It is currently Fri Aug 22, 2014 7:39 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 286 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 68
Location: HOME
ntavlas wrote:
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.



or maybe this card was to good ocr, so they neutered a shiton in order to sell their good ol 4850, oh and that few components comment is pure gold.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: First review of Radeon 4770
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 12:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 3:38 am
Posts: 145
Location: Durham, NC
I've never heard of this website before, but they have posted a 'first' review of a Radeon HD 4770.

http://en.expreview.com/2009/04/24/first-review-of-radeon-hd-4770-99-monster.html

_________________
Antec Solo; AMD Phenom II 955BE; MSI 785GM-E65; 4 Gb DDR3; Antec NeoHE550; Sapphire ATI 4850; WD 1001FALS/Samsung F1 1Tb SATA HDs; Pioneer DVD-106; Plextor 708A DVD+/-RW


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:48 pm
Posts: 113
so again this raises the question whether one should get the geforce 250gts or the hd4770. The performance seems almost equal, they both seem to consume about 80 Watts on load, and both cost around 100$ (the 250 is currently at 110 AR, and will probably drop a bit more during the next couple of weeks).
There seems to be very little difference, except maybe the ATI card sounding 'good' because it's 40 nm, and the nvidia card sounding 'bad' because it is a rebrand.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 177
Location: Germany
Ant6n wrote:
so again this raises the question whether one should get the geforce 250gts or the hd4770. The performance seems almost equal, they both seem to consume about 80 Watts on load, and both cost around 100$ (the 250 is currently at 110 AR, and will probably drop a bit more during the next couple of weeks).
There seems to be very little difference, except maybe the ATI card sounding 'good' because it's 40 nm, and the nvidia card sounding 'bad' because it is a rebrand.


ATI/AMD could need some money, and has historrically been a more open and friendly company than Nvidia. As a consumer, it is a very good idea to keep as many players as possible in the market.

So, if there is no other "decisive factor", I suggest to go with the smaller player (ATI).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 68
Location: HOME
Ant6n wrote:
so again this raises the question whether one should get the geforce 250gts or the hd4770. The performance seems almost equal, they both seem to consume about 80 Watts on load, and both cost around 100$ (the 250 is currently at 110 AR, and will probably drop a bit more during the next couple of weeks).
There seems to be very little difference, except maybe the ATI card sounding 'good' because it's 40 nm, and the nvidia card sounding 'bad' because it is a rebrand.


na, 55nm, 40nm? it really makes no difference, lower production cost? Who gives a shit ATI? Give me lower idle power consumption or GTFO, go with the 250gts, that's what im going to do. at the end of the day they are BOTH OLD TECH, guess whats going to happen when dx11 / shader model 5 arrives? > hey sorry pal, buy a new videocard, ok sir.
( i know i wont be buying a shit " next next gen console")

btw ati drivers suck big time. ( ms framework? + 47 services? FU CCC)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:21 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Posts: 1439
Location: New Hampshire, US
silo wrote:
btw ati drivers suck big time. ( ms framework? + 47 services? FU CCC)


Sorry to hear that, I've never had a problem with them outside of BF2, and I don't even remove them when upgrading, I just let the new driver package do it's thing. I would like to know why it's so hard for them to match the idle power of the 3870/3850..

_________________
F@H
Oldest Setup
Old
i5-750 | TR AXP-140 | DFI MI P55-T36 | Lan-Gear mITX | HD5850 | Silverstone ST45SF


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:12 am
Posts: 6
Location: Planet Earth
Idle power is worst compared to the 4850, the memory is not underclocking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Posts: 3141
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
pedrofdmp wrote:
Idle power is worst compared to the 4850, the memory is not underclocking.
which is due GDDR5. If you start underclocking GDDR5, system becomes instable. However underclocking memory saves you only few meager watts. You get much more effective power saving by dropping the voltages...

_________________
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 8:12 am
Posts: 6
Location: Planet Earth
thejamppa wrote:
pedrofdmp wrote:
Idle power is worst compared to the 4850, the memory is not underclocking.
which is due GDDR5. If you start underclocking GDDR5, system becomes instable. However underclocking memory saves you only few meager watts. You get much more effective power saving by dropping the voltages...


Hope this gets better with the retail cards, i've been waiting to buy a 4770 since i sold my 3650 (have a x700 i borrowed form a friend right now). Now i'm thinking of getting a powercolor pcs 4670 for 50€ second hand and wait till the next generation for better cards :(


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:48 pm
Posts: 113
so xbitlabs reviewed the product, and it's much more favorable here. The performance comparison to the gts250 is marginal, and the idle power seems much lower than the hd4850. Max power is apparently only 50 Watts, although they tested it on an old cpu, with some probably no t very demanding benchmark. Article:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/disp ... 770_2.html

Image

Image

The crazy thing is that with a max ~110 Watt power requirement, one could almost run these things in crossfire :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:17 am
Posts: 780
Location: Croatia
They got a reference card. That probably changes things a bit :(

Interesting card. Might be an awesome upgrade over the 4670, depending on how well it can be cooled passively. S1/S2 probably won't fit, the HR-03 might, but it's unlikely that you can use RAM heatsinks on it (are they even needed on GDDR-5?)...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 3:26 pm
Posts: 11828
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
SPCR's own review ATI Radeon HD 4770: ATI's First 40nm GPU[/color]

_________________
Mike Chin,
Editor/Publisher, SPCR
Support SPCR with your donations!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 68
Location: HOME
xbitlabs@BS.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:09 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:53 am
Posts: 1510
Location: Sweden
17.4W idle is still far too much. I'm very disappointed with ATi, why will they not take idle power consumption seriously? I mean in this day of all sorts of "green" products.. After the 4670 I thought we were on the right track.

_________________
Main: ASRock B85M-ITX | i3-4330 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 730 240GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 13.9W AC
HTPC: ASRock H81M-ITX | Pentium G3420 | 4GB DDR3 | X25-M G2 80GB | HDPLEX H1-S | picoPSU | No moving parts | Idle 11.2W AC
Gaming: Intel DH77EB | i5-3570K | GTX 760 | 16GB DDR3 | Intel 520 120GB | TJ08-E | G-360 360W
Server: Intel DH77DF | i3-2100T | 4TB+3x3TB | picoPSU | Idle 24W AC


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 141
Location: Brazil
On the Newegg have only HD 4770 with differenciated cooler in relation to the reference stock cooler. :(

Link.

Will be that this cooler (alternative) is as or more quiet as the reference stock cooler?

(My english is a shit :oops:)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:17 am
Posts: 780
Location: Croatia
You will never, ever be able to buy cards that have the cooler like on the cards given to reviewers (SPCR included).

The PCB also differs. Retail cards have missing elements.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:21 pm
Posts: 141
Location: Brazil
I agree, but the reviewers cards typically use a cooler similar to those used in retail cards. This time, the first retail cards of the brands is very different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:49 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 68
Location: HOME
WOW NICE CARD AND COOLER > goes to newegg and stares in disbelieve .... so 4770 flopped. NEXT!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:56 am
Posts: 41
Location: Finland
silo wrote:
WOW NICE CARD AND COOLER > goes to newegg and stares in disbelieve .... so 4770 flopped. NEXT!


Could you tone it down a bit? We all get your message... Non reference models are coming in a couple of weeks. The low max consumption would make this card ideal for passive cooling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:46 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:16 am
Posts: 49
Location: Australia
I suspect that what the reviewers are getting are not exactly the same, either a slightly different design or BIOS, or there is an inconsistency with Powerplay in the supplied drivers. It is an absolute requirement that a copy of the BIOS be kept and compared to any further sample that SPCR receives, and not just an RBE comparison but at the byte level.

I'm sure that everybody that bought a HD4670 based on the power figures that SPCR reported are still feeling a little less trust for SPCR and ATI because of the 3W idle that no card on the market has ever been able to achieve.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:56 am
Posts: 41
Location: Finland
pcgameshardwarecom wrote:
Only in idle mode the power consumption seems to be a little high. Other Radeon cards show how to do it right. Apparently the reason for this result is still the high frequency of the GDDR5 video memory - since the clock speed is not reduced if the card is running in idle mode but stays at 800 MHz. So the chip internal buffers have to run with four times the frequency. If the clock speed is manually set to 450 MHz the power consumption is reduced to slightly above 20 watt.


So with few tweaks the idle consumption should be acceptable, assuming that underclocking GDDR5 won't make the card unstable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Posts: 3009
Location: Sweden
Great review!
There was only one thing missing, but I didn't really expect it would be included in there...

A quote from Xtremesystems forums:
SKYMTL wrote:
Lightman wrote:
From my personal tests with HD4870 I've concluded that Clock Gating is working as advertised.The problem lies in lack of ability to downclock GDDR5 memory on the fly.

I've did simple test back when the cards arrived. Using my Kill-A-Watt I've first measured idle power consumption of my system with card clocked in CCC 500/900 then I manually reduced core clock to 160MHz leaving memory at 900MHz. This saved me 1W off total system power consumption. On the other hand downclocking memory from 900MHz to 465MHz saved me 40W!

I think the problem with GDDR5 lies in it's specifics like clock retraining for different freq. and only newer memory controller will hopefully fix that. For now every time I'm changing memory clock on my cards screen flickers for a fraction of a second (probably retraining memory clocks during that time).

Yes and no. The issue is that the Clock Gating was supposed to work for both the memory AND the GPU core. To be honest with you though, I have tried the same test with a clamp meter and a HD 4870 1GB plugged into a PCI-E daughter board and reducing the core clock with the 9.3 drivers (at the time) to 200Mhz reduced the power consumption by a good 25W at idle if I remember correctly.

I think these variances in readings are largely based on the movement from one driver to the next. It almost seems like ATI is still fiddling with the settings every now and then.

I'm really curious if something can be done with the high GDDR5 clock speed and idle power usage. Any chance we'll see an update in the review? Maybe it's not even possible to make the card lower the memory speed automatically.

Techpowerup have a comment about the different coolers:
Quote:
The cooler uses two slots and does look quite different to the one we have seen on the various leaks. Where the heatsink on the leaks looked very weak, this cooler looks like a very capable solution that can properly cool the whole card. We asked AMD to clarify why there was a discrepancy between our cooler and the one we saw on the leaked images and it seems that AIBs were given a choice which cooler to use. All AIBs went for the cheaper one, so initially there will be no HD 4770s on store shelves that use the same cooler as our review sample.

Here are more review links.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:23 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:06 pm
Posts: 1439
Location: New Hampshire, US
skimmed through a few reviews, bit-tech also seems to have a lower idle power card, at least with respect to their 4830 sample,
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2009/04/28/amd-ati-radeon-hd-4770-512mb/13
idle
4770 system 170W
4830 system 180W


....Most reviews seem in-line with SPCR though, one had the 4770 idle drawing more than a 4850. Damn, I really wanted to upgrade too...

_________________
F@H
Oldest Setup
Old
i5-750 | TR AXP-140 | DFI MI P55-T36 | Lan-Gear mITX | HD5850 | Silverstone ST45SF


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 4:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Posts: 3009
Location: Sweden
The budget cooler isn't new, look here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Posts: 3009
Location: Sweden
Madshrimps brings one of the most interesting posts, as usual.

I wonder when the 4750 will show up.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:07 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:36 am
Posts: 4522
Location: Monterey Bay, CA
Thanks for the review, Lawrence!

_________________
1080p Gaming build: i5-4670K, Mugen 4, MSI Z87-G45, MSI GTX 760 2GB Gaming, 8GB 1866 RAM, Samsung Evo 250GB, WD Red 2TB, Samsung DVD burner, Fractal Define R4, Antec True Quiet 140 (2 front + rear) case fans, Seasonic X-560. 35-40W idle, 45-55W video streaming, 170-200W WoW, 200-230W Rift, 318W stress test (Prime95 + Furmark)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
Still not as good price/performance as my $50 96-shader 9600GSO, but it should be a great deal when it gets cheaper.

Mats wrote:
It's still 58% faster than the 9600GSO, and the prices on launch day doesn't really say much, they never have done and never will.

Sorry, no, it isn't. My GSO is faster than a 9600 GT. Those are probably the wimpy 48-shader GSOs in those reviews. So <25% extra performance for twice as much money = not impressive.


Last edited by QuietOC on Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 6:54 am
Posts: 3009
Location: Sweden
It's still 58% faster than the 9600GSO, and the prices on launch day doesn't really say much, they never have done and never will. $89 is the lowest I've seen, (with MIR :P).

(Yeah I know how bad a MIR can be.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:56 am
Posts: 41
Location: Finland
PCStats review shows that ASUS 4770 has 7W lower idle consumption than MSI 4830 OC:

www pcstats com articleview.cfm?articleid=2392&page=2

Wasn't the MSI card one of the most efficient 4830 models?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:37 am
Posts: 871
Location: North Carolina
QuietOC wrote:
Still not as good price/performance as my $50 96-shader 9600GSO, but it should be a great deal when it gets cheaper.

Or maybe it already is?

SPCR 4770 Article wrote:
a reduction in fan speed would probably have little impact on maximum load temperature.

Does current software allow the fan to be turned down? If so, was the card tested with slower rpms? How much quieter is it when the fan is slowed down and how does this affect the temperatures?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 286 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group