Alleged ATI Radeon HD 5750 leaked, benchmarked

Status
Not open for further replies.

xykz

TS Rookie
Who will be seeing the sticker anyway? Won't it be pointing down? I might look to get one of these when it is released. Does anyone know the power consumption figures for this card? I would assume it is less than a 4870 due to the 40nm architecture.
Unfortunately not to much lower 125W+ on 4870 vs. 108W as i try to point out above post while its only ~70% of RV770's chip size is in fac much more power consumption w/o any extra performanc just dx11 compliance and almost half of it's mem bw. not that RV770 really needed that 103-110GB mem bw that we could gain thru oc.
 

red1776

Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe
Unfortunately not to much lower 125W+ on 4870 vs. 108W as i try to point out above post while its only ~70% of RV770's chip size is in fac much more power consumption w/o any extra performanc just dx11 compliance and almost half of it's mem bw. not that RV770 really needed that 103-110GB mem bw that we could gain thru oc.
well your wrong xykz ....twice. the power consumption of the 4870 is 151w @ 12.6A so the 5750 draws 30% less at load. secondly you said " w/o any extra performanc just dx11 compliance " ....well thats kind of a big deal considering that the 5xxx line is ringing in the new generation of games.
 

xykz

TS Rookie
well your wrong xykz ....twice. the power consumption of the 4870 is 151w @ 12.6A so the 5750 draws 30% less at load. secondly you said " w/o any extra performanc just dx11 compliance " ....well thats kind of a big deal considering that the 5xxx line is ringing in the new generation of games.

Well we could be always wrong about the wattage cause it's maximal TDP and i dont have measurments of my own or HD577 in my hand i just referr to http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd4870-x2_6.html#sect0 and it says 130W so it could be much lower than 108W for HD5770 or just this 108W.

On the dx11 games we still need to see developers dispatch some of them and i'd bet most of these first kitty games will be troublesome for mainstream HD5770 just as Crysis were for most of first gen dx10 cards. So i'd rather wait for GT300 and price drops of the top performer like HD5870 especially when it's more than twice performance under 175% TDP of this litte sis (RV840-HD5770). And somehow i think even these RV870 monsters will have to coup with small troubles in most of dx11 games (native AA 4x perf drops etc), nothing new in fact.
 
G

Guest

Ugly looking ?
My GF picked her latest vehicle, based on color and style, not unfortunately on quality and performance. That is why I keep driving her to work, when her car is in getting fixed. Why would anyone not consider performance, quality and value if choosing to upgrade a graphics card?
 

xykz

TS Rookie
Good review but something is definitely weird when it came up to idle power consumption https://www.techspot.com/review/209-ati-radeon-hd-5770/page11.html when we see that HD5770's idle 18W represents itself in 171W while HD5850's <27W (HD5870 has 27W) reflects as only 164W, so it consumes 7W lower than much smaller chip?!!

And in L4D bench you use only 2AA/16AF when nVidia has more performance drop on 4AA and ATis RV770 series with 16AF active. So in fact you favor nV in this so called test just like in nzone demo Resident Evil 5 you just use 4AA again so that nV 260, 4870 and 5770 came up virtually pretty much equal. And probably with 16AF the scores would be much more on 5770 side and 4870 came up last of those three. And its nV optimized demo/game. I'd call it pretty unfair benches not diggin deeper. Why did you use 0AF on most of benches so that gpu cames up much more CPU throttled?
And on Crysis Warhead we saw how much unoptimized is second incarnation of Crysis game and favors a lot of memory bandwidth and nV dx10 architecture
 

Julio Franco

TechSpot Editor
Staff member
@xykz Our power consumption levels in the graph represent the whole system idle and load levels, not just for the graphics card. We've always done it this way but we forget sometimes to put it in explicit terms, I will add that note on the review and on future tests.
 

xykz

TS Rookie
@xykz Our power consumption levels in the graph represent the whole system idle and load levels, not just for the graphics card. We've always done it this way but we forget sometimes to put it in explicit terms, I will add that note on the review and on future tests.
I assume that in the first place :eek: Besides i assume that you did all that testing on the same rig and only changing graphic cards during the test as you stated sand that's the only way when power consumption graphs would make a sense. From that i conclude that according to the graph HD57x0 series consumes a lot more in idle (ATi state 18W) load then HD5850 counterpart, while for HD5870 ATI stated 27W in idle and HD5850 should consume even less tha that considering less shader power and far less clock. So i make a reply on what I saw even you didn't mention that in your review conclusion.

On the power bar graphs in idle mode you should be a pretty much of an **** to conclude that it's ONLY GPU consumption (170W?!), so did we came to name calling and obfuscating my reply when it tackles error in power rating in HD57x0 series? (or it's somewhat wrong by that power measurement or it's not taken on the same testing rig as HD5850 card??)
 

Rage_3K_Moiz

Sith Lord
This is pointless; the power values provided by AMD are TDP-based, so they cannot be considered completely accurate. And besides, a difference of less than 10W doesn't mean anything as far as a video card is concerned.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.