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.
148 Comments
View All Comments
7Enigma - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
And as a follow-up, could you OC the 5830's core clock 50MHz and rerun one of the tests that has the 4890 beating it by 20%? I'm just wondering if the core clock is starving the card so badly that it's compounding the performance issue.geok1ng - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
We should see more and more of these builds on future generations.Die yields are unpredictable, so a chip project should predict a product line with many degrees of performance.
i wouldn't mind having 5890, 5880,5870,5860,5850,5840,5830,5820 and even a 5810, as long as all offer equivalent performance for the price asked, which is NOT the case here.
As for the 5870E6, well, it is nice to have a 2GB card that is incapable of driving a 30" monitor. Either lower its price or make an arrangement for mass production of miniDP-Dual-link DVI adapters.
If AMD is ready to start taking momentum on premium niche market spots, i suggest a Watercooled 5970E6 with 2GB per GPU 4GB total. As it stand it make more sense for a massive E6 setup to go the dual 5850 way, at least one would avoid adapters costs.
AznBoi36 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
I'm actually very happy with AMD's lineup as it is. At least it's nowhere as confusing as Nvidia with all their re-branding and crap they've pulled.flipmode - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
Quite simply, the price of this card is insulting and the performance is disappointing.It's slower than a 4890 but 20% more expensive? Ludicrous, ridiculous.
AMD, this is not the way to treat your customers. I'm all for you making profit, but why don't you try to make some profit with a reasonably priced product?
Just as important, how bout giving us some cards that don't suck? 5870 and 5850 are nice, but everything else you've released has been disappointing and overpriced.
Thanks for the review Ryan.
silverblue - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
This card, if anything, is more like a 5810 (if one existed) than anything else. It's simply just too cut down; if they'd disabled two SIMDs it'd be far more deserving of its current price tag, and they could've resisted raising the core clock to compensate.The 4830 was far less cut down in comparison to the 4850.
silverblue - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
Just to add, if all of the 5830 dies are more defective than the 5850 dies, the question remains how defective they are. Some have to be good enough to the point where they just missed the cut for the 5850 but only have one additional defective SIMD, and it would be very nice to be able to unlock this. If that's not possible, couldn't AMD just release an interim product with 1280 SP/64 TU/24 ROP? They can't all be damaged to a similar degree.AznBoi36 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
I guess yields at 40nm are "that" bad.Scali - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
"and in the case of OpenCL AMD doesn’t even distribute their OpenCL driver with the rest of their Catalyst driver set yet."You said it!
I'm getting pretty annoyed by this right now.
AMD had been promoting OpenCL for months, and driver release after driver release, I find NO OpenCL runtimes included.
nVidia has offered OpenCL to end-users in their official WHQL driver releases since November last year.
AMD end-users still have nothing, three months later. Which also means that developers can't release OpenCL applications to end-users with AMD hardware. And originally we were told that they would arrive in Q2 2009.
Pretty ironic, when it was AMD that was promoting OpenCL all the time, and trying to paint nVidia as the evil proprietary Cuda guy, that was not going to support OpenCL.
stmok - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
According to this...=> http://developer.amd.com/gpu/ATIStreamSDK/Pages/de...">http://developer.amd.com/gpu/ATIStreamSDK/Pages/de...
...OpenCL support for ATI cards began in ATI Catalyst 10.2 drivers.
For Nvidia, OpenCL developer tools is here...
=> http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opencl.html">http://developer.nvidia.com/object/opencl.html
Both AMD and Nvidia support OpenCL. Developer tools on both sides are available.
leexgx - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link
OpenCL should come with the drivers no matter the size on http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx?p=...">http://game.amd.com/us-en/drivers_catalyst.aspx?p=...most may just stick with cuda at this time
quite sure i have read some where that you need to code for Nvidia OpenCL as well as ATI OpenCL