bit-tech.net

AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB Review

Comments 26 to 47 of 47

Reply
snakecatcher 15th February 2012, 13:23 Quote
would have been nice if their was a 7790 with 960sp's and 16/24 rops add in 1 or 1.5gig of mem on a 256bit interface and i think it would brigde the gap between low and high if the price is right.
Hustler 15th February 2012, 13:59 Quote
AMD truly have lost the plot, £130 for this sack of monkey **** fail.

I dread to think what they will try and launch the the 7850/7870 at.
NetSphere 15th February 2012, 14:17 Quote
Well, I guess this shows the first-mover strategy can win or fail. They managed to rack up maybe 1 or 2 months of sales with the 79XX series, but obviously, the 77XX Series are not doing too well.

Have to admit that I'm saddened that the power of the AMD cards are quite a lot lower than expectations. I mean, they are more powerful (just barely) but some of them should be at least 1.5x (if not 2-2.5x) more powerful than previous gen equivalents

Sure, there's the price to worry about as well, but it just seems like a bit of a rush job? I hope 8XXX series will be out sooner than we think to catch up (and hopefully surpass) Kepler.
Harlequin 15th February 2012, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
AMD truly have lost the plot, £130 for this sack of monkey **** fail.

I dread to think what they will try and launch the the 7850/7870 at.

its not £130 - alot of palces have it under £120 (and lower) - and the 7750 is coming in between £80>£85
sWW 15th February 2012, 15:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by N17 dizzi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shichibukai
Why not skip testing every card above the 560/6950 and test more games instead?

This. Why would you have a GTX 590 in the same set of results as a low/mid range card.

:(

Unless the testing rig is changed every time a new card comes out surely they just transfer the results from prior tests for the higher end cards. Thus taking almost no extra time at all as all you are doing is copy pasting the old (and still valid) data across.
damien c 15th February 2012, 15:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetSphere
I hope 8XXX series will be out sooner than we think to catch up (and hopefully surpass) Kepler.

Still waiting to see what the performance is like of the Kepler card's, but going of the rumours around the net then I think it will be a while before AMD catch up to the level of performance that Kepler is supposed to produce.

Although that is just rumours that I have seen and nothing that is 100% legit.

I just wish something legit would get leaked because I am rebuilding some of my pc next month and I need a new graphic's card, but I am not buying until Nvidia's card's are out so I can get the best performing card, regardless of cost.
Blazza181 15th February 2012, 15:25 Quote
Well, this is a disappointment. Here's hoping they pull something out of the bag (unlikely).
Baz 15th February 2012, 15:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Additionally, it highlights issues with 1GB cards, such as running out of VRAM in BF3 and as such performing poorly at higher resolutions.

All 1GB cards are going to run out of Vram well before 1920x1080 with BF3.

A look at our 1920 x 1080 performance numbers would tell you otherwise. We even included the HD 69501GB and HD 6950 2GB for just this comparison. At 1920 x 1080 with 4xAA, both cards get a minimum frame rate of 32fps. At 2,560 x 1,600 with 4x AA, the 2GB manages a minimum of 19fps to the 1GB's 12fps. 1GB cards do not run out of VRAM in BF3 at 1,920 x 1,080.
Deders 15th February 2012, 16:18 Quote
I guess that would depend on what part of the game you benchmark, there are definitely parts of the game where my 1GB 560TI tuns out of Vram and stutters because of it at 1680x1050.
trig 15th February 2012, 16:52 Quote
getting worked up about the naming scheme is pointless...amd and nvidia both do it, and it makes the average scrub think he is getting a better card than he is...for those of us that are supposed to be above average...just compare price and performance...who cares where the 5,7 or 9 falls...

i get that you launch higher to clear out stock of previous gen, but that seems too re-active...they need to be more pro-active and lower prices prior to launch, then launch the new cards extremely competitive to get them going.

every year it's the same thing, amd beats nvidia to the door, but price and yields keep them from grabbing the marketshare they could have snatched...the rumor mill puts nvidia out the door sooner than it ends up being with more performance than it ends up having, and since the cost for new amd cards isn't right with performance and cost of previous gen hardware from either camp, they don't get the score they could have...

seems to me that dropping prices a good 30 days prior to launch would have been a better strategy..

i mean, if this card hits at $190...there are gtx 560's and 2Gb 550ti's for less than $170 before $20-30 in mir's...not to mention the 6870's and 6850's for around that
Farfalho 15th February 2012, 16:55 Quote
Attention on the Heat Idle graph, the HD7770 is mentioned as having 4GB which is obviously incorrect.
Soooo, AMD has failed on the nomenclature (which is easier to change than to redesign the whole 7700 range). Waiting to see what the 7800 range will offer
alex101 15th February 2012, 23:36 Quote
"....which needed 250Mv added to the core voltage..."

250mV, not Mv.
Keep up the good work guys
feathers 16th February 2012, 10:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deders
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz
Additionally, it highlights issues with 1GB cards, such as running out of VRAM in BF3 and as such performing poorly at higher resolutions.

All 1GB cards are going to run out of Vram well before 1920x1080 with BF3.

A look at our 1920 x 1080 performance numbers would tell you otherwise. We even included the HD 69501GB and HD 6950 2GB for just this comparison. At 1920 x 1080 with 4xAA, both cards get a minimum frame rate of 32fps. At 2,560 x 1,600 with 4x AA, the 2GB manages a minimum of 19fps to the 1GB's 12fps. 1GB cards do not run out of VRAM in BF3 at 1,920 x 1,080.

WRONG!!!!!!!!

If you run ULTRA on BF3 you will need more than 1gb GDDR. I have tested this myself. If TEXTURES = Ultra then my 2 x 560Ti will show frequent CPU/GPU spikes. If AA = x4 then this also causes memory to run out on 1gb GDDR.

I have tried every setting I can think of to get ultra settings and as soon as textures = Ultra then the CPU/GPU spikes occur. I posted the problem on Battlelog and within an hour I had 50 responses from people telling me that yes, 1gb GDDR isn't enough for ultra textures. This is the reason people here have been telling me they have no problem running BF3 ultra on a single 570 or 580. BF3 will run ultra better on those because of the increased ram.

Seems to me you need to learn about BF3 hardware requirements.

I run BF3 at 1080 and have tried knocking it down to 1680... it makes no difference, as soon as Ultra textures enabled the GPU starts making requests to Ram causing serious stuttering.
feathers 16th February 2012, 10:46 Quote
BF3 Ultra at 1080 with 4 x AA on multiplayer maps can use 2gb GDDR.
Valinor 16th February 2012, 14:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by feathers
BF3 Ultra at 1080 with 4 x AA on multiplayer maps can use 2gb GDDR.

But it runs fine on Ultra at 1080 with 4x AA with 1.3GB GDDR.

EDIT: Actually, it was 2x AA, and it did indeed slow down a lot when I put it up to 4x AA.
Anfield 18th February 2012, 19:48 Quote
Yep, performance hit from AA is massive in bf3.

both the 7750 and the 7770 are disappointing due to being massively overpriced.
impar 18th February 2012, 20:29 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
Yep, performance hit from AA is massive in bf3.
Who uses MSAA in BF3?! :|
jon 19th February 2012, 19:48 Quote
One thought about the review specs ... in the graphs where you show the cards stacked against each other, can you provide links within the graphics that lead you to the other cards' reviews?
sub routine 21st February 2012, 18:58 Quote
how on earth can they produce something so mediocre in todays market at such a high price. Are AMD trying to scare off their potential customers who would be willing to invest in a company at such an early stage of a new product? Surely they want to make good use of their headstart against the greens.
thubleau 29th May 2012, 05:36 Quote
Well , I hate to set the reviewer straight on some points but the 7770 OC from Asus sells for $155.00 in my neck of the woods and the 6870 sells for way over $200.00 so its slam dunk plus add up your saving in power and its a no brainer.

The big thing that was overlooked is the why people purchase new cards.

In my case I need a full DisPlayPort at the rear because I run a Samsung 27A750 monitor at 120HZ.
My Gtx560 ti from Asus is no use to me because of the lack of display ports at the rear.

Also get this.


if you have mini displayPorts you need an adapter..cost $34.00 delivered.
Factor that into the equation and the 7770 becomes more and more desirable,
The 6850 has been quickly removed from the market..like it took less than a few days to remove it from websites in OZ.

.I know because I ordered one and it was not available so had to switch to the new Asus with full display port at the rear.

If you want power just add another 7770 in Crossfire mode thats an all up cost of $310.00.........try and find a single card for $310.00 that will out perform that setup and I will swim to New Zealand.

As for the 560TI that goes to my son and he can set it up with his other 560.
Adnoctum 5th October 2012, 07:56 Quote
Hilarious stuff in retrospect.
Hello from 7 months in the future when nVidia has finally gotten around to releasing their HD7750/HD7770 competitor, the monumentally misnamed GTX650. Bet everybody who was sitting on the fence waiting for nVidia to show their hand, now wishes they hadn't. I'd be splitting my sides about that if the group didn't also include myself.

I came back to this review to see the numbers on the HD7770 and HD7750 again, and then saw the conclusion, the score and the comments. Which is when I began to laugh. Because everyone is saying how pointless the GTX650 is when the HD7770 is faster and is the same price or cheaper. How the wheel turns!
Of course it helps that prices have gotten cheaper (it has been over 6 months) while the HD6850 has been discontinued for some time and are a lot harder to find.
The HD7770 is looking pretty good now, and I'm poised to pull the trigger on that passive Sapphire HD7750 Ultimate I've had my eye on for 7 long months. I'm not bitter. Thanks nVidia. OK, I might be a bit bitter.
GuilleAcoustic 5th October 2012, 08:04 Quote
OCed Gigabyte HD7770 cost 114€ delivered .... guess it's a no brainer : )
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