5770, 5750 pricing disappointment

D

davethejackal

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
87
I dunno but UK pricing seems disappointing. The cheapest I've seen is £122.22 at ebuyer, which makes it just over the cheapest price of a 4870 1Gb I found.

Looking at the 5850, which you can get for £185 ish, with Dirt2, valued at about £20 (if you shop around).

As far as I'm aware the 5770 doesn't come with dirt2, making the difference in price less that £43.

All I can hope is that ATI is deliberately pricing these cards high whilst production ramps up, giving retailers a chance to clear stocks of the 4 series.

Though may be counting on games using directx tessellation, which should decrease the amount of polygons required for complex scenes, thus making the missing bandwidth a moot point, making them a more attractive proposition in the future.

I have neither the desk space nor the budget for Eyefinity, and the 5770 doesn't appear to have the power, so that's not going to swing me either way.

I was planning on an upgrade soon but the reviews have sent me in to analysis paralysis, I don't want to buy a 4870 1gb, because of directx 11 and right now the 5770s are just too expensive.

A 5770 priced at £100 might have had my money, but £122.22 ,,, that last £22 is the straw that broke the camel's back ;)

Maybe I'll go for an Asus 1Gb 4850, only 2/3 the price of the 5770 at £80-£90 inc del. and somewhat conspicuously missing from review benchmarks.

http://www.lambda-tek.com/componentshop/index.pl?origin=gbase14.4&prodID=1817726
 
Last edited:
Most of the 5770s come with dirt coupon to my knowledge ,powercolor has some other game or hdmi cable for bundle (maybe some other brands )check before buying for dirt.
190-195$ for 5770 dont complain , what about 254$+ vat now we can talk about overpriced crap (preorder now in my country )
 
Ah ok, well the dirt coupon is a consolation ;) It's generally not worth importing stuff to the UK/EU from overseas due to import duties, tax and postal charges. The eBuyer cards are in stock as far as I know, no need to preorder.

According to xe.com the MSRP of $159 ex VAT for the 5770 should make it about £115 inc VAT in the UK, as it is we have it at £122.22 at discounted prices. It's still a rip off.
 
Last edited:
It looks like outside of the HD 5770 being close but not up to an HD 4870 while consiming less power, the mid range HD 5xxx = fail. Unless you want 3 monitors for non gaming use then by all means grab the HD 5750.

If the HD 5750 didn't need a 6-pin Pci-E connector that woulda been an awesome win for HTPC people and woulda been perfect for my Shuttle SN25P, but it does so its not :(

I guess I'll wait and see if they release an HD 5650 :-/
 
and look at the price gouge for the XFX versions. $15 more for 5770 compred to competitors and $10 more for the 5750. Is a double lifetime warranty worth that much?
 
Sojuuk said:
and look at the price gouge for the XFX versions. $15 more for 5770 compred to competitors and $10 more for the 5750. Is a double lifetime warranty worth that much?
Click to expand...


Greed.
 
Meh in the UK there's something like a £2 price difference ($4). Lifetime warranties are good though, even if you hopefully never have to use them.
 
Hard and Confused said:
Yes and the proof is over on the FS/FT forum as XFX cards sell easier seeing as one of the first responses to the sale of a new item is "Is it warranteed?"
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound bad at all. However seems like the buyer is paying extra for the warranty. Still I understand the logic.

That double life warranty is only good in the USA and Canada.

*Double Lifetime Protection only available in North America (United States and Canada). Applies to select graphics cards products only. Restrictions and qualifications may vary based on state or region. See XFX Support section for more details on the Limited Warranty for XFX-branded products in North America. Warranty terms for other regions
Click to expand...

Doesn't do much for UK pricing.
 
SonDa5... good point.

I guess Sapphire's warranty doesn't count/too hard to actually use?
 
More thoughts (sort of posted elsewhere):

The worrying thing performance wise is that the 5770 benchmarks seem to fall far short of the 4870 and 4890 where there are complex scenes and lots of edges to AA (i.e. high bandwidth is required). Surely this is the way games are going?

Look at the minimum frame rates from the 5770, often lower than the 4870 on high settings, which means that though averages are comparable, when things get busy, when you most need steady frame rates, the 5770 can't keep up. Esp. with AA enabled. In game often gets more hectic than the benchmarks, which doesn't look good at all.

Why put more expensive, faster DDR5 memory than the 4870 has, on to a card, then hobble it like this?

I can't help but feel disappointed about the 57xx series, at a different price point it might have made sense, but not this.

It is early days, and I'd be interested to see how driver revisions work out, but for now, I'm not impressed.

Dear AMD Santa, a $159-$169 (£110-£115 inc VAT, £100 ex VAT) 5790 with 192 or 256 bit memory bus would be nice for xmas/the new year.
 
Last edited:
This thread is about as fail as people crying about $3 iphone apps.

If you actually look at and read Brent's review you will see he found the 5770 is able match the real world game play experience of the 4870 1gig card in most games. He also talks about how the direction games of the future are going is only going improve upon that position.

I also, given past history don't know why you all seem to forget about driver improvements. I think we have seen all the power there is to be squeezed out of the 4k line done so already, it's a very mature product. While the 5k line will only mature and improve upon the already great performance they exhibit at this price point.

So since the conclusions drawn thus far in this thread do not at all match what Brent had to say about the 5700 cards. I have to wonder, if you all know so much more about this then Brent and ATI. Why on earth are you hear at [H] discussing it and not off working for ATI or Nvidia to insure we get a product that is what you all think we really should be seeing? Or at least off running a hardware review site of your own to show Kyle and crew where they are going wrong?
 
btw I'm not suggesting that AMD aren't pricing the card right for the value of the components, faster memory than the 4870, more capable GPU, fancy cooler etc, it's just that performance wise, it's a worse deal.

The 128 bit bus was a design mistake. As I've already said, if/when directx 11 games are available that make use of features that mean less off-chip memory access is needed (using tessellation to produce large polygon counts, for example, rather than overly detailed wireframe models) the card might perform better, but who knows?

I'm AMD bashing here, I have an 'all AMD' system (AMD P2 720BE, AMD 790X mobo, 4670), and my previous 3 PCs have been the same barring their nVidia chipsets. I'm just feeling short changed by this latest offering.
 
Last edited:
davethejackal said:
Why put more expensive, faster DDR5 memory than the 4870 has, on to a card, then hobble it like this?
Click to expand...

Price. Also, because AMD did something stupid, and jumped the gun. Allow me to explain:

Al the big GDDR5 houses are still making 1Gbit ram modules. This means to make a 1GB card, you need 8 modules. Since each module is 32-bits wide, this works great for cards with 256-bit busses (32 x 8 = 256).

A 128-bit bus can potentially cut the costs of building your card, not only because the PCB is simpler, but because you can also use less memory chips. The minimum number of chips required for a 128-bit bus is 4 (32 x 4 = 128).

ATI designed these 128-bit memory bus cards with the idea of populating them with only 4 memory modules totaling 1GB, thus reducing costs. But they jumped the gun because 2Gbit GDDR5 modules won't be available for 6 months. So for now, the 57xx are using 8 chips just like their big brothers, and AMD isn't saving a dime.

So yeah, you're right, slower GDDR5 and a 256-bit bus would have been a better investment. ATI could have released the 128-bit card refresh using 4 chips six months from now, and people would have been happier.

I can't help but feel disappointed about the 57xx series, at a different price point it might have made sense, but not this..
Click to expand...

Yeah, AMD's last 128-bit powerhouse was the 4670, and it amazed people at $80.

Let me repeat that: at $80. And yeah, it was memory-limited at high resolutions and AA levels, but nobody cared because it cost EIGHTY BUCKS, and beat the hell out of every other card in the price range.

This creeping-in of the 128-bit bus into the $150 territory is mind boggling. The 5770 has 2.83 times the raw performance capacity of the 4670, but only 2.4 times the memory bandwidth. FURTHER: if you do the math, the REAL performance increase of the 5770 versus the 4670, you'll find that it matches the 2.4x memory bandwidth increase almost exactly.

So, as then 4670 was already painfully memory-limited at higher resolutions, it's no surprise that the 5770 is also.
 
Last edited:
@TGA: I certainly mentioned the possibility of driver improvements, but are you saying the 5850 has more mature drivers than the 57xx? Price/performance wise it seems much better value.

I also really don't go for the argument from authority, 'Brent knows best so don't argue' or whatever.

If he wants to revise the figures or provide new data, fair enough, or explain more why it's just as good even though the AA/high res figures seem worse. rather than say, placing them in less obvious, low profile sections at the bottom of each page, drawing the eyes towards the more prominent sections non-AA figures that show parity between the 5770 and 4870, no problem. Meh I don't want to get involved in a flame war and *no doubt* it wasn't deliberate, I'm just saying.

As for 'AMD knows best', wouldn't any games manufacturer assure you they made the right choice whatever the actualité?

EDI|T: you read the review differently to me, to me the writer (Brent or whomevr) make clear their reservations about the 128bit bus, whilst remaining respectful and diplomatic to his obviously close contacts at AMD.

@defaultluser: yeah, as I've just edited in to my earlier post, I have a 4670, great card for the money, I was hoping to upgrade to a 22" widescreen monitor (I currently have a 19" 5:4) and this new card at the same time. Interesting to know about the memory issues. Some sort of future price drop seems possible then?
 
Last edited:
If you plan to keep your video card for a few years, the full DX11 compatibility and eyefinity support may make it worthwhile to wait a few weeks until the early adopter tax is paid and get the newer cards over a 4870. If you only plan to keep the card for a year or less, it probably won't matter much one way or the other.
 
davethejackal said:
The 128 bit bus was a design mistake. As I've already said, if/when directx 11 games are available that make use of features that mean less off-chip memory access is needed (using tessellation to produce large polygon counts, for example, rather than overly detailed wireframe models) the card might perform better, but who knows?
Click to expand...

People said that about DirectX 10, with shader use supposedly making memory bandwidth less important, and although shader use went up, the sheer number of textures and quality also increased.

Remember how poorly the 8600/2600 series did in DX10 tests? People were calling them "DX10 in-name-only" cards.

Textures are here to stay, because it's the easiest way to create a baseline layer for a complex rendered scene, and unfortunately, textures are the #2 use of bandwidth (behind the framebuffer). That's why ATI finally got back in gear and bumped the TMUs from 16 to 40 with the 4850/4870, and doubled that with the 5870.

You can cut bandwidth needs for geometry a bit with tessellation, but it won't be on the same order as the already gargantuan requirements for textures and framebuffer.
 
Last edited:
defaultluser said:
People said that about DirectX 10, with shader use supposedly making memory bandwidth less important, and although shader use went up, the sheer number of textures and quality also increased.

Remember how poorly the 8600/2600 series did in DX10 tests? People were calling them "DX10 in-name-only" cards.

Textures are here to stay, because it's the easiest way to create a baseline layer for a complex rendered scene, and unfortunately, textures are the #2 use of bandwidth (behind the framebuffer). That's why ATI finally got back in gear and bumped the TMUs from 16 to 40 with the 4850/4870, and doubled that with the 5870.

You can cut bandwidth needs for geometry a bit with tessellation, but it won't be on the same order as the already gargantuan requirements for textures and framebuffer.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I will wait for that £120 192 bit (6 chip/1.5Gb?) 5790 or a £90 5770... you're putting me off this card more and more ;) Though by then I'll no doubt have enough for a 5850!
 
davethejackal said:
btw I'm not suggesting that AMD aren't pricing the card right for the value of the components, faster memory than the 4870, more capable GPU, fancy cooler etc, it's just that performance wise, it's a worse deal.

The 128 bit bus was a design mistake. As I've already said, if/when directx 11 games are available that make use of features that mean less off-chip memory access is needed (using tessellation to produce large polygon counts, for example, rather than overly detailed wireframe models) the card might perform better, but who knows?

btw I'm not bashing them for no reason here, I have an 'all AMD' system, and my previous 3 PCs have been the same barring their nVidia chipsets. I'm just feeling short changed by this latest offering.
Click to expand...

I was typing out a nice long a detailed reply but my phone rang and I manged to delete everything I had typed...

Anyway the bottom line is this, if the 5770 can't do what you want it to because of it's 128bit memory bus that you are not really in it's intended market. A winder bus would go against everything ATI is trying to do. It would increase cost and power usage. It would also go against the "Sweet Spot" strategy they are using to design the cards and in my opinion hit the nail right on the head. No one aspect of the card is going to be grossly out proportioned from the others just to ensure it isn't a limiting factor in a few games.

And as you guys noted you have choices if you want to be a cheapskate hard core gamer. You either buy the 5770 that wasn't really intended to meet your need since your not a mainstream computer user and benefit from the performance improvements improved drivers will bring. Or you buy mature last gen hardware and deal with it knowing it's performance is what it is and that it wont support DX11.

The 5700 series is designed for the masses and not the hard core. The bulk of these people are lucky if they have a 1680x1050 or 1920x1080 LCD. And the card is designed very well for gaming on those screens.

Just because it can almost reach to where you want it to and you think the only thing holding it back is the 128bit memory bus hardly means ATI dropped the ball and has everything to do with you being to damn cheap to buy the card designed for your market or too impatient to wait for it to come down in price.

A winder memory bus would have negative impact on the power usage and cost of the cards and frankly isn't needed by anyone in it's intended market.
 
@TGA: I find defaultUsers explanation that this will eventually be a cheaper, 4 chip, solution, more convincing. I'm not sure a wider bus would have had THAT much of an impact on power usage, these aren't going in laptops. Wouldn't lower clocked memory chips on a wider bus save even more power? Wouldn't 256bits and 2/3 the memory clock speed/performance/power consumption have been a better option?
 
Last edited:
not getting to a work or crying to your mama for a £22 instead of wasting time and space here posting pointless posts is always beyond my understanding
 
@bangmal: why you have to waste time commenting on other people's discussion of new graphics cards that you consider a waste of time rather than 'getting to work' or 'crying your mamma' is beyond my understanding. Heck what about these reviewers that spend their days comparing every last details of cards, they should be burned at the stake!
 
TGA said:
A winder memory bus would have negative impact on the power usage and cost of the cards and frankly isn't needed by anyone in it's intended market.
Click to expand...

Not true. At least, not in the sense that you would care. The difference is a couple watts, at the most, under load.

Since the number of memory chips is still 8 whether you go with 128-bit or 256-bit, the power consumption required for leakage and refresh is the same.

Since the amount of data in-memory is technically the same, the I/O power will be exactly the same for a 128-bit bus versus 256-bit bus, if neither bus is bandwidth-limited.

And if the 128-bit bus is bandwidth-limited? Well, power consumption will go down by the percentage of the performance degredation - in this case, about %15 (4890 down to less than 4870).

So that gives you a tiny decrease in I/O power, leaving you just the on-chip memory controller, which uses a helluva lot less power than I/O current.

So, in summary: 2-3 watts, worst case

But if you want to talk about "wasted" power consumption, let's talk about it. The 850 MHz core clock of the 5770 is wasteful because the card cannot outperform a 750 MHz 4870. Now THAT is wasting power. The functional units will continue to clock whether or not they are stalled waiting for memory, so the memory starvation means that last 100 MHz of core clock is going up in smoke.

That's probably burning about 4-6w extra at full load. And really, the clock is only that high to give it impressive specs, so they can put a bigger number on the box (and in the power point slides / reviews).
 
i think the crying is a little over the top. when the 8600gts came out it was 250 bucks and had the performance of around a 150 dollar 7900gs. Its just the way graphics cards go. I dont see how a 160 dollar mid range card is a bad thing .
 
tvdang7 said:
i think the crying is a little over the top. when the 8600gts came out it was 250 bucks and had the performance of around a 150 dollar 7900gs. Its just the way graphics cards go. I dont see how a 160 dollar mid range card is a bad thing .
Click to expand...

It's not a bad thing, it's just not as good as it might have been.
 
davethejackal said:
@TGA: I certainly mentioned the possibility of driver improvements, but are you saying the 5850 has more mature drivers than the 57xx? Price/performance wise it seems much better value.

I also really don't go for the argument from authority, 'Brent knows best so don't argue' or whatever.

If he wants to revise the figures or provide new data, fair enough, or explain more why it's just as good even though the AA/high res figures seem worse. rather than say, placing them in less obvious, low profile sections at the bottom of each page, drawing the eyes towards the more prominent sections non-AA figures that show parity between the 5770 and 4870, no problem. Meh I don't want to get involved in a flame war and *no doubt* it wasn't deliberate, I'm just saying.

As for 'AMD knows best', wouldn't any games manufacturer assure you they made the right choice whatever the actualité?

EDI|T: you read the review differently to me, to me the writer (Brent or whomevr) make clear their reservations about the 128bit bus, whilst remaining respectful and diplomatic to his obviously close contacts at AMD.

@defaultluser: yeah, as I've just edited in to my earlier post, I have a 4670, great card for the money, I was hoping to upgrade to a 22" widescreen monitor (I currently have a 19" 5:4) and this new card at the same time. Interesting to know about the memory issues. Some sort of future price drop seems possible then?
Click to expand...

No I am not trying to suggest one 5k card has better driver support then another. And what a shock someone clearly looking for a card with hard core and not mainstream performance actually finds the none mainstream card a better value.

And yeah your right I sure did read the review in a different light then you did.

Those charts at the top show max real world game play setting for the cards tested. And it is in my opinion the only way to properly compare multiple cards to one another.

The apples to apple graph at the bottom is cool, but docent really tell me anything I find all that useful.

I also read it knowing Brent is going to speak from his mind. Kyle and crew aren't exactly known for kissing the asses of hardware manufactures.

And it always seems to work out quite well for me with my builds.
 
@TGA: Dude, chill, I think we have good points, I'm an AMD fanboy and I think HardOCP is a great site, I just think they've made a mistake or two with the 5770, especially at it's current price points. The fact it's outperformed by current, cheaper hardware, is astounding. As you admit, the 5850/70 don't have the same problems, they're amazingly good and outperform existing hardware with better quality filtering etc, so pretending drivers are the issue doesn't work for me.

If the 'target market' if the 5770 is 'mainstream' why is it priced at the same level as the faster (with AA & filtering switched on) 4870 and not at 4770/4850 price levels? Why wasn't a card that would have cost very little more produced, with possibly even lower power consumption, better performance and an equal chip count, pushed out? That's all we're saying.
 
defaultluser said:
Not true. At least, not in the sense that you would care. The difference is a couple watts, at the most, under load.

Since the number of memory chips is still 8 whether you go with 128-bit or 256-bit, the power consumption required for leakage and refresh is the same.

Since the amount of data in-memory is technically the same, the I/O power will be exactly the same for a 128-bit bus versus 256-bit bus, if neither bus is bandwidth-limited.

And if the 128-bit bus is bandwidth-limited? Well, power consumption will go down by the percentage of the performance degredation - in this case, about %15 (4890 down to less than 4870).

So that gives you a tiny decrease in I/O power, leaving you just the on-chip memory controller, which uses a helluva lot less power than I/O current.

So, in summary: 2-3 watts, worst case

But if you want to talk about "wasted" power consumption, let's talk about it. The 850 MHz core clock of the 5770 is wasteful because the card cannot outperform a 750 MHz 4870. Now THAT is wasting power. The functional units will continue to clock whether or not they are stalled waiting for memory, so the memory starvation means that last 100 MHz of core clock is going up in smoke.

That's probably burning about 4-6w extra at full load. And really, the clock is only that high to give it impressive specs, so they can put a bigger number on the box (and in the power point slides / reviews).
Click to expand...

Right, you do a rather good job at coming off like you really know what you talking about. Hell you clearly do know more about some aspects then I do.

However I fail to see from a business standpoint how designing a core that has more cost and more power usage regardless of how small. Is a good move, compared to designing it in a way that looks towards the future a bit.

In case I haven't been clear, my opinion is that ATI hit it's target market perfectly with these cards.

But anyway back to what I was saying about how you come off as actually knowing a little bit about something.

Well you lost all that with this right here

defaultluser said:
But if you want to talk about "wasted" power consumption, let's talk about it. The 850 MHz core clock of the 5770 is wasteful because the card cannot outperform a 750 MHz 4870. Now THAT is wasting power. The functional units will continue to clock whether or not they are stalled waiting for memory, so the memory starvation means that last 100 MHz of core clock is going up in smoke.
Click to expand...

I don't even know how to respond to that other then to just laugh my ass off. And for that I thank you cause I really needed it right now.

Edit:
@davethejackal, relax man I am not getting worked up over this crap. And sorry but it's because the 4870 and 4890 have been out for how long now? They are last gens top end and no longer commanding a premium.

And I think that space we have between the 5770 and the 5850 will be filled in time. Got to do something with the 5800 chips that don't make the cut. Binned chips cut down to something named 5830 perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Wow theres a lot of writing sorry if I missed it, but it seems like many people are forgetting this is starting MSRP prices for the 57** cards. Wasn't the starting price only a year ago for the 4870 around $299? I'm sure prices will go down, definitely not as dramatically since Nvidia doesn't have anything to counter it (including its own price drops). Just thinking about any recent chip launch doesn't it take a month or so until prices drop below MSRP anyway? Even for the 48** they were MSRP for at least a month before their massive price drops. I say just give it some time and they'll probably end up in a short while the same price or less than the 4870.
 
What's more Brent openly acknowledges the 5770 has bandwidth problems. He states he had reservations and that AMD gave their opinion and that IF AMD are right about shader effects reducing memory bandwidth requirements that the 5770 will shine. What he doesn't say is that he agreed with what AMD had to say OR that he thought they'd be right about Directx 11 games. Read what he said.

DX11 effects could possibly make these video cards more engine dependent, not memory bandwidth dependent.
Click to expand...

Hardly seems a glowing recommendation or a rubber stamping of AMD's apologists to me!

Plus, remember that a lot of games are console ports, we get directx 9, if we're lucky!

Mass Effect 2: rumoured to be directx 9.

Fallout 3: didn't even have full directx 9 support without a manual patch to revise the shader data.
 
Last edited:
Wow, some people will bitch about anything.

The HD5770 has 77GB/s of bandwidth. That's plenty for most gamers, as reviews show the video card is able to run many games at 2560x1600 high settings. Its similar priced to the HD4870, preforms about the same, has new features (DX11, Eyefinity), and uses less power. Not to mention the 128bit memory bus will allow AMD/ATI to sell these things at cheaper prices as time passes and still maintaining profit margins. Really a win for everyone.

Seriously, this is a $159 card, not a $300 card. I doubt the people buying these ~$159 video cards are intending to use them with a $1000+ 2560x1600 30" monitor.
 
TGA said:
@davethejackal, relax man I am not getting worked up over this crap. And sorry but it's because the 4870 and 4890 have been out for how long now? They are last gens top end and no longer commanding a premium.

And I think that space we have between the 5770 and the 5850 will be filled in time. Got to do something with the 5800 chips that don't make the cut. Binned chips cut down to something named 5830 perhaps?
Click to expand...

So the 4870 gave less bang/$ than the 3870 at launch? Really? Why did they price the 5850 so cheap then? Why not hike prices on that too? Most Convincing Answer Yet: they don't have the 2Gb chips they need to make the 57xx parts at the right price. As simple as that.
 
Last edited:
davethejackal said:
What's more Brent openly acknowledges the 5770 has bandwidth problems. He states he had reservations and that AMD gave their opinion and that IF AMD are right about shader effects reducing memory bandwidth requirements that the 5770 will shine. What he doesn't say is that he agreed with what AMD had to say OR that he thought they'd be right about Directx 11 games. Read what he said.

I quote:



Hardly seems a glowing recommendation or a rubber stamping of AMD's apologists to me!
Click to expand...

Ok so I miss read that when I read the review and was therefore wrong with my statement about what he said. It happens, and I should have just went and gone to quote him rather then trying to do it from memory. Doesn't change my opinion on the cards, the price point, or anything else I said.

In the end I know that by the end of next month if not sooner I will be enjoying eyefinity myself.

I knew right away the 5770 wasn't really the card for me. But I was never the less impressed with what it was able to do. Enough that I may end up buying one anyway just so I can see what it does with 3 screens.

Good luck in whatever you all decide to do or don't decide to do.
 
defaultluser said:
Price. Also, because AMD did something stupid, and jumped the gun. Allow me to explain:....


Yeah, AMD's last 128-bit powerhouse was the 4670, and it amazed people at $80.

.
Click to expand...


1. All the reviews seem to point out that the HD5770 is almost on par with HD4870 with lower power requirements and a better Direct X11 enabled GPU. With over clocking I'm sure the HD5770 is going to please many game players and tweakers like me who will have endless hours of fun tweaking them for benchmarking glory.


2. HD4770 was also a 128-bit powerhouse.



Although I'm loving all the performance data being reported on the HD5770 I still think the pricing was a little off.

IMO HD5770 would be a much bigger hit if it were initially priced at $149.99. That is the sweet spot I was hoping it would be priced at.

It's way out of line for all the hate that the HD5770 is receiving. Argument after argument as to why the HD5770 isn't a good video card. I have noticed a large group of newbies bashing the HD5770. IMO there are many haters out there that don't want to see the HD5770 succeed. It's day 2 of HD5770 release and already there seems to be many people complaining about it. These people haven't even played a single game with it.
 
SonDa5 said:
1. All the reviews seem to point out that the HD5770 is almost on par with HD4870 with lower power requirements and a better Direct X11 enabled GPU. With over clocking I'm sure the HD5770 is going to please many game players and tweakers like me who will have endless hours of fun tweaking them for benchmarking glory.


2. HD4770 was also a 128-bit powerhouse.



Although I'm loving all the performance data being reported on the HD5770 I still think the pricing was a little off.

IMO HD5770 would be a much bigger hit if it were initially priced at $149.99. That is the sweet spot I was hoping it would be priced at.

It's way out of line for all the hate that the HD5770 is receiving. Argument after argument as to why the HD5770 isn't a good video card. I have noticed a large group of newbies bashing the HD5770. IMO there are many haters out there that don't want to see the HD5770 succeed. It's day 2 of HD5770 release and already there seems to be many people complaining about it. These people haven't even played a single game with it.
Click to expand...

I agree SonDa. I think the pricing is just a touch off, but I am thinking it is to help clear out 4XXX stock then we will see a slight price decrease. I see the 5770 landing at 149, and the 5750 landing at 120 for 1GB versions. I think the best part is both these card's seem to OC well, and you can expect various OC versions also.

People complaining is going to happen. If Nvidia launched a new card, you'd hear the same from the other camp. Seems to be the nature of the beast. What can you do?;)
 
TGA said:
I don't even know how to respond to that other then to just laugh my ass off. And for that I thank you cause I really needed it right now.
Click to expand...

I know how to respond to that. When I get laughed-at by someone who obviously knows nothing about I/O blocking and scheduling thread resources, I know it's time to leave the discussion.

Have fun talking about nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top