AMD’s Radeon HD 5830: A Filler Card at the Wrong Price
by Ryan Smith on February 24, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
BattleForge
BattleForge is a game we have always taken as being shader-heavy, which is what makes our results here so interesting. While Far Cry 2 was a dead heat between the 5830/4890/GTX275, BattleForge quickly separates the cards. We’re anywhere between 15-20% slower than those cards, leaving the 5830 to hang with the 4870 most of the time, and to even lose there at 1680. Meanwhile against the 5850, it’s 25-30% slower.
Given that the 5830 has a higher ratio of shader power to rendering than any of these other cards, our best conclusion is that BattleForge is in fact a ROP-heavy game when not completely starved of shader power. The result is that the 5830 is placing near a card that costs some 33% less. It’s clear that the impact of cutting the ROPs in half will vary from game to game.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
148 Comments
View All Comments
ET - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
The graph shows the 5770 getting 46.6 fps at 1920x1200, which is out of line with its relative power as well as the 42 fps it gets at 1680x1050.Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
Yep, a number got transposed. Fixed.ET - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
Makes me wonder how the 5770 fares at 2560x1600. In the original review it got 35.9, but I see that the frame rate went up at the other resolutions, so it might be closer to 40 fps.Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
No, the only issue is that I wrote down the 1920 data for 1680 and vice versa. Performance for anything else is the same.ET - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
You didn't understand my comment. I'll try again:The 5770 seems to provide pretty good performance in this game (even after your fix). In the original 5770/50 review it scored 35.9 fps at 1600x1200, but it looks like the frame rates have gone up since then, probably thanks to drive changes, so I wonder how well it performs now at that resolution (which was unfortunately not mentioned in the current review).
ET - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
Oops, meant 2560x1600, not 1600x1200.Mygaffer - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
Is it just me, or does the 4890 compete head to head with the GTX285? I didn't realize it was that fast.strikeback03 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3539looks similar to a little slower
coldpower27 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
I would say on average 4890 = GTX 280...GTX 285 would be a tad faster.
AnandThenMan - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
Yet another needlessly negative article for an AMD product. Colour me shocked, and hey nice touch, you put the #1 downfall of the card right in the title, excellent!gave the card a gold award despite the somewhat questionable price, and higher power consumption vs. the 5850. BTW, don't even bother defending the review, I've heard all the excuses and reasons before.