That was an assumption they had based on BENCHMARK performance on the product right at release.Not once have i seen an article that proved the 5000 series was slower on a per pixel shader basis.And for those saying its not the drivers then why do we have the 5770 slowly closing the gap on the 4870?You guys seem to forget the 4890 was just a overclocked 4870 so if the 5770 can get close to the 4870 then why couldn't the 5830 surpass the performance of the 4890 with driver updates?ATI are notoriously slow with getting driver updates out and the fact that they do it on a monthly basis makes things even worse.So its not out of the question to think they couldnt get better performance out of newer games.And worse performance in older games make sense since ATI has had years to get proper performance on tons of games for the 4000s series yet they have only had 5 months or so for the 5000 series.If someone can show me hard evidence that the 5000 series is gonna be slower than the 4000 no matter what then link away.If not then I'll wait a couple months and reserve judgment.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD's ATI Radeon HD 5830 Review @ [H]
- Thread starter Brent_Justice
- Start date
That was an assumption they had based on BENCHMARK performance on the product right at release.Not once have i seen an article that proved the 5000 series was slower on a per pixel shader basis.And for those saying its not the drivers then why do we have the 5770 slowly closing the gap on the 4870?You guys seem to forget the 4890 was just a overclocked 4870 so if the 5770 can get close to the 4870 then why couldn't the 5830 surpass the performance of the 4890 with driver updates?ATI are notoriously slow with getting driver updates out and the fact that they do it on a monthly basis makes things even worse.So its not out of the question to think they couldnt get better performance out of newer games.And worse performance in older games make sense since ATI has had years to get proper performance on tons of games for the 4000s series yet they have only had 5 months or so for the 5000 series.If someone can show me hard evidence that the 5000 series is gonna be slower than the 4000 no matter what then link away.If not then I'll wait a couple months and reserve judgment.
There's "slower per clock" and "slower product". The 5000 series seems, as far as I'm concerned, to be conclusively slower per clock PER SHADER CORE, but that doesn't mean slower product, necessarily, because, at least for the 5870 and 5850 there are enough additional shader core to more than make up for the individual cores being a little slower. But, other than the 5870 and the 5850, the 5xxx series has, performance wise, been VERY disappointing in terms of being a successor to the 4xxx series.
5770: same shader count but higher clock that 4870, but slower
5870 slower than 4870X2 despite what seem obvious advantages
5450 compared to 4550, from the link I providede above:
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,601
Your input is noted. If you want pages and pages of canned benchmarks then those sites are for you. I would suggest never relying on HardOCP for your review needs for picking a game to card to play games on...since we actually play games on them to review the product.
And just for the record, this is not the first time we have shown a real gaming experience differ from a benchmark...and that is why we do not use benchmarks.
I will say it right here and now, we do better video card analysis than anyone in the industry, hands down. If you do not like our methodology and the fact that real world gaming does not jive with canned benchmarks, then leave here and never return because we are NOT the site for you to be reading for your GPU information.
Last edited:
You can get a sapphire 5830 with modern warfare 2 for 272.86 including shipping. That will save you $35 on the card/game.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102879&cm_re=5830-_-14-102-879-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102879&cm_re=5830-_-14-102-879-_-Product
Yes but not only do you have a more narrow memory bus but again the drivers are new.Now I'm not saying it couldn't be true but I haven't seen hard evidence for it and I'm not gonna just accept just cause somebody said so.Look at one of the latest 5770 reviews from hardocp.In some games the 5770 outperforms the 4870.So we have the same everything except for a smaller memory bus and a higher clock speed.And performance is being matched and surpassed on some games.Now we have the 5830 that has more SPs and texture units yet is showing slower or only slighty higher performance.So its so unreasonable to think that the driver might be at least part of the problem?
Reading your first sentence made me remember something. When Nvidia did the same thing and I guess was "being very smart when it comes to pricing" one of their card series, they were called every name in the book. Funny how that works....
To them I would say we live in a capitalistic society that is goverened by such things as competition, supply and demand.
I am not an AMD/ATI fanboy. I have owned just as many Nvidia gpu's as ATI gpu's as I have owned just as many AMD cpu's as Intel cpu's.
Serious question as I am curious, when was the last next gen Nvidia flagship gpu released with a price point of 379.99-399.99
A
akotlar
Guest
How the heck is a 1120 SP, 56TMU, 16ROP @ 800mhz card slower than a 4890? Makes no sense unless that lower fillrate completely bottlenecks the card. I wonder if 5800 series is slower per clock than the 4800 @ equal specs.
edit: I guess this has been covered. Still surprising. I know that 5870 didn't scale 2x for 2x arithmetic increase, but I figured that a 1/2 5870 @ 850mhz would equal a 4890.
edit: I guess this has been covered. Still surprising. I know that 5870 didn't scale 2x for 2x arithmetic increase, but I figured that a 1/2 5870 @ 850mhz would equal a 4890.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
thats exactly what they are doing. funny how everybody bitched when Nvidia did it yet now all the ATI lovers keep making excuses to justify the ridiculously low performance per dollar we are getting.
Shalafi
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2009
- Messages
- 22,956
The card is overpriced and it doesn't perform better than the cheaper 4890 that is nearing it's end of life, I don't see how a card like this can achieve a gold award for that. It seems like a card that just fits in between certain price points, nothing more, it does not perform marginally better than the 5770 and performs marginally worse than the 5850, so I don't see why this got a gold award.
It seems like it got an award just for filling a hole in ATI's lineup
It seems like it got an award just for filling a hole in ATI's lineup
I never called you a fanboy, my friend. I just remembered how differently the two companies get treated when they do the same exact things.
So Nvidia was the only one who touted DX10? Damn, I could have sworn ATI did as well when they finally released their DX10 card. Or do you mean how Nvidia had the first DX10 and flaunted that fact? How is that different from what ATI is doing now? They are doing the same thing and won't "shutup" about the new DX features. They are flaunting the fact they had the first DX11 card, just as Nvidia did. It's called smart marketing when you extol your advantages over your competitor LOL. I won't knock ATI or Nvidia for it, it is smart business to do so.
I have no allegiance so I will call out any company when they deserve it but when I see one company praised for one thing and another chastised for that same thing, it catches my eye. Just like I called out a Nvidia fanboy friend who complained about ATI helping developers optimize/improve graphics when he praised Nvidia for doing the same thing a year ago heh.
Thanks for the review [H], nice to see differing opinions on products.
Last edited:
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
again the whole reason people wanted a 5830 was because the 5770 could not beat the 4890 while costing about the same. its just sad that the 5830 still loses to the 4890 in most cases while costing another 80 bucks over the 5770.
hell I paid way less than 200 bucks 18 months ago for a gtx260 thats only about 15% slower than the 5830. its a piss poor time if you need a gpu upgrade.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,601
I think where you fail here is applying other sites research to our conclusion. Trust me, we don't write articles based on other sites canned benchmark numbers.
The performance was kind of what I was expecting. It's a trend that ATI seems to have. 5770=4870 but gets beat by the 4870 sometimes (same for the 5750 and apparently the 5830=4890 but sometimes better performance from the 4890*). Personally I think they should rename this the 5790, lower it $35 and release a 5830 that's based off of the 5850 (so the reference design isn't so big) with better performance for maybe the same price or $5 more. Of course that will never happen though. Maybe they should release a 5790 anyways. I'd get one. They're probably more likely to release a 5890 and eventually a 5990 (dual 5890s).
*Info from the Tom's Hardware review of the 5830
*Info from the Tom's Hardware review of the 5830
Last edited:
TomGreen321
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 901
If you're on a tight, strict budget where you can't deviate 20 dollars without sacrificing the rest of your build.. This is your card. I get why people are annoyed with the article, but believe it or not, some of us are on that type of budget. Previously if you have 230 bucks left in the budget for a GPU you basically had the 5770, or older nVidia/Ati tech.
Not everyone can just say fuck it, I'm throwing in another 70 for the 5850 or whatever. Nor do people want to build without the GPU and get it next payday. At this price I can see it being extremely popular for anyone that can't afford a 5850, but has alittle more for something above the 5770.
If the 5850's don't drop in the next month or so, I'm definitely buying one of these and selling my 5770. It should kick serious amounts of ass at 1680x1050 with some AA for quite some time. And the overclocking potential should bring it close to 5850 performance. Should work fine on a quality 5-550w PSU too. When I pay in cash my local shop usually drops prices 10-15 dollars, and places like NCIX will have it on weekly sales as well I'm sure.
Not everyone can just say fuck it, I'm throwing in another 70 for the 5850 or whatever. Nor do people want to build without the GPU and get it next payday. At this price I can see it being extremely popular for anyone that can't afford a 5850, but has alittle more for something above the 5770.
If the 5850's don't drop in the next month or so, I'm definitely buying one of these and selling my 5770. It should kick serious amounts of ass at 1680x1050 with some AA for quite some time. And the overclocking potential should bring it close to 5850 performance. Should work fine on a quality 5-550w PSU too. When I pay in cash my local shop usually drops prices 10-15 dollars, and places like NCIX will have it on weekly sales as well I'm sure.
I'm going to dodge all the cross generation comparisons.
I've appreciated [H] reviews since they show gameplay, playable settings, and the apples to apples comparisons. The lack of apples to apples comparison in this review to the 5770 and 5850 is something I feel hurts this review in showing the value of the 5830 especially when most review sites are showing its performance is closer to 5770 than the 5850. I know you've said you disagreed, Brent, but show the apples to apples and give us some concrete numbers to see and think about for our selves too
I've appreciated [H] reviews since they show gameplay, playable settings, and the apples to apples comparisons. The lack of apples to apples comparison in this review to the 5770 and 5850 is something I feel hurts this review in showing the value of the 5830 especially when most review sites are showing its performance is closer to 5770 than the 5850. I know you've said you disagreed, Brent, but show the apples to apples and give us some concrete numbers to see and think about for our selves too
Last edited:
None and I think that's what everyone is forgetting. I spoke about this at anand's site to which they eventually saw my point I believe. This is what Nvidia's last generations of cards debuted at:
Nvidia 200/200b GPU
GTX 280 debut price - $649
GTX 260 debut price - $449
and this is what the ATI/AMD cards debuted at:
ATI 5xxx GPU
5870 debut price - $389
5850 debut price - $279
There's a big friggin difference, so much so that it makes my wallet hurt. At no time with this latest generation have I said "well how many pay checks until I can get one of those?"
I am no fanboy either and I have a heavy preference for Nvidia cards. However, to run roughshod over AMD/ATI for not providing value is absolutely retarded. They could have easily done an Nvidia and prices these cards into the stratosphere, but they didn't and yet people are still b%$chin. It's this reality that their cards should be judged, not as if they are price gouging. They aren't. $400+ for a midrange card would be gouging and they aren't doing that. Are they priced higher than what would be normal if Nvidia had it's act together? Yes. But what company doesn't do that? Take a look at Intel's price list and you will see the same exact thing, if not worse. Core2Quad for $260+ anyone?
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
it performs about 10-15% faster than a 5770 while costing 50% more and using much more power. thats a failure in most peoples book.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
bad comparison because when Nvidia came out with the gtx280 they thought that would be the top card. the gtx295 was only done later because they had to do it to compete. when ATI came out with the 5870 everyone knew that the 5970 would be the top card. . and those arent the right prices anyway.
if you want to do a direct comparison then it needs to be 5970/5870 compared to the gtx280/gtx260 because those were the top two cards from each company at release. you will then see that the prices are basically the same.
I held off buying a 4890 just before the 5770 came out because of all the hype around it at the time. I and many others were sorely disapointed when the reviews came out. Im so glad that i did buy a 4890 after that, coz boy i wouldve been pissed if i waited even longer for this pos...
I see ATI getting a lot of flak over the price, but what do you people expect? It's a 2nd salvage part, it's doubtful there are a lot of them especially going forward, and I'm sure they figure that they can sell most of them for $230. Or they could sell about the same quantity for cheaper and get less money. That wouldn't be very smart business.
I read through all twelve pages and for the most part I agree with the review except for one thing. This card may be solidly between the 5770 and the 5850 (closer to the 5850) and be a good value there, but my understanding of the OCP GOLD Award is for products that shine above others and with this card being so close to the 4890 in performance and fairly close to the 5850 in price how is it showing its superiority to other GPU's?? 
Agreed. Maybe they should change the name to "Marketing Gold Award"
MrLonghair
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,764
How about the "Rubbing It In" award? "Inteling up the graphics market" award? "Only one more to make it ten discrete non-laptop DX11 GPUs on the shelves before Nvidia gets their first one out" award?
There's a lot of excuses in that response. First ....
Huh? That makes no sense whatsoever. That's what nvidia's and ATI's top two cards released at. Period.
That's why I didn't include it, nor the 5970 because they weren't what the generation released with.
That just ridiculous. Who knew that the 5970 was going to be released in September 2009?
Your right it needs to be the 5970 in order for your argument to make sense. That's not what ATI released with just like Nvidia didn't release the 285/295 first.
Feel free to correct the prices.
D
Deleted member 174368
Guest
So the only reason the 5830 exists is for those wanting to upgrade their 4890? If I had a 4890, I'd be looking at the 5850 at the very least. Not the borderline mid-range 5830.
I dunno, maybe at this point we should just start emptyquoting the conclusion part of the review, cause some people just don't seem to get it:
Faster than the 5770, slower than 5850, priced accordingly.
Go back farther. And the difference is there are DX11 titles out right now.
Anyone want to buy a 8800GT, er 9600GSO, I mean GTS150...No I meant GT330? If we want to pretend like the 8530 is an abomination you can but we always have the afore mentioned cards as a reference of what it really looks like to give bad value between previous generations.
I'm upgrading from a 4830. I didn't want to buy a 4850/70 because they are similar in performance and probably wouldn't be much of an upgrade. I would have purchased a 4890 had one been offered at a well regarded vendor. I don't necessarily trust used cards because you get what you get. But alas, no one carries a decent card now. I have a couple friends who just bought XFX 4890's and they work great, but they had to get through a couple hoops in order to do so. They weren't reference boards so they support was lacking. So I just pulled the trigger on a 5830 because I don't need 5850 level performance at that price. I wanted something with 4890 like performance that was available to purchase. And here it is. I don't mind paying a little extra as BFBC2 is coming out and I want to run it well.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
when Nvidia released the gtx280 they had no plans for the gtx295. when ATI released the 5870 EVERYONE knew that a dual gpu was going to be released for their top card.
just for the heck of lets do look at the gtx295/gtx285. well that was $499/$399 so again your assessment is completely flawed.
current ATI prices are no better for their top 2 cards then Nvidia was when they released the gtx280/gtx260 or gtx295/gtx285.
Last edited:
Who the hell is Everyone? Do they all live at the same mailing address? Who? No reviewer mentioned it in September 2009. There were rumors later, but no one knew with any kind of certainty at the 5 series launch that 5970 was being released in December. Was there speculation? Sure. But there's been speculation that Fermi was launching in November ....December....January....too. No one knows anything officially until NDA's get lifted and cards get into reviewer's hands.
What about "those cards did not launch the generation" do you not understand? Those prices and cards came AFTER Nvidia launched GTX200 series cards, and AFTER ATI released their cards, and there was a huge price reduction from a place you insist didn't exist.
Would you like shovel?
oo7_warhammer
n00b
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1
I would like to say the review was quite good in my opinion. As the 48xx series are hard to come by, not good to include them in the mesurements.
Also the fact they cant run the DX11 modes for the games, keep them out!
As for not reviewing GF card, I was a bit unhappy. I would have liked Hard to include GF285 and GF275 as these are relatively priced to 5850/30
It is difficult as these cards really dont exist on the market anymore. Also the fact they cant do DX11 makes for difficultys measuring apples to apples.
I mostly agree with {hard} conclusion, although I think more like silver/bronze if they are comparing to 5770 and 5850
love, WAR
Also the fact they cant run the DX11 modes for the games, keep them out!
As for not reviewing GF card, I was a bit unhappy. I would have liked Hard to include GF285 and GF275 as these are relatively priced to 5850/30
It is difficult as these cards really dont exist on the market anymore. Also the fact they cant do DX11 makes for difficultys measuring apples to apples.
I mostly agree with {hard} conclusion, although I think more like silver/bronze if they are comparing to 5770 and 5850
love, WAR
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
again the POINT was that no matter what two top cards you look at, the ATI cards were/are still no better priced. the 5870 was just a temporary top card while ATI finalized the 5970 and yes EVERYONE knew that.
It has great specs and seems to have performed well. It's likely you'll see a wide variation in bundles, OC'd versions and maybe even extra memory as it seems the mid range boards seem to get the extra engineering tweaks more often than the high end cards.
The price is not that great though. If ATI wants $259 for a 5850 and says $239 for the 5830 I don't see a compelling reason not to choose the 5850 for the extra $20 instead especially if a rebate gets involved in the mix. It should have been closer to $200.
The price is not that great though. If ATI wants $259 for a 5850 and says $239 for the 5830 I don't see a compelling reason not to choose the 5850 for the extra $20 instead especially if a rebate gets involved in the mix. It should have been closer to $200.
CrimandEvil
Dick with a heart of gold
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,670
ATI doesn't want $259 for the 5850, they want $299.
I'm sill ambivalent about the review itself. On the one hand, I'd want to see cards included that are similar price / performance, regardless of DX11. On the other hand, who want to buy DX10 cards at this point? The real problem isn't the review, the real problem is that Nvidia is not even on the playing field at this point. It'd be nice to see a GTX260 or GTX275 in the comparison, if only to shame AMD into pricing the card more appropriately for it's performance level (not that I think the 260 or 275 cards are priced appropriately at this point either), but really, Nvidia needs to get it's DX11 ship to float. This isn't [H]'s problem, it's Nvidia's problem, and until Nvidia gets its DX11 players on the field, AMD is going to continue to price its cards at a premium.
You don't like facts much do you? If you don't like the reality of the situation you don't get to make up your own. You know what the Nvidia's cards launched at. There's no point in trying to pretend the 285/295 released as the top end cards when the GTX200 series debuted, "Everyone" knows that's not the case.Nvidia released the 280 (single-gpu) at a price of over $600 at launch. This is a fact. ATI never released a single gpu solution 4 series or 5 at over $600. You can make a different argument if you want, but trying to say that both of them price video cards the same is just plain ridiculous. You can go to Newegg now and see that's not the case. They don't.
At this point I don't have a toll booth and a draw bridge to give you so have a nice day.