ATi's 40nm 4770 - info.

TheRedZealot · 19 Apr 2009 at 13:56

I'll be selling my 4870 just before the release of these as its overkill for my needs and just too noisy for me, will post my results when i purchase one.

Art · 19 Apr 2009 at 14:11

Owenb said:
You should move to Ireland. We just take the british prices and add 30-50% onto them

I've just looked at the Irish branch of a certain competitor and the prices don't look too bad mate, maybe you're just shopping in the wrong place!

That said, I'm just north of the border of you so I know we both get screwed for postage from the mainland.

Owenb · 19 Apr 2009 at 16:50

Art said:
I've just looked at the Irish branch of a certain competitor and the prices don't look too bad mate, maybe you're just shopping in the wrong place!

That said, I'm just north of the border of you so I know we both get screwed for postage from the mainland.

There are a few .ie sites that have good prices but they are just foreigns companies with an Irish website. A 4890 would set me back £260 deliveried if I was to do the patriotic thing and buy Irish! It's always cheaper for me to buy a system off OCuK and pay £100 in shipping than to buy it in ireland.

It will be interesting to see GlobalFoundries Vs TSMC. If AMD have an exclusive deal and if they can get 32nm/28nm before TSMC then AMD could have a huge advantage going forward.

drak3 · 19 Apr 2009 at 17:24

I like this. 40nm is a step forward for sure.

LoadsaMoney · 20 Apr 2009 at 18:25

Some more info, and launch date of 28th April

According to the www.it168.com graphs posted at VR-Zone forums, the HD 4770 should be very close to the HD 4850 in terms performance, and the card should be launched on April 28th.

We must note that the percentages on the graphs are a bit weird, but we did see that early preview of the HD 4770, courtesy of Guru3D, where the card was indeed close to HD 4850 performance. This US $99 mid-range card should replace the HD 4830. Some other sources also hinted at April 28th as the launch date, and this might very well be the right launch date, as ATI certainly wants to beat Nvidia and be the first on the market with 40nm GPUs.

The guys at it168.com tried out Battleforge, Company of Heroes, Devil May Cry 4 and Far Cry 2 and the card is certainly really close to HD 4850 at least if those percentage is right. We must note that these are the first benchmarks and you should take these with a grain of salt. We heard from some sources that the HD 4770 will end up faster than Nvidia's Geforce 9800GT 512MB and we also heard that it could beat the GTS 250 in some cases.

Basically the best thing is that the card should be able to pump out more than 30FPS in most games, at 1920x1200, which is a truly great result for a US $99 card.

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13258&Itemid=1

Slides :-

http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/421074-12-games-comparison-hd-4770-almost-fast-4850-a.html

psychas · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:21

strange graph ^

D D Danneh · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:31

psychas said:
strange graph ^

They seem good in principle, but they way they've been made is crap. The 4770 bar should be much higher up, around 90-100%, rather than being at 50% and reading 90%. The sections along the bottom would be much better if they used resolutions, instead of each game.

If they'd been made the way I said, it'd show how well the 4770's scale with resolution and performance compared to the 4850, and would be great for comparison, especially of multiple different GPU's.

LoadsaMoney · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:51

I had a look through the site they took them from to see if i could get the full article, as theres supposed to be 12 games tested, but i couldn't find it anywhere, and it doesn't help it being in Chinese or whatever it is .

Tute · 20 Apr 2009 at 20:59

My word those graphs are utterly atrocious.

Runningkid · 20 Apr 2009 at 21:43

hmm looks like it's measuring some attribute relative to the 4850... certainly doesn't look like performance, perhaps something like temp or power consumption? So at 98% load its... half as hot or consumes half as much as the 4850 at full load?

/me is confused @_@

LoadsaMoney · 20 Apr 2009 at 21:53

I think its the performance.

The 4850 is 100%, and the 4770 is around 98% the performance of it, so its right on it.

Tute · 20 Apr 2009 at 22:51

LoadsaMoney said:
I think its the performance.

The 4850 is 100%, and the 4770 is around 98% the performance of it, so its right on it.

Yeah but the lines are halfway down the graph.

LoadsaMoney · 20 Apr 2009 at 23:00

Probably done it spaced out like that so its easier to read.

Art · 20 Apr 2009 at 23:14

LoadsaMoney said:
Probably done it spaced out like that so its easier to read.

It doesn't make sense whatever way you look at it though. If they're comparing it to the 4850 then there's no point in doing a line for it: if it's defined as 100% performance, why do a line to show the same thing?

Then again, why move something down 40-50% from where it should be? Why have axis with no real meaningful labels on them? Whatever way they were done the guy needs a kick.

I'd love if if the 4770 was ~97% as good as the 4850 for a lower price, but it seems a bit silly to compete against your own products so well. I know they're itching to get a 40nm GPU out the door before nVidia but why trash one or two of your own, current-series offerings in the process?

I'll not complain if I'm wrong though.

Lightnix · 20 Apr 2009 at 23:15

I guess it's just poorly labelled. Well, poorly drawn, probably poorly tested. Oh well. Either way, 98% of the performance of the 4850 certainly isn't bad at any rate. It's just a shame it'll need about 1GHz on the core to get to 4870 speeds in real games, provided that's accurate.

easyrider · 20 Apr 2009 at 23:59

looks like a nice little card.

Owenb · 21 Apr 2009 at 00:38

Art said:
I'd love if if the 4770 was ~97% as good as the 4850 for a lower price, but it seems a bit silly to compete against your own products so well. I know they're itching to get a 40nm GPU out the door before nVidia but why trash one or two of your own, current-series offerings in the process?

I'll not complain if I'm wrong though.

97% is about right. It has 20% less SP than a 4850, but a 20% faster clock speed, which makes it's 96% as fast.

ATI are still after market share so they have to be more aggressive. You also have to remember that this isn't just about sales on sites like OcUK but about winning large orders from PC manufactures. Maybe these contracts are up for renewal soon.

Tute · 21 Apr 2009 at 00:47

Shame it's not got a 256bit memory bus. I think if it did though, it would kill the 4850 stone dead and take a lot of sales away from the 4870 as well.

Lightnix · 21 Apr 2009 at 00:49

Tute said:
Shame it's not got a 256bit memory bus. I think if it did though, it would kill the 4850 stone dead and take a lot of sales away from the 4870 as well.

Yeah, but then it'd probably cost a fair bit more. The real attraction of this product is really its low price.

Tute · 21 Apr 2009 at 01:05

Lightnix said:
Yeah, but then it'd probably cost a fair bit more. The real attraction of this product is really its low price.

I'd be interested to know what difference the memory bus size makes to fabrication costs actually.