4770 vs 4830 vs 4850?

Discussion in 'AMD Graphics Cards' started by Zian5377, Apr 28, 2009.

  1. Zian5377

    Zian5377 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well with the new 4770 hitting the market I'm completely lost.

    You got the 4770 at 99 USD, the 4830 at 75 USD, and the 4850 certain models at 99 USD but which one is the fastest? I know the new 4770 is on the 40nm and has massive clock speeds and GDDR5 but it's also on that 128bit bus. Pretty much I'm just asking which one is the fastest?
     
  2. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,029
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    138
    not sure ... i haven't gotten to touch them so i couldn't tell you.. wait and find out what the reviews are saying
     
  3. defearian

    defearian New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not sure either, but honestly I doubt there is much difference in speed[​IMG]
     
  4. OldBuzzard

    OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    88
    From a couple of reviews I've see, the 4770 falls right between the 4830 and 4850 performance wise. So the 4850 is the fastest, but the 4770 really isn't all that far behind it.

    The big thing the 4770 would have going for it over the 4850 is that it's a cooler running card.
     
  5. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,029
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    138
    and can overclock well beyond what the 4850 could ever diliver in standard performance and overclocking performance... making it a good card for the general person, and making it a steal for the overclocker...
     
  6. Meaker

    Meaker #1 INTEL MAINSTREAM

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I've run a crossfire HD4850 and HD4770 setup. The 4770 when OCed is faster and far more easily becomes part of a quiet system.
     
    procupine14 likes this.
  7. procupine14

    procupine14 Why is it Beeping!?!?!

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,396
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Well, I haven't touched a 4770 but I do have a 4850 and I have to say I do love that card. In any case This DH Review might provide you with a more informative perspective. It includes a 4770 or two in there and a good comparison. :)

    The graphics card comparison is a couple pages in and highlights a 4770 and a 4850 back to back along with some nVidia references
     
  8. Jejking

    Jejking New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    With less power consumption (around the same @ idle, about 50w less under load which is quite a lot) it is very tempty for ''green guys''.

    By the way: if you plan to go crossfire a couple of HD4770's, remember that they will eventually drop away a bit at extreme resolutions like 1920x1200+. Then even the GDDR5 modules can't keep the 128-bit bus above water.
     
  9. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,029
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    138
    this is why i think a HD4770 with 1gb DDR5 i think would royally TRASH the hd4850 and win the 1920x1200/2560x1600 battles..

    4 HD4770's in crossfire would present a direct competition to the HD4850x2 in quad crossfire and produce FAR less head and consume probably close to half the power overall...

    That's not even considering the overclocking potential..

    Better yet .. if they can pack 1.5gb of DDR5 on those cards... that would really make them a suitable powerhouse for a relatively small dollar.
     
  10. anonemus

    anonemus 80 Plus Certified

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, but at stock speed the 4850 is fastest among the three, right? If both are OCd, would the 4850 still beat the 4770?
     
  11. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,029
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    138
    stock yes.. the 4850 is faster.. but the 4770 has far more overclocking potential making it in this case..... faster then the 4850 sometimes... with less heat output and power draw to boot. The 4850 already runs far warmer and doesn't have as much room to breath...
     
  12. tanka12345

    tanka12345 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In short, I'd just take a 4770, and pick up another one for CF in the future if I needed more power. After all it is the first mainstream 40nm card :)
     
  13. anonemus

    anonemus 80 Plus Certified

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, that 40nm GPU really seems to have great OC potential. I'm just a bit worried about the reference cooler (the cheaper version common in retail) available now, will these hold up to higher OCing?
     
  14. DJ BIG T

    DJ BIG T DH FaN BoY

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    38
    that 4770 is a sweet card and for the price you cant go wrong...
     
  15. imagination

    imagination HH HH HH :)

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From 4830 it doesn`t worth passing to 4770, otherwise 4770 is going to be a "best-seller"
     
  16. anonemus

    anonemus 80 Plus Certified

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Being a 40nm, how durable will this be when always OCd?

    Same with OCd Intel 45nm CPU, I've read somewhere that these are not as durable long-term when OCd unlike the 65nm procs...
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2009
  17. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,029
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    138
    i've never heard of such a thing...

    one being more durrable then the other? I mean there are things in which a specific type of CPU is already clocked at it's peak.. but usually every time a die shrink has occured, the capabilities have been extended .. including it's durability in terms of running on the same technologies simply because it uses less power, and produces far less heat.... even overclocked it's less of an issue then the larger counterpart.

    Reguardless, peaking any video cards overclocking capabilities will deteriorate the lifespan considerably....
     
  18. anonemus

    anonemus 80 Plus Certified

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. anonemus

    anonemus 80 Plus Certified

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,015
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wrong link! Here the correct one:

    AnandTech: Intel's 45nm Dual-Core E8500: The Best Just Got Better

    These processors are built on a new 45nm High-K process that invariably makes them predisposed to accelerated degradation when subjected to the same voltages used with last-generation's 65nm offerings. Although we certainly support overclocking as an easy and inexpensive means of improving overall system performance, we also advocate the appropriate use of self-restraint when it comes to choosing a final CPU voltage. Pushing 0.1V more Vcore through a processor for that last 50MHz does not make a lot of sense when you think about it.
     
  20. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,029
    Likes Received:
    1,169
    Trophy Points:
    138
    to scale..

    This is like saying when there was the 320nm cpu cores running 3v that pushing then to 3.3v would result in the same major degredation.

    It's not a fallasy of the shrinking of the size, but the scaling down of the voltages required as well, meaning that the bumping of voltage to that core has to scale as well.

    If a 65nm cpu core stock is 1.45v and a .15v jump was acceptable, a 45nm 1.35v with a jump of .125v would be acceptable in comparison.

    Scaling, the way they word that paragraph sounds very much like shrinking the die sizes seems counter productive.. which is absurd since it's highly productive, reducing costs, power consumption, and increasing the speeds not to mention overclocking potential on the same core design typically, or providing FAR more processing power with a new core design that fits the die.
     

Share This Page

visited