SPCR

Elvellon: I think you're right. Nvidia's coolers have usually been better in many models, I hope ATI tries to change that.

damn. This looks like the next 6600GT

gddr5 on a 99 dollar card

ATI's Radeon HD 4770 slides leaked

http://www.tomshardware.com/gallery/200 ... -jpg-.html

80W and a power connector...

Bleh.

Leaked HIS photos:

Any word on a 4750 or similar? Like Matija put it "80W and a power connector... Bleh." I would like 4670 performance or perhaps a little better with stock passive cooling and below 5W idle. Don't think 4770 is for me.

that's a nice looking card.

yeah 512 megs gddr5... 80 watts max draw.... I bet it draws less.

I hope MSI does one of their multi-phase cards and brings that to like 60's max watts.

(they lowered reference a lot with their 4830 OC model that way)

I'd also back up Vicotnik and Matija. It now looks to wait for 4750 and hope ATI gets it right this time - with fully functional Power play states and better PCB layout, that is able to reduce voltage in idle.

80W max seems pretty low compared to the fast cards.
To me it's the idle draw that defines thermal and power performance. It doesn't really matter if it draws 50 or 250W on full pull, as long as it's less than 10W on idle.

Cheers
Olle

Vicotnik wrote:Any word on a 4750 or similar? Like Matija put it "80W and a power connector... Bleh." I would like 4670 performance or perhaps a little better with stock passive cooling and below 5W idle. Don't think 4770 is for me.

I've heard that although the 4750 will draw under 75W load, it will still have the extra power connector just to be safe. It will be right at the limit of what the slot can provide, and you never know with some flaky mobos out there. So six-pin power connector it is.

A thought just crossed my mind:

The GPU is to the left of the PCB. It's not in the middle or to the right.

Will 3rd-party passive coolers even fit on that thing?

Matija wrote:A thought just crossed my mind:

The GPU is to the left of the PCB. It's not in the middle or to the right.

Will 3rd-party passive coolers even fit on that thing?

The HIS cooler is to the left, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. None of those ATI slides shows the back of the card.

Edit: you may be right, though. There is a RAM chip visible in one of those pictures, above the PCIe connector.

The Accelero S2 is designed for smaller cards. Perhaps it would fit?

Here's a couple of images from Guru3D.

4750 preview:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd ... view-test/

Cooler and back of the PCB:
http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=16634
http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=16635

It definitely doesn't look too promising

It seems to be like 10 mm closer to the back compared to the 4850.

Nope, it's more... I scaled the 4850 pic to roughly fit over the 47x0 one in an image editor. Taking into account the hole spacing on the 47x0 (43mm, as it was on the 46x0 cards), I estimate the horizontal offset of the GPU between the two cards to be about 16-17mm. Hard to tell.

Edit: I've tried aligning the pictures as best as I could and using a measuring tool. The horizontal offset between the two mounting holes is about 120 pixels. The offset between the centres of the GPUs is about 43 pixels.

43mm / (120px/43px) = 15.4mm

So it's most likely between 15 and 16mm.

Anyone with a S1/S2/something else on a 4850 card to say if 15-16mm could cause issues, such as the cooler bumping into the back of the case?

Well the Accelero S1 probably won't fit. I think it will overhang the port end of the card.

Maybe they did it on purpose...?

My S1 on 4850 (HIS, pretty much reference design) has only about 8 mm to the bracket.
So the S1 will definitely not fit by about 7 mm on the 4770.

Matija wrote:Here's a couple of images from Guru3D.

4750 preview:
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd ... view-test/

Cooler and back of the PCB:
http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=16634
http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=16635

It definitely doesn't look too promising

that's not the card we are referring to. it isnt a bad card though and should be like 70 dollars

Wait a sec. thats the new name I guess? Hm. there was reportedly a 4750 and a 4770 card. the 4770 was supposed to be 99 dollars. and the 50 less. I guess not then. Looking forward to an OC version of this card to inch out the 4850.

No, that's the card.

hm. ok. new name or just corrected then.

so hard to find water blocks for such a card. hm.

I want to run 2 in crossfire. I think that would pound meat.

The problem with the Guru3D review is that they just picked a name for it, since it didn't have one:

Let's meet the RV740, and though we don't know it's real name just yet, allow us to call this product the Radeon HD 4750 for the ease of understanding, product placement and well... the sake of the most logical name for this product, mmhh okay?

They call it 4750, but in fact it's a 4770 since it got GDDR5.

Well, the freakin box says 4770, so the gddr5 version is 4770

yeah.

Until these 2 reviews came out and started calling things 4750.... gddr5 has been 4770, gddr3 or ddr3 or some sort of "3" is 4750 from what I have read.

ati sucks... consumes more power than a 4850 at idle

http://en.expreview.com/2009/04/24/firs ... ter.html/9

no powerplay? i guess ill just buy a crapy GTS 250

more lulz, shameless ati bastards


for the reviewers




for the consumer (note half the caps -9-missing- mosfets gone, no heatsinks on ram, no metal bar, + shit cooler)




and no "promo" heatpipe cooler


http://www.imgx.org/view/full/35853_adw26
http://www.imgx.org/view/full/35857_uuflc

Laughing ati sucks... consumes more power than a 4850 at idle

http://en.expreview.com/2009/04/24/firs ... ter.html/9

It would be very disappointing if retail products consume that much when idle. I`ve been almost holding my breath on this card and when the 4670 is on sale for 53 euros at a local store it makes for some pretty tough decisions.

The cooler was too good to be true anyway, using a dual heatpipe model on a card that uses less power than the heatpipeless 4850.

silo, darling, not everyone uses 2560x1600 monitors.

Well this is the same problem again--just because the device could be capable of low power consumption, the manufacturers can get away with lower costs by removing *optional* power regulation circuitry in exchange for higher power draw on our end.

This is not nessesarily the case, the pre release card looks a little overengineered to me.
While power consumption at load might increase, when idle it could be the other way round. At those power levels the fewer components could be more efficient.
The power usage at load seems in line with expectations anyway. I hope the high idle power draw is because of overestimated voltages even though my instict tells me otherwise.