This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

The Radeon 5770 is still pretty good for gaming

#31ShebeskiiPosted 12/15/2013 12:43:50 PM
godplaysSNES posted...
I'm still using a HD 5770, and when I tried doing some performance tests in BF3, it ran around 40-60 FPS average at 1600x900 at medium


But it's not surprising that even old mid-range cards have aged relatively well. Most games are still made primarily for the PS3/360, and the studios doing PC exclusives simply must make their games run well on old hardware


They've aged well, I agree. The fact the 5770 can still game at a competitive level on at least low settings is admirable.

I'm just contesting the specific claims made.

And those numbers sound much more realistic. BF3 is older, and you're only claiming medium settings, not medium high. BF4 alone is probably a whole settings level more demanding. High in BF4 is more like Ultra in BF3.

Many people load up fraps and then just periodically look at the OSD when they have the chance. We've all done it. But I bet the majority aren't staring at the OSD when they're getting shelled or hit with bullets. It's a fair weather FPS reading. Unless you run a bench in the background while in the thick of the action, which is what BF is all about, then your numbers will be inflated.

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/538

Not too far off, actually.
---
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. - Christopher Hitchens
#32godplaysSNESPosted 12/15/2013 1:18:12 PM
I did try BF4 during the beta, but that was just a mess. Seems like it was a mess for the vast majority as well.

It didn't matter what settings or resolutions I used, the performance change was non-existant (and I assure you it wasn't due to the CPU)...At the end of day, after all patches, I still got around 40 FPS max, trying both low and medium at low and higher res. Even staring into a wall didn't make much difference^^
---
Super Mario Kart is the single best Mario Kart ever!
#33EternalFlame66Posted 12/15/2013 1:23:57 PM
godplaysSNES posted...
I did try BF4 during the beta, but that was just a mess. Seems like it was a mess for the vast majority as well.

It didn't matter what settings or resolutions I used, the performance change was non-existant (and I assure you it wasn't due to the CPU)...At the end of day, after all patches, I still got around 40 FPS max, trying both low and medium at low and higher res. Even staring into a wall didn't make much difference^^


Are those issues fixed now?
---
Such is your fate.
#34fuzzymanPosted 12/15/2013 11:04:51 PM(edited)
Shebeskii posted...
fuzzyman posted...
Two of them is almost still as good as a 580 or 760


No?

The 580 and 760 aren't even really in the same boat, and 5770 CF is more akin to a souped up 5870, which gets rofled by a 580.

Your claim is just wrong.


this is like saying a an 800mhz 1600SP unit is the same as two 800mhz 800SP units

doesn't work that way, nope

not when - I only need 800-1200 SP and all I need is frequency. Nope.

you're more likely to run into a CPU bottleneck

Say, you are using all 1600 SP, they would be pretty even. Otherwise, quite distant. Shaders, PP, AA, those things.
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#35fuzzymanPosted 12/15/2013 11:12:25 PM(edited)
here for example

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/radeon_hd_5770_review,20.html

fallout 3, max settings 8X AA

the settings are pretty high, but the difference between 5770 CF and 5870 is still pretty big (91 vs 77 FPS)

in other titles with more advanced engines, of course the results are similar. In the test bed they had an i7 965 @3.7... with say, a Sandy Bridge or Haswell, results would be even further favor of the 5770s

I wouldn't look at the 5850s, or 5870s, because, A: Fallout 3 is probably capped, and B: the CPU is limited

but it looks even better for the 5770s vs the 5870, or a 580, or a 760, or whatever
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#36NingishzidaPosted 12/15/2013 11:20:01 PM
An IBM 486 dx2 66 is still good for gaming, what's your point?

It obviously depends on what games you play and what you consider "good".

5770s can't even get 60fps in Crysis1 at 1080p, more like 40fps. that isn't good. in fact, that's bad.

then again, STALKER SHoC OGSE can be more or less "maxed" with a 5770 at 1080p (no AA), which is very impressive considering how awesome the game is.

and yet again, a 5770 can't even sustain 60fps in large-scale campaign battles in Medieval2.

it also depends on your CPU, some games like Crysis which have physics are CPU heavy during intense gunfights with multiple foes.

good card, but whether its good enough for you depends on the games you play, how much you mod them and what CPU u have to match it
#37fuzzymanPosted 12/15/2013 11:29:49 PM(edited)
Crysis is a great example because a core 2 duo e8400 handles it better than any i5 or i7 on the market

STALKER is another great example because it was built on DX9 and then XRAY became one of the first engines in DX10 and DX11 (which ruined performance)

Medieval 2 is a terrible example because it is CPU dependent

no **** it depends on the CPU

Cryengine isn't physics heavy - but it has way too many objects (LOD) and becomes a hamper to system bandwidth and frequency - just like tessellation does it in Crysis 3
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#38NingishzidaPosted 12/15/2013 11:36:23 PM
fuzzyman posted...
STALKER is another great example because it was built on DX9 and then XRAY became one of the first engines in DX10 and DX11 (which ruined performance)


that's STALKER CoP, not SHoC. but yeah.

Medieval 2 is a terrible example because it is CPU dependent


correct.

Cryengine isn't physics heavy - but it has way too many objects (LOD) and becomes a hamper to system bandwidth and frequency - just like tessellation does it in Crysis 3


correct.
#39fuzzymanPosted 12/15/2013 11:37:03 PM
I actually get 60 FPS pretty reasonably on High in Crysis with 6850s, I'd assume just the same with 5770s

Not only is a 5770 way ahead of an 8800 GTX (the GPU of Crysis' Time), but two of them? Yeah man

Once you dial it to Very High it's just a CPU bottleneck, and it only does well with E8400s@5Ghz (AMD FX@5 did well enough)
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg
#40fuzzymanPosted 12/15/2013 11:39:11 PM
STALKER SoC is one wonderful game... don't think for a moment DX10 or DX11 totally ruined the others - just, SoC was WAY WAY better
---
http://i.imgur.com/hOjV6w3.jpg