Faster Graphics For Lower Prices: ATI Radeon HD 4770
by Derek Wilson on April 28, 2009 5:15 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Power Consumption
The Radeon HD 4770 shows a solid mix of low idle and load power clearly outclassing the NVIDIA hardware. The relatively small differential between the two is interesting especially considering the kind of performance we see.
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 ??