Faster Graphics For Lower Prices: ATI Radeon HD 4770
by Derek Wilson on April 28, 2009 5:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
And there you have it: 40nm has arrived, and it looks pretty good. The Radeon HD 4770 always outperforms the older 4830 and sometimes gives the 4850 a run for its money.
As for the competition, the 4770 comes out on top in the games we tested. The more expensive GTS 250 leads in Call of Duty World at War, while the 4770 blows the doors off everything in Age of Conan. As for the other benchmarks, they come out pretty close with the 4770 generally ahead. But the clincher is Far Cry 2 performance which shows the Radeon HD 4770 leading the GTS 250 fairly well in a heavy hitting graphics engine.
Our expectations for the hardware were a little higher while our idea of price was also a little lower, but from our perspective, the extra $10 isn't out in left field as this card generally leads a competitive part that costs even more and sometimes pushes up toward the Radeon HD 4850. At the same time, you can spend a little bit less and get some very good performance if you are into the value option.
We still don't like the fact that the AMD decided to name this the 4770 despite the fact that it consistently outperforms the 4830. Unfortunately, we can't do any more about it than we are already doing. So we'll have to make do in the meantime.
NVIDIA should have 40nm parts out this year as well, and both camps have their own way of rolling out new process technology. AMD continues to be a little bit more aggressive on that front, seemingly making the move on the earliest viable hardware whether it's low or high end. NVIDIA looks to play it a little more cautiously. It's all about cost benefit. Certainly it's a benefit to have smaller GPUs as they cost less to make. But early on in the life of a manufacturing process, yields can suffer driving price up. Timing the move well can have its advantages, and NVIDIA is counting on that this time around.
It isn't clear when NVIDIA will have a part in this generation of their architecture that competes in the near $100 market. For now, the best option is clear: the Radeon HD 4770 is the way to go.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
88 Comments
View All Comments
Luminair - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
whose power readings are correct, anandtech or hardocptomoyo - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
Ya the power readings are all over the map here. Xbitlabs has the 4770 with MUCH lower idle power than the 4830. While Anandtech shows the 4770 consuming more at idle. Something is strange with the power measurements of this graphics card.RagingDragon - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link
Everbody is measuring system power consumption at the wall socket instead of GPU power consumption; therefore, power comsumption varies since each site uses different CPU's, motherboards, powersupplies, etc.kmmatney - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
I haven;t read the XBitLab article yet, but they normally use a technique where they directly measure the power draw of the card, rather than the entire system. I believe they are more accurate. I'll read their article now, since it probably has OVERCLOCKING!!! How could AT miss that - at least OC and run one benchmark so we can see the percentage gain.tomoyo - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
Looking at HARDocp's power results, they don't make sense. Supposedly their system without video card is 46 watts from the wall and system with 4770 is 53 watts? There's no way the idle is 7 watts for the video card including psu inefficiencies. This contradicts greatly with xbitlabs and anandtech...which already both contradict each other regarding power usage. Basically none of the power results can be trusted which is really annoying.Korr - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
What a terrible piece. This is the exact reason why I rarely visit AT anymore. One resolution per game tested? No overclocking? One page of text to whine about the name?Please never review computer hardware again.
aeternitas - Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - link
I guess simple graphs are still too complex for some people to understand. lolJarredWalton - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
Don't know about you, but I see resolution scaling charts showing 1280x1024, 1680x1050, and 1920x1200.7Enigma - Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - link
B...B...But the other resolutions don't have pretty bar graphs! Seriously don't feed these trolls. If they can't even READ the review before blasting it for things included, they don't deserve to get answered.AtenRa - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link
Personally I don’t mind about the naming of the card.Although this card is the first 0.40nm and it’s the first time the GPUs are manufactured using a smaller process than CPUs, I don’t see the reviewers to be exited for this product. I mean this review feels like it was made in 15 minutes just for having it in the site. No O/C and no CrossFire results. Have you ever wandered if 2 x 4770 are faster than a 4890?? how about 3 x 4770 ??