bit-tech.net

AMD Radeon HD 7750 1GB Review

Comments 1 to 24 of 24

Reply
xxxsonic1971 15th February 2012, 08:14 Quote
''though, it's a bit of a let down when we'd hoped it might offer performance close to the HD 6850 1GB for a lot less. Sadly this isn't the case'' - the 6850 is a far better card, how can you compare the two?
docodine 15th February 2012, 08:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxsonic1971
''though, it's a bit of a let down when we'd hoped it might offer performance close to the HD 6850 1GB for a lot less. Sadly this isn't the case'' - the 6850 is a far better card, how can you compare the two?

...they were hoping that the low-midrange new gen cards would beat the high-midrange previous gen cards, not unreasonable
N17 dizzi 15th February 2012, 11:14 Quote
The two top single screen resolutions + maximum settings. Is that an appropriate benchmark for a low end card?
Baz 15th February 2012, 11:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xxxsonic1971
''though, it's a bit of a let down when we'd hoped it might offer performance close to the HD 6850 1GB for a lot less. Sadly this isn't the case'' - the 6850 is a far better card, how can you compare the two?

At time of writing the £6850 was £10-£15 more. Seems a fair comparison to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N17 dizzi
The two top single screen resolutions + maximum settings. Is that an appropriate benchmark for a low end card?

We test all graphics cards equally, regardless of their place in the roster, otherwise we end up comparing apples to oranges; this way you get a clear idea of performance on offer right up the scale. No two systems will ever be the same; consider it more a representative demonstration of performance . 1080p is the becoming the standard for displays, so of course we tested that; 2560 x 1600 is again, just a standard test we perform. We're not going to go back to 1280 x 1024 just for low end reviews.
Baz 15th February 2012, 11:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by docodine
...they were hoping that the low-midrange new gen cards would beat the high-midrange previous gen cards, not unreasonable

Indeed; we'd hoped that 7770 and 7750 would match/surpass 6870 and 6850. What with the improvements in production process and the more efficient Southern Islands architecture, this didn't seem out of the question, but obviously AMD has decided to add a bit of juice to the HD 5770 and make it more power efficient. 20% extra performance is great and all, but that's 20% more than a card released 29 months ago!

What really interested me now is

HD 7950 3GB - £350

????

HD 7770 - £100 (although today we're seeing prices of around £120!)

That's a huge £250 price gap for the 7800 series to fill, wouldn't you agree?
mat0tam 15th February 2012, 11:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz


We test all graphics cards equally, regardless of their place in the roster, otherwise we end up comparing apples to oranges; this way you get a clear idea of performance on offer right up the scale. No two systems will ever be the same; consider it more a representative demonstration of performance . 1080p is the becoming the standard for displays, so of course we tested that; 2560 x 1600 is again, just a standard test we perform. We're not going to go back to 1280 x 1024 just for low end reviews.

Totally agree. Interesting reading
N17 dizzi 15th February 2012, 12:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz

We test all graphics cards equally, regardless of their place in the roster, otherwise we end up comparing apples to oranges; this way you get a clear idea of performance on offer right up the scale. No two systems will ever be the same; consider it more a representative demonstration of performance . 1080p is the becoming the standard for displays, so of course we tested that; 2560 x 1600 is again, just a standard test we perform. We're not going to go back to 1280 x 1024 just for low end reviews.

Feels more 'too much work to test as is appropriate' than some self righteous stance on 'all graphics cards should be tested as equals'.
They're not equals, in some cases they're, apples and oranges.
A £600 card vs a £100 card. Two completely different ends of the market, two completely different types of user.

The sort of user in for a £80 - £100 card is going to take 1 look at your graph with 18 different cards on, see the 7750 and other low end affordable models at the bottom with awful, and in some cases, unplayable performance then go back to the Xbox happy in the knowledge that PC gaming is expensively not worth it.

But you're the experts. What do I know.
misterd77 15th February 2012, 16:18 Quote
as a budget card, it should have been tested at lower resolutions, I own a 5670, which cost £45, so it would have been interesting to see its performance at these lower resultions, a budget gamer like me isnt interested in 1080p res, as I have a 19 inch widescreen, at a res of 1248 x 1024, and I think this card is aimed directly at gamers like me, once again, I have to go elsewhere to find the information I need, also, there is no mention of apu dual graphics performance, which I think this card is really made for, my 5670 1gb ( 35 fps in Skyrim at medium setting) performs the job well enough that it wont be untill the new apu's are released at the end of the yr, that I will be considering a new build, by then, its price should have dropped, but, for the moment, it seems a tad overpriced, and only a small step up from previous amd budget cards.
thetrashcanman 15th February 2012, 17:17 Quote
awww diddums, is all I have to say on this
Farfalho 15th February 2012, 18:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Quote:
Originally Posted by docodine
...they were hoping that the low-midrange new gen cards would beat the high-midrange previous gen cards, not unreasonable

Indeed; we'd hoped that 7770 and 7750 would match/surpass 6870 and 6850. What with the improvements in production process and the more efficient Southern Islands architecture, this didn't seem out of the question, but obviously AMD has decided to add a bit of juice to the HD 5770 and make it more power efficient. 20% extra performance is great and all, but that's 20% more than a card released 29 months ago!

What really interested me now is

HD 7950 3GB - £350

????

HD 7770 - £100 (although today we're seeing prices of around £120!)

That's a huge £250 price gap for the 7800 series to fill, wouldn't you agree?

+1
mrbungle 15th February 2012, 18:20 Quote
ati needs to pull its thumb out, for several generations its mid range cards have been TERRIBLE.

£100 for this? Seriously??????
schmidtbag 15th February 2012, 18:28 Quote
any idea if this can go in crossfire with the 5700 or 6700 series? those 2 generations were compatible. i'm assuming this won't work, since its a new architecture but you never know.

i think if the price dropped a little it'd be more reasonable, but i don't think this is a bad card. i'm personally impressed that the 7750 can operate without the extra power while performing like a 6770. also i like their small size - makes it easy to do 4-way crossfire.
xaser04 15th February 2012, 18:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbungle
ati needs to pull its thumb out, for several generations its mid range cards have been TERRIBLE.

£100 for this? Seriously??????

How was the HD5770 terrible?
N17 dizzi 15th February 2012, 18:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by thetrashcanman
awww diddums, is all I have to say on this

Is that regarding the card or the some of us that would like to have seen more reasonable settings used for the tests? :)
mrbungle 15th February 2012, 19:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbungle
ati needs to pull its thumb out, for several generations its mid range cards have been TERRIBLE.

£100 for this? Seriously??????

How was the HD5770 terrible?

Serious?

The hd5770 is barely faster than a old 4870 and wasn't particularly cheap new. It doesnt even retain much value even 2nd hand on the forum which is a sign its pony.
Skulldragon 15th February 2012, 19:42 Quote
If the card doesn't get tested at lower resolutions, then an extra section for each game telling us what details settings the card can play the games at 1920x1080 and 2560x1600 at would be quite useful. Also, is this the most powerful graphics card around which doesn't require any additional power than what it gets through the PCI-E slot?
SexyHyde 15th February 2012, 19:42 Quote
instead of doing the 2560x1600 & 1920x1080 for everything, you should do 1080p for everything, so you can see performance against everything AND an appropriate resolution/settings for the card involved, so you can see how it performs for the intended use. This card might be able to play games at high settings @ 1680x1050 which i'm guessing is what its aimed for (oh wait it is - i just checked it somewhere else and they rated it highly). Now i know you guys are serious about what you do, but i don't think you are approaching these cards appropriately. This card / range doesn't even interest me as i'm a 1080p gamer with a decent set up, but i found the review totally missed the point of the card, it was written and tested as though it was a better card. What it offers felt dismissed in the review, evident in the score.
d1ck0 15th February 2012, 20:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
instead of doing the 2560x1600 & 1920x1080 for everything, you should do 1080p for everything, so you can see performance against everything AND an appropriate resolution/settings for the card involved, so you can see how it performs for the intended use. This card might be able to play games at high settings @ 1680x1050 which i'm guessing is what its aimed for (oh wait it is - i just checked it somewhere else and they rated it highly). Now i know you guys are serious about what you do, but i don't think you are approaching these cards appropriately. This card / range doesn't even interest me as i'm a 1080p gamer with a decent set up, but i found the review totally missed the point of the card, it was written and tested as though it was a better card. What it offers felt dismissed in the review, evident in the score.

Totally agree , I think bit-tech should do a poll of the average screen resolution we run , personally I run at 1680 * 1050 with a Asus EAH5870 which is MORE than adequate to see all eye candy in games ! :).
Baz 15th February 2012, 21:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by SexyHyde
instead of doing the 2560x1600 & 1920x1080 for everything, you should do 1080p for everything, so you can see performance against everything AND an appropriate resolution/settings for the card involved, so you can see how it performs for the intended use. This card might be able to play games at high settings @ 1680x1050 which i'm guessing is what its aimed for (oh wait it is - i just checked it somewhere else and they rated it highly). Now i know you guys are serious about what you do, but i don't think you are approaching these cards appropriately. This card / range doesn't even interest me as i'm a 1080p gamer with a decent set up, but i found the review totally missed the point of the card, it was written and tested as though it was a better card. What it offers felt dismissed in the review, evident in the score.

This card is the same price as the HD 6850. It is up to 30 per cent slower than that card in performance tests. There is no way this can be seen as 'good' no matter what resolutions you test at, unless your PSU lacks a 6-pin PCI-E connector. Bit-tech's focus is on the higher end; its what you, our readers have told us you're more interested in reading about, and its what the traffic stats demonstrate too. It's why you usually won't see us testing the super-low end GPUs (in fact, for GPUs, £80 is usually our lower limit), £40 value motherboards or £15 tin-can cases, and it's why we haven't tested at 1,680 x 1,050.
Baz 15th February 2012, 21:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
This card is the same price as the HD 6850. It is up to 30 per cent slower than that card in performance tests. There is no way this can be seen as 'good' no matter what resolutions you test at, unless your PSU lacks a 6-pin PCI-E connector. Bit-tech's focus is on the higher end; its what you, our readers have told us you're more interested in reading about, and its what the traffic stats demonstrate too. It's why you usually won't see us testing the super-low end GPUs (in fact, for GPUs, £80 is usually our lower limit), £40 value motherboards or £15 tin-can cases, and it's why we haven't tested at 1,680 x 1,050.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d1ck0
Totally agree , I think bit-tech should do a poll of the average screen resolution we run , personally I run at 1680 * 1050 with a Asus EAH5870 which is MORE than adequate to see all eye candy in games ! :).

We based our decision to drop 1680 x 1050 based on the reader's survey iirc.
SexyHyde 15th February 2012, 22:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
This card is the same price as the HD 6850. It is up to 30 per cent slower than that card in performance tests. There is no way this can be seen as 'good' no matter what resolutions you test at, unless your PSU lacks a 6-pin PCI-E connector. Bit-tech's focus is on the higher end; its what you, our readers have told us you're more interested in reading about, and its what the traffic stats demonstrate too. It's why you usually won't see us testing the super-low end GPUs (in fact, for GPUs, £80 is usually our lower limit), £40 value motherboards or £15 tin-can cases, and it's why we haven't tested at 1,680 x 1,050.

At lower resolutions the performance gap is much closer to the 6850, you should know this, as i learnt this fact from you (company not individual) in past tests. I understand you focus on the top end, but if your going to review £80 cards, do it properly or not at all. Testing an £80 card by top end standards is pointless.
xaser04 16th February 2012, 07:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbungle
Serious?

The hd5770 is barely faster than a old 4870 and wasn't particularly cheap new. It doesnt even retain much value even 2nd hand on the forum which is a sign its pony.

So a mid range card that was as fast as the previous gen high end card yet consumed a lot less power and runs much cooler is now terrible. Right.....

Price could have been better right at launch but price gouging this always happens. Once it reverted to around £110-120 it became an excellent mid range offering.
ut66 22nd February 2012, 17:41 Quote
amd is nuts, in 2009 i paid 90$ usd for my 4770 that has more su - 640- and also reaches 1ghz. wtf amd.
salmanshah 19th April 2012, 19:00 Quote
What's the max temp limit of 7750?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums