 1600 OC sticker on the box, meaning you can get back those MHz Intel didn’t want you to have. hehe



It does do the .5 multiplier so you could get the Q9550 but should you, will you notice it’s faster? hmm I’m not convinced.

The Q9400 and the HD5850, today given the money limitations, does seem wise. Along with 2 x 2gig of 1066mhz RAM when the price is right.

I have found out that this board suffers from not recognising some 1066mhz RAM, that’s not a problem and lots of boards do the same, to get over that you manually set the speed and RAM timings in the BIOS. However that should come later after overclocking, for now we would set the RAM to 800mhz and concentrate on the overclocking. This is how you would do it.


The settings below are for Freddy’s Asus board. And a Q9xxx CPU

Set the PCIe frequency to 100mhz

Set the FSB frequency to 400mhz

Set the DRAM frequency to 800mhz

Leave every thing else on AUTO


Here is a look at the bios:
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/asus_p5qle/4.htm

That should boot up ok at 3.2Ghz on a Q9400. A nice little tweak, and that’s all you have to do on a mobo like this that is a 1600 OC board.

We would then concentrate on getting the memory faster.

If it doesn’t boot for some reason, power off the PC for about 15 seconds then power back on and the BIOS will re-set.

Its normally memory timings that stop it booting, so if it doesn’t like the overclock then a closer look at them would be the next thing to do. 

If I find any more clocking tips for this mobo I will post them. Im sure we have a while before you get your new bits M8.

[Data]

BTW, they (Sapphire) don't appear to have the HD 5850 in the Vapor range, hopefully they will release one as I like the sound of the cooling on those.

Im not sure why but I like the look of the Gigabyte HD 5850   

[Freddy]

Haven't looked at Gigabyte's versions yet.... I'm still stuck on these Vapors.

Good video.  Yes, this board was well researched by me, I knew I wanted something to last a fair while and I'm really pleased I got it.  

Well as for the Q9550 I really don't think it sounds worth it.  I could save myself £50 and spend that on something that would make a difference, ie the graphics card.

As for the memory I have my eye on these when they come down :

http://www.dabs.com/products/kingston-hyperx-4gb--2x2gb--ddr-1066m-n-5GZQ.html

The smaller versions of these are in the Qualified Vendor list for the board, so hopefully they will work fine.

The over clocking seems a lot simpler than I thought it would be.  Now I can't wait to get these parts.  It will be  a few weeks before I do anything about it - I might buy things in stages - maybe the graphics card first, then the memory, then the CPU and then do the over clocking at the end.

Also I will have to plan a new PSU in there too.  I think this one is 550W, which may not be enough.  Like I said elsewhere I have my eye on one to invest in which should last me a few years.

Thanks again  

I like the new avatar by the way     I thought after nearly five years I would change mine the other day too.

[Art]

Datahopa,

Gosh man...I was so used to seeing you as your previous avatar that I thought someone had hijacked it!

Well...welcome anew...whomever you are this time. LOL!! (and what did you do with the real datahopa?

[Data]

Art,

Its ok, its still me, the guy that made a few skins for Hal.

I never really liked the avatar I was using; I borrowed it from the Hal forum but this new one is a closer match to my real appearance

If you like you can call me Ron, a name I use on the web, I’ve never really felt happy using my real name and Ron is not my real name.


Freddy,
That memory is the cheapest 1066mhz RAM that I have seen on dabs (that isn’t the really cheap stuff with high timings), it seemed a bargain so I got some, now I know why its the cheapest, it doesn’t run at 1066MHz on a lot of motherboards, including my one. Actually it doesn’t really bother me to much because I’m an overclocker and when you start clocking up the CPU the memory set at 1066 would go past its maximum speed and might not work anyway.

In my rig its running at 840Mhz and I did manage to set the timings to 4, 4, 4, 12.

I don’t know what you now about RAM timings but  4, 4, 4, 12 is a good and tight timing and im scoring 7.4 in the WEI so over all im not complaining.

One of the reasons people get the 1066MHz stuff is so they can overclock, you set the RAM at 800MHz then start clocking up the FSB, this in turn speeds up the RAM, now if you had 800Mhz stuff it might bottom out but 1066 RAM has a lot of room for tweaking even this Kingston HyperX is good for that.

However there is a strong chance that if you get it and set the RAM in BIOS to 1066MHz your PC will not boot.

One thing to point out would be that there isn’t much improvement in RAM throughput when going from 800 to 1066 but speeding up the FSB does make a huge improvement i.e.


800mhz RAM on an overclocked to 1600mhz FSB is faster than 1066mhz RAM on a 1333mhz FSB.

I know, now you don’t know what to buy, I think that RAM is OK but might need some tweaking to get the most out of it.