Hardware AMD Radeon HD 7770 1GB Review

Sorry, I really disagree. Having every card at 2560 x 1600 gives a better view of representative performance than 4 or 5 at 1,680 x 1,050. Additionally, it highlights issues with 1GB cards, such as running out of VRAM in BF3 and as such performing poorly at higher resolutions. Our 1920 x 1080 numbers show the HD 7770 delivers playable frame rates in most games at this res (OK, not in BF£, but that's because we test @ ultra), dropping to 1,680 x 1,050 would only reiterate this.

 

True... Back in Portugal everyone is selling their HD6950/70's (with only a couple of months) just to buy the HD7970... I know its faster... but is it worth it? I still have an HD5870 and play everything at 1920x1200 with 4XAA (BF3), I'm only interested in buying a new card because this HD5870 has 2 and a half years and I'm afraid it will die on me, at least I'll win some money from selling it...

 

too mcuh money - a 6850 is faster for less

 

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

 

As someone with 2 x 560Ti 1gb GDDR, I will never again make the mistake of buying a GPU with half the required memory to run BF3 in Ultra.

My next GPU will have at least 3gb GDDR.

 

According to wiki ( oh god ), and my bad memory, their naming scheme changed with the last generation. Wiki labels the mainstream for the 5*** as anything from 600-790, so 5670 - 5770, whereas the performance/midrange for the 6*** its 700 -890 giving 6750 - 6870. Can we just assume that they bumped all the numbers by 100?

So when refering to the 5*** product placement, the 7770 would take the same place as a 5670, and with the 6*** it would take the same placement as the 6770.

Actually I seem to remember the naming scheme was supposed to change to show performance relative to the previous generation, but maybe im wrong.

I can see how this new current naming scheme is helping to stop confusion

/incoherent babble

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

its not £130 - alot of palces have it under £120 (and lower) - and the 7750 is coming in between £80>£85

 

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.

 

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.

 

Well, this is a disappointment. Here's hoping they pull something out of the bag (unlikely).

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

"....which needed 250Mv added to the core voltage..."

250mV, not Mv.
Keep up the good work guys

 

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.

 

BF3 Ultra at 1080 with 4 x AA on multiplayer maps can use 2gb GDDR.