Dipshit. 5770 all the way. What's the point in buying a 4890 when the 5770 is better, and DX11?H3RB4L ABU53 wrote:
The 5750 is cheaper and DX11 and a better overclocker, but 4890 is 256 bit memory so better for high resolutions. I'd say the 4890 if you use 1920x1080.Jaekus wrote:
If I had a choice between an HD 4890 or an HD 5750, which should I choose? Is one much better than the other?
You might be able to get a 4890 cheaper maybe used, but I can't find any in stock anywhere new. The 5770 is about £10-£20 dearer than the 5750 and only gets you about 3 or 4 extra fps in most games so it's not really worth getting that either.
I'd say if you're playing at about 1680x1050 or lower then get a 5750 they use a lot less power than 4890 and older cards too
The 5770 isn't much more expensive anyway, from my computer parts supplier. On closer inspection the 5750's are out of stock anyway, and they have a wider selection of the 5770.
Alright I'm running a pretty dated system please don't diss me!
E6400, 4870 512mb and 2gbs of ram.
Works pretty well on medium!
E6400, 4870 512mb and 2gbs of ram.
Works pretty well on medium!
I'm able to run on high at 1024x768 with athlon fx62 3gb ram and 4670 512mbwah1188 wrote:
Alright I'm running a pretty dated system please don't diss me!
E6400, 4870 512mb and 2gbs of ram.
Works pretty well on medium!
q9400 oc'd to 3.2ghz/4890/4gb 800mhz/650 watt psu
run on high 1xaa 4x af... 1280x1024 never go below 80fps... most times its 100-160 on fraps.
I am about to upgrade to a 23/24 inch 1920x1080 monitor so not sure about fps.
Might get another 4890(found a new one on craigslist for 120 bucks)
run on high 1xaa 4x af... 1280x1024 never go below 80fps... most times its 100-160 on fraps.
I am about to upgrade to a 23/24 inch 1920x1080 monitor so not sure about fps.
Might get another 4890(found a new one on craigslist for 120 bucks)
Love is the answer
That's pretty similair to my setupCatbox wrote:
q9400 oc'd to 3.2ghz/4890/4gb 800mhz/650 watt psu
run on high 1xaa 4x af... 1280x1024 never go below 80fps... most times its 100-160 on fraps.
I am about to upgrade to a 23/24 inch 1920x1080 monitor so not sure about fps.
Might get another 4890(found a new one on craigslist for 120 bucks)
Q9550 @ 4.0GHz
4GB RAM
GTX275
Maxed out at 1680x1050 with fine FPS
4GB RAM
GTX275
Maxed out at 1680x1050 with fine FPS
I've not actually tried it on high. I might get upset at how crap my set-up is if I do.CammRobb wrote:
I'm able to run on high at 1024x768 with athlon fx62 3gb ram and 4670 512mbwah1188 wrote:
Alright I'm running a pretty dated system please don't diss me!
E6400, 4870 512mb and 2gbs of ram.
Works pretty well on medium!
FYI BFBC2 runs perfectly smooth on low settings on my laptop (i5 430 & HD5650M)
I'm going to try upping the settings to see what results I get...
A radeon 4870 overclocked will run it fine at medium with a E8500 CPU
I'm going to try upping the settings to see what results I get...
A radeon 4870 overclocked will run it fine at medium with a E8500 CPU
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Yeah well I need a new card, the cheap 5450 just isn't cutting it.
A mate has a similar setup to me (except 6gb RAM instead of 3gb) and he has a 5770, can run the game with everything maxed out smooth as silk, which is more than I can say with everything on low...
A mate has a similar setup to me (except 6gb RAM instead of 3gb) and he has a 5770, can run the game with everything maxed out smooth as silk, which is more than I can say with everything on low...
will run fine on high. turn down effects to low.wah1188 wrote:
I've not actually tried it on high. I might get upset at how crap my set-up is if I do.CammRobb wrote:
I'm able to run on high at 1024x768 with athlon fx62 3gb ram and 4670 512mbwah1188 wrote:
Alright I'm running a pretty dated system please don't diss me!
E6400, 4870 512mb and 2gbs of ram.
Works pretty well on medium!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
No it's not.CammRobb wrote:
That's pretty similair to my setupCatbox wrote:
q9400 oc'd to 3.2ghz/4890/4gb 800mhz/650 watt psu
run on high 1xaa 4x af... 1280x1024 never go below 80fps... most times its 100-160 on fraps.
I am about to upgrade to a 23/24 inch 1920x1080 monitor so not sure about fps.
Might get another 4890(found a new one on craigslist for 120 bucks)
never noticed it was a qFinray wrote:
No it's not.CammRobb wrote:
That's pretty similair to my setupCatbox wrote:
q9400 oc'd to 3.2ghz/4890/4gb 800mhz/650 watt psu
run on high 1xaa 4x af... 1280x1024 never go below 80fps... most times its 100-160 on fraps.
I am about to upgrade to a 23/24 inch 1920x1080 monitor so not sure about fps.
Might get another 4890(found a new one on craigslist for 120 bucks)
If you've got good RAM it's pretty much all dependant on your vid card at the end of the day anyway.
actually, the game is dependant on CPU more than anything else. gpu secondary. RAM... last... and then if your memory is maxed out, hard-drive.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Really? Well I'm running an AMD 550 unlocked to 4 cores at standard 3.1 (don't want to o/c till I get a new case as this old school one only takes one fan...) and the best I can do is playable performance at best. A mate with the exact same CPU but with a 5770 and 6gb can run it on high and it's smoother than me all on low and forced Dx9.
well obviously, his system is far more capable of running the later DX's
what i meant is that this game is far more heavy on CPU's than earlier titles. it pretty much makes a quad-core a must-have, for the first time. not many games utilize four cores as intensively as BC2 does (providing you use +fullproc or such)
what i meant is that this game is far more heavy on CPU's than earlier titles. it pretty much makes a quad-core a must-have, for the first time. not many games utilize four cores as intensively as BC2 does (providing you use +fullproc or such)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
We've also got the same version of Win7 Ultimate 64 bit and fairly similar mobos... don't know if that means anything or not.
it means the comparison is more fair, i guess.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Well 5770 isn't much better than 5750, £10 difference on some cards and on most benchmarks 3-4 extra fps.CammRobb wrote:
Dipshit. 5770 all the way. What's the point in buying a 4890 when the 5770 is better, and DX11?H3RB4L ABU53 wrote:
The 5750 is cheaper and DX11 and a better overclocker, but 4890 is 256 bit memory so better for high resolutions. I'd say the 4890 if you use 1920x1080.Jaekus wrote:
If I had a choice between an HD 4890 or an HD 5750, which should I choose? Is one much better than the other?
You might be able to get a 4890 cheaper maybe used, but I can't find any in stock anywhere new. The 5770 is about £10-£20 dearer than the 5750 and only gets you about 3 or 4 extra fps in most games so it's not really worth getting that either.
I'd say if you're playing at about 1680x1050 or lower then get a 5750 they use a lot less power than 4890 and older cards too
5770 is DX11, but what's the point, it's a low-mid end DX11 card. It's like the 8600GT (which is what I have) is DX10 and DX10 was new when it came out, but it don't mean it can play DX10 well.
Just because the 4890 is a 4 series don't mean it's worse, 890 is one of Ati's highest ends. The 5770 uses less power (and may overclock better) but it's only got 128-bit memory rather than 4890's 256-bit, and that makes a lot of difference at high resolutions.
You probably have a 5770 hence the fanboyism, if not then you are just wrong. 128-bit memory is a big bottleneck, there's no way a new gen mid range card will outperform a top of the range card from the last series, maybe unless it uses new technology like Nvidia's new cards, but it doesn't
Guys, you're just confusing me.
Please cite references to the points you argue, then I can research them and make an informed decision.
Thank you.
Please cite references to the points you argue, then I can research them and make an informed decision.
Thank you.
4890 is the better card, but it's dearer- for that reason.
If you're playing at low res, which you are (1280x1024) then just get the 5750 or the 5770.
You only need the 256-bit memory of the 4890 if you're playing high res, otherwise you'd be better off getting the cheaper 5750 or 5770. Only difference between 5750 and 5770 is about 5fps and a tiny bit more extra cost.
There's hardly any difference between a 750 and a 770 Ati card. 850 and 870 is a lot higher end.
You can always use google, just type stuff like 5770 vs 4890 or whatever, but trust me, go for the the 5 series at your res- you might even be able to get respectable DX11 framerate.
Despite what people on here say, the 4890 is the better card, but it's not needed at your res.
The GTX260 is better than a 5770, and a 4890 is better than a GTX260- just to prove CammRobb wrong lol
If you're playing at low res, which you are (1280x1024) then just get the 5750 or the 5770.
You only need the 256-bit memory of the 4890 if you're playing high res, otherwise you'd be better off getting the cheaper 5750 or 5770. Only difference between 5750 and 5770 is about 5fps and a tiny bit more extra cost.
There's hardly any difference between a 750 and a 770 Ati card. 850 and 870 is a lot higher end.
You can always use google, just type stuff like 5770 vs 4890 or whatever, but trust me, go for the the 5 series at your res- you might even be able to get respectable DX11 framerate.
Despite what people on here say, the 4890 is the better card, but it's not needed at your res.
The GTX260 is better than a 5770, and a 4890 is better than a GTX260- just to prove CammRobb wrong lol
Last edited by H3RB4L ABU53 (2010-03-19 10:55:52)
like it was hard to do.H3RB4L ABU53 wrote:
The GTX260 is better than a 5770, and a 4890 is better than a GTX260- just to prove CammRobb wrong lol
The confusing thing is nowadays there are too many cards. IMO there is no need for a 5750 and a 5770, they're pretty much the same price and same performance, I think Ati and Nvidia should just bring a low end, mid range, and top end card out for each series, maybe 2 top ends 1 being single and other being dual GPU, would be much less confusing for people, not to mention they seem to bring a new generation out every few months now, so loads of people assume that any "5" series card is better than any "4" series just because it's newer.
I have a 4670...H3RB4L ABU53 wrote:
Well 5770 isn't much better than 5750, £10 difference on some cards and on most benchmarks 3-4 extra fps.CammRobb wrote:
Dipshit. 5770 all the way. What's the point in buying a 4890 when the 5770 is better, and DX11?H3RB4L ABU53 wrote:
The 5750 is cheaper and DX11 and a better overclocker, but 4890 is 256 bit memory so better for high resolutions. I'd say the 4890 if you use 1920x1080.
You might be able to get a 4890 cheaper maybe used, but I can't find any in stock anywhere new. The 5770 is about £10-£20 dearer than the 5750 and only gets you about 3 or 4 extra fps in most games so it's not really worth getting that either.
I'd say if you're playing at about 1680x1050 or lower then get a 5750 they use a lot less power than 4890 and older cards too
5770 is DX11, but what's the point, it's a low-mid end DX11 card. It's like the 8600GT (which is what I have) is DX10 and DX10 was new when it came out, but it don't mean it can play DX10 well.
Just because the 4890 is a 4 series don't mean it's worse, 890 is one of Ati's highest ends. The 5770 uses less power (and may overclock better) but it's only got 128-bit memory rather than 4890's 256-bit, and that makes a lot of difference at high resolutions.
You probably have a 5770 hence the fanboyism, if not then you are just wrong. 128-bit memory is a big bottleneck, there's no way a new gen mid range card will outperform a top of the range card from the last series, maybe unless it uses new technology like Nvidia's new cards, but it doesn't