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.

Power & Temperature
Comments Locked

148 Comments

View All Comments

  • 7Enigma - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    Ryan,

    I really don't understand the results here. You have this new card with:

    -more stream processors
    -more texture units
    -the same number of ROPS
    -50 MHz slower core clock (that's 5% btw)
    -virtually the same memory clock
    -same bus width
    -same frame buffer size

    How the heck can it be 20% slower than the 4890? Can this really be due to driver issues. On paper I just can't see this being more than 5% slower in a game that is solely bottlenecked by the core clock, and in most cases would expect it to be faster than the 4890.

    Is there something crazy like the 2.15B transistor count is causing the data to travel longer distances (or leakage issues) than the 4890 with its ~1B count? That doesn't jive with my brain but I'm not able to come up with any other reason why the 5830 should be slower....
  • Assimilator87 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    Yeah, the most baffling fact from this review isn't how horribly priced the 5830 is, it's how a card with 40%, 40...percent, more shaders and texturing units and a newer architecture can be slower. It's absolutely mind boggling. I'd really love it if Ryan or Anand would do a reevaluation of the Evergreen architecture to gain some insight as to why it's so much less efficient than the R700 family.
  • Paladin1211 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    I think Ryan has stated it very clearly:

    "Moving away from the 5450 for a moment, besides the Radeon HD 5770 this is the only other card in the 5000-series that is directly similar to a 4000-series card. In fact it’s the most similar, being virtually identical to the 4550 in terms of functional units and memory speeds. With this card we can finally pin down something we couldn’t quite do with the 5770: clock-for-clock, the 5000-series is slower than the 4000-series.

    This is especially evident on the 5450, where the 5450 has a 50MHz core speed advantage over the 4550, and yet with everything else being held equal it is still losing to the 4550 by upwards of 10%. This seems to the worst in shader-heavy games, which leads us to believe that actual cause is that the move from DX10.1 shader hardware on the 4000-series to DX11 shader hardware on the 5000 series. Or in other words, the shaders in particular seem to be what’s slower."

    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3734...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3734...
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    And at this point, that's still the best answer I can give you. I don't know exactly why this card is slower; it does well in synthetic benchmarks. A general degree of shader inefficiency still seems to be the most likely culprit.
  • silverblue - Friday, February 26, 2010 - link

    Perhaps AMD can shed some light on the subject, though I expect they'll more than likely wait for you to post a follow-up article before admitting anything. I refuse to believe it's bad drivers that aren't taking proper advantage of the hardware, a la the 8500.
  • pierrebai - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    Ask for new benchmark using the lastest AMD drivers. Each release improves the perfs for the new cards. For example, for 10.2:

    DiRT 2 – Overall performance improves up to 8% on ATI Radeon™ HD 5970, ATI
    Radeon™ HD 5800 series, and ATI Radeon™ HD 5700 series products

    Battleforge – CrossFire ATI Radeon™ HD 5870 performance improves up to 6%

    Unigine Heaven – DirectX 9 CrossFire performance has improved significantly on
    ATI Radeon™ HD 5700 and ATI Radeon™ HD 5800 series products

    The Chronicles of Riddick – Assault on Dark Athena – Overall performance on
    ATI Radeon™ HD 5970 improves up to 4%

    ...
  • LordanSS - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    Latest drivers are buggy. No can do games with stupid mouse cursor issues and videos causing crashes.

    Until they definitely fix these issues, 9.12 hotfix it is.
  • silverblue - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    I think someone once said that they believed the 5xxx series to be slower, clock-for-clock, than the 4xxx series. Certainly seems to be ringing true in this case.
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    Agreed in theory the 5870 is double the 4890, you have the same core clock, 2x the SIMD's, 2x ROP's. 2x the Texture Units, but only a 23% increase in Memory Bandwidth. And on average your looking at 40-50% faster.

    The SIMD's on the 5xxx just aren't as powerful as the one's on the 4xxx Series.

    I hope that is no the case on the Fermi core.

  • Xtrafresh - Thursday, February 25, 2010 - link

    Good point. I can see all the extra feature hardware get in the way of straight-up performance as the only explanation i can come up with now.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now