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
Conclusion
The 5830 is a card that the public has had some very high expectations for coming in to this launch. The 4830 – as short lived as it was – was a well received card even if it wasn’t an immediate bargain. For anyone expecting a repeat performance on the 5830, we can’t help but feel that you’re going to come away disappointed.
On a global average, the 5830 sits about half-way between a 4890 and a 4870, or if you prefer is about 8% slower than a GTX 275 and 20% slower than a 5850. The latter is particularly interesting since it comes so close to the 5850 even though it only has 55% of the ROP capacity; clearly the hit to the ROPs didn’t hurt too badly.
At any rate, I had been expecting something that would consistently be to the north of the 4890 in performance, but the performance is what it is – there’s no bad card, only a poorly priced card.
And a poorly priced card is really what does the 5830 in. AMD expects this card to go for $240, a mere $20 below the original MSRP for the 5850; if one goes by the original MSRP of the 5850 this card is much too slow for the price. Conversely the 5830 is around 10% slower than the 4890, a card that was going for between $180 and $200 before supplies seemingly ran dry. The only price comparison where $240 makes sense is compared to the 5850’s current $300 price – you get 80% of the performance for 80% of the price. But the 5850 is priced for profit taking, it’s a fast card but it’s not a great deal.
When we were being briefed about this card, AMD’s (and former Beyond3D guru) Dave Baumann asked us to get back to him on what we thought the card should be priced at once we finished our testing. Our response to him, and the same thing that we’re holding to in this review, is that the sweet spot for this card would be $200, and the highest should be $220. $200 is a sweet spot because it picks up where the 4890 left off, even if it is around 10% slower. $220 on the other hand places a greater valuation on the 5000 series feature set, and is closer to the GTX 275.
Dave’s argument (and undoubtedly one that will resonate throughout AMD) is that the 5830 has some very useful advantages over the 4890 – DX/DirectCompute 11, Eyefinity, better OpenCL support, and bitstreaming audio. All of this is true, although the 5830 strikes us as a poor choice for Eyefinity usage (get something faster) or for bitstreaming audio (it’s not exactly a cool HTPC card). DX11 and OpenCL is harder to evaluate due to their newness, and in the case of OpenCL AMD doesn’t even distribute their OpenCL driver with the rest of their Catalyst driver set yet.
Meanwhile there’s a separate argument entirely over whether the 5830 is more future-proof (disregarding DX11) due to its higher shader throughput. Historically speaking this is a reasonable argument, but it’s also one that I’m not convinced will hold up when NVIDIA is going to be pushing tessellation instead of shading – you can’t ignore what NVIDIA’s doing given their clearly stronger developer relations.
Ultimately the problem is that being future proof comes at too high a price. The 5770 was a hard sale compared to the faster 4870, and this time we’re talking about what’s around a $60 premium based on performance over the 4000 series. AMD’s saving grace here is that you can no longer buy such a card – it’s either a GTX260/4870, or nothing.
At the risk of sounding petty over $20, a $240 5830 is $20 too much. If this were priced at $200-$220 it wouldn’t be a clear choice for the 5830, but it wouldn’t be such a clear choice against it. For $240 you can try to shop around for a 4890 and save $40-$60 while getting a card that will perform better at most of today’s games, or save even more by going with a 4870 that will slightly underperform the 5830. Alternatively you can save up another $60 and get the 5850, a card that is faster running and cooler running at the same time. There is no scenario where we can wholeheartedly justify a 5830 if it’s going to be a $240 card – this really should have been the new $200 wonder card.
Update: It looks like AMD's partners have been able to come through and make this a hard launch. PowerColor and Sapphire cards have started showing up at Newegg. So we're very happy to report that this didn't turn out to be a paper launch after all. Do note however that the bulk of the cards are still not expected until next week.
This brings up the other elephant in the room: today’s paper launch. Paper launches should by all means have died last year, but their ghost apparently continues to live on. If in fact no 5830s make it to retailers in time for today’s launch, then the card should not have been launched today – it’s as simple as that.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
148 Comments
View All Comments
Voo - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
No, no I never said that the 5850 aren't good cards or a good value (though I still think that the 48xx cards offered more when they were released - but it's impossible to put cold hard numbers on that, so really no point in arguing about subjective feelings). As a matter of fact I think that the 5850 is probably the best card to get at the moment.But the same is just not true for the 5830 - even if you ignore the 4890 argument, the 5830 is priced closer to the 5850 but performs more like a 5770. I mean you get at most ~20% more performance than the 5770 but you can get one for much less than 200$.
kc77 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
I agree with this. Trust me I'm not going to buy a 5830 anytime soon if ever. I was just alarmed at the comment about the 5850, which was what caused me to post.anactoraaron - Friday, February 26, 2010 - link
one last thing to say about this. I think anyone that is being forced to pay 15% over MSRP is being ripped off (much like Ryan and Jarred were saying) in regards to the 5850 (as I bought a 5770 3 weeks after release for $150 after MIR and love it at 1080p!). I agree with you even saying what I just did- that if you had ~$300 to spend the 5850 is still the best choice. But since when have the "early adopters" been the ones to get the best deal? Imagine Intel RAISING the price of the X25-M 15% a 1-6 months after release (when everyone caught on to the technology, or finally saved up to make the jump) and then saw the price increase. I think SSD's in general would never have caught on if the X25-M stayed at it's original MSRP 6 months after release. Technology is supposed to lose value as it ages, not the other way around.Current price of the 5850 - as it is almost half a year old now - should be at MSRP or 5% below (or more after a rebate). If that was the case, the 5830 would be $50-$70 lower than it is now. And maybe, just maybe, it would be worth buying. ~$20 more over a 5770 to get ~20% more? It would make me regret buying the 5770...
kc77 - Saturday, February 27, 2010 - link
Your using SSD's as a bases for your argument??? Intel's prices were sky high until competition came from other manufacturers. Even today prices on SSD's fluctuate widely. Prices on SSD have been largely stagnant especially on Intel's line." think SSD's in general would never have caught on if the X25-M stayed at it's original MSRP 6 months after release."
Huh? It easily did. Prices didn't fall at all and in many cases the prices went up. You don't have to believe me check out a couple of articles here regarding the prices of SSD's. You'll find in every conclusion the talk of high prices often above MSRP's in Intel's line.
Prices didn't fall until Crucial, Kingston, etc started releasing competitive products which drove down the price of SSD's. Hence competition, the same thing that is lacking in the current generation of video cards.
JarredWalton - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
You include the GTX 200 series (which everyone thought was way too expensive at launch) with the 5800 series, but you don't list the 4800 cards. I think the problem is that ATI's 4800 series made us expect more of $300 cards.Granted, if 40nm yields are as poor as some say (or perhaps not that bad, but just not as good as expected), that can end up with prices going up.
Even with all this talk, I still don't think the 5830 is a great value. It doesn't differentiate itself enough from the 4890 and 5850 in my book. Either spend less for the 4890 and get higher performance, or spend more and get the 5850. I know Ryan says the HD 4890 is hard to find, but you can http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtool...">still find it in stock for under $200. (http://www.google.com/products?num=100&hl=en&a...">Google is your friend!)
Really, the big question is what sort of other hardware you're running. 30" LCDs aren't all that common, so 2560x1600 isn't a realistic selling point for the 5830 -- and don't even get me started on Eyefinity! (This coming from one of the few people that could actually set up a 3x30" gaming arena... if I had the space. LOL) 5770 goes for as little as http://www.ncixus.com/products/index.php?sku=48575">$140 ($130 with MIR), and it will handle just about any game at reasonable settings. 1080p with 2xAA or *GASP!* 0xAA? No problemo! That's $100 saved for a card that will still perform admirably, and if you're not sold on DX11 just yet (I'm not) you can spend $20 more for a card that goes toe to toe with the 5830.
As far as updating the article text, this is Ryan's article so I'm not going to stomp on his toes. The $250 price point is very crowded right now, and last-gen cards at sub-$200 are still available and perform as well... just with a higher power draw and no DX11.
kc77 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
I don't think the 5830 is a great value either. The thing that set off alarms was when I saw the blurb about the 5850. I was with u for the most part (it's not like I'm going to buy the card) until that section, and was just speechless.The reason why I didn't include the 4800 series cards is because they are last generation, not just in name, but technically as well. There are technical differences between the generations, DX11 being the most obvious. The 4890, which released at $250 has had 1-1/2 years of price reductions spurred by competition to reach the price point it can be found at today.
I would love to have included Fermi in order to do a 1 vs 1 price/performance comparison, but it's not out yet. I'm comparing the latest from both camps. That's is what is providing the backdrop for determining value. We could always include the previous generation but there are obvious reasons why looking at benchmarks alone doesn't tell the whole story. We can only say Dx11 has no impact for so long until it becomes comical.
If I was buying a card today there's no way in hell I would intentionally buy a Dx10 card for anything more than $100 because I typically game at 1920x1080, which means I don't shop in the budget class. That just doesn't make any sense for me. Regardless of the saturation of DX11 titles, this isn't PhysX or Cuda. We are talking about a Microsoft API that's going to drive game development for the next 2 years at least. What developer isn't going to use it? It's not like we are waiting for developers to create extra debris to fly across the screen.
Overall I think we are in agreement when it comes to the 5830. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to the 5850 comment as being a bridge too far. It's not like Nvidia just started flirting with $600 price points on new introductions even when the overall value has been less than stellar, which is why I don't view the 5830 as abominable. It's definitely not for me, but it does fill a gap performance-wise within the latest generation of cards for someone who (not me) doesn't have an extra 20 to 30 bucks to spend.
Quidam - Sunday, February 28, 2010 - link
This has been an interesting read.I'll agree that the 5850 really is a great value card (even at it's current price-point) all other things considered.
However, I'll also agree with Ryan that the 5830 is a disappointing product and honestly, at it's current pricing, you'd be mad to buy it.
To summarise, what we get here seems to be a card that is bigger than the 5850 (5870 pcb) uses potentially more power and performs more closely to a 5770 than a 5850. If anything all it does is make the products below and above it look even better.
I'm not the kind of consumer who looks only at raw power, I like to look at the whole package: physical size; power requirements; heat; noise and of course price.
To me, the 5830 does not fill the price/performance gap, what it does is give AMD the opportunity to sell otherwise wasted gpu's. Considering the attributes of this card, a competitive price was the one thing that could have made it attractive. As it stands, I'd be bummed if Anandtech did anything else but call this as bad buy.
What I would like to see is a 5790 -ie an upscaled Juniper. If they could keep the power requirements at a single PCI-E six pin plug and open up the memory bandwidth, that could be one awesome card. Of course such a card would not be the result of defective gpu's from the next model up, so I imagine this is totally fantasy on my part. ie. they would already have made such a card if they could.
kc77 - Sunday, February 28, 2010 - link
I can see where this is card isn't a great value within ATI's lineup and that's the key part "within ATI's lineup". However, do me a favor and hop over to newegg and look at Nvidia's lineup, more precisely the price.What ATI is pricing this against is the video card market as whole. More importantly the 260 which the 5830 easily beats. 260's go for 200 - 220. That's a DX10 part mind you without any of the benefits of the 5830.
Some sites do a price/performance comparison and if a chart was done here you would see the 5830 fits directly above the 260. Other cards within ATI's lineup would likely beat it, however when compared to what nvidia is offering it's priced right. Is it fair? Not really but no company cannibalizes it's own product line when it's already offering a solution that's substantially lower than what the competitor would price it at.
As far as this being a card salvaged from lesser cores, that's pretty normal in the chip business there's nothing weird about it. The 260-216 was originally what the 260 was supposed to be. However, no one says that nvidia sold defective 260's. If the card works reliably and does what it's supposed to nuff said.
If your looking for ATI to do the same thing as the 4 series which was offer high performing parts at mid range prices that's just not going to happen when the cards don't have a competitor.
Quidam67 - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link
I never said there was anything weired about using defective chips for a lower-end card. What I said was I'd prefer to see Juniper given more than a 128bit memory bus (and maybe some more ROPS) and call it a 5790. Problem is it would probably perform better than the 5830 so that's never going to happen lol.It's artificial for you to point out (again) that the 5830 compares well to nVidia's cards. We already know that -nVidia has not even made it to the party this generation and as far as I'm concerned they are out of the race (this cycle). In a free market, the 5830 competes with other AMD cards as well, and on that basis it fails.
Things could be worse for AMD, as it's a clear case of which card of theirs should we buy. Not the 5830!
kc77 - Monday, March 1, 2010 - link
If Juniper had a 256-bit bus than it wouldn't be a Juniper. It would be 5830.Only if DX11 and Eyefinity, and audio over HDMI mean absolutely nothing, which they do. This is the first time where I've seen anyone make a case that a new Dx spec was irrelevant even though games are available as I type this that take advantage of it.
Second, what do you think the availability is of the 4890? It's in the same boat as Nvidia it's being phased out. So what exactly in the previous generation are you going to purchase that has the same performance? Your almost comparing it to a phantom card that no longer exists.