Ati 5770 or Geforce 260?

G

geekcomputing

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
1,100
Looking to upgrade but i wonder which would be the better choice?

The 260 seems faster but the 5770 should be more future proof and has room for the drivers to help it out. plus i have read the ATI card runs cooler and quieter. (i hate loud computers)

So whats everyones opinion?

Running XP 64 bit.
8 gigs of ddr 3
Quad core amd 3.21 gig herz
Corsair 750 PSU

If i go the ATI route i might overclock just a little.

So whats the deal guys?
 
Xp?


Ati had only basic driver support for 5xxx series in xp, iirc.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
 
I just got the HIS 5770 from newegg, there is a $10 off promo code for it if you get the newsletter which brings it down to $152.99 My first impressions of it are really good my desktop seems to look a bit sharper than with my nv card (no idea why), I haven't thrown much in the way of games at it yet but it was running Aion on max easily at full hd resolution until a massive raid but I think that is an issue with the game itself.
 
I had the vista infection so i upgraded to XP. I do not plan on going to win7.

Do you have that promo code? Thanks.

more feedback guys.. more!
 
It mostly depends on your gaming resolution, i think if you read the hardOCP reviews then you know what to expect approx.

For the amount of money spend on the 5770 I'm sure that you get your money's worth. It uses less power also then the GTX260.

I upgraded from a GTX260 to a 5870 but thats another story :) .
 
If you don't plan on switching to 7, then you're better off getting a faster DX10 card (4890 or whatever) for the same money. The 5770 loses the whole future-proof argument if you're not going to use DX11.
 
XP=DX9
Vista=DX10
7=DX11

I think the 5770 wins the green argument compared to any similar card, but with an overclocked quadcore, 8 gigs of ram, and a 750w power supply, that doesn't seem to be your concern, haha.

The 5770 is def not faster than the 4890, so if you're not using 7, I don't see the point. If you do end up getting the 5770 though, get one with the egg-shaped cooler that has voltage adjustment.
 
I really dont care about the going green FAD. :)

damn.. forced to go to win7 infection. i wonder how much ram it eats up just idle?
 
geekcomputing said:
I really dont care about the going green FAD. :)

damn.. forced to go to win7 infection. i wonder how much ram it eats up just idle?
Click to expand...

Your whining about Win 7 when using 8GB of ram, WTF would you be doing to use all the ram? If you just game, you'll never be using all 8GB's with today's games. With that Said, My system will usually have about 1.2~1.6GB at idle with SuperFetch on. You should go and read how ram is used on Vista and 7, it's better for a reason and 7 has been my second best upgrade behind a SSD!

As already said, only Vista and 7 support DX11 standards.

As for the video card choice. Hard to make a judgment when I we don't know the type of games you play, or the Resolutions you like to play at.
 
geekcomputing said:
I really dont care about the going green FAD. :)

damn.. forced to go to win7 infection. i wonder how much ram it eats up just idle?
Click to expand...

Who the hell cares how much RAM any program uses anymore?! 4 to 6GB is the minimum anyone should have for even a basic computer these days and windows certainly doesn't come close to using that much.

Win7 > XP in every way. It's a great OS.
 
I just dont like things that are poorly designed. Its a freaking OS (vista) and its eating 2 gigs idle.. thats just plum crazy.

Really i could go for an OS thats pretty spartan.

i have 8 gigs of ram just to have 8 gigs. Why not.. its cheap.

I'm currently playing bioshock and fallout 3 at 1920 x 1080
 
The HD 5770 is a tad slower at stock, but even with as modest as a 50 MHz overclock (which nearly all units seem to hit just fine; most can hit 1GHz core with vcore adjustment) on the core to 900MHz the 5770 nestles between the GTX 260 216/4870 and the 4890 in performance. It consumes less power than any of the other cards mentioned, runs cooler, and is definitely quieter than the 4870 and 4890 (not sure about MSI's cyclone version, though).

The real winning factor for the 5770 is native audio through HDMI, and quality home theater functionality. The 48x0 series and the GTX 260 216 can't touch the 5770 here.
 
Last edited:
geekcomputing said:
I just dont like things that are poorly designed. Its a freaking OS (vista) and its eating 2 gigs idle.. thats just plum crazy.

Really i could go for an OS thats pretty spartan.

i have 8 gigs of ram just to have 8 gigs. Why not.. its cheap.

I'm currently playing bioshock and fallout 3 at 1920 x 1080
Click to expand...

You get a truckload of ram so you can sit with 2 gigs idle and not have a care in the world :)

Actually going from Vista to Win7 on my desktop rig with 8 gigs of ram I noticed a difference in the right direction for performance all around. Actually I noticed a larger difference on my 4 gig notebook that really made me happy. As for a video card, I own a 280 and haven't had an ATI since the 9800 so my advice on that is pretty useless.

Personally I don't know how you can stand XP 64bit as that thing was the worst POS/PITA I ever delt with, way worse then Vista! Nothing worked with it and it was slower then XP SP2. Ah well, the Win7 koolaid is alright if anything, good enough to drop the 10 year old XP OS.
 
As an original hater of Vista, with SP1 and SP2 I feel the OS finally became stable. I never saw it use more than 1 gb of ram when running nothing but the OS. I upgraded most of my machines to 7 and that OS is a dream, much better than what Vista became. But honestly, in this day and age, I feel it is foolish to run any Windows older than Vista. With DX11 on Vista and 7 plus the security updates MS has pushed on those OS's I feel XP's time has passed. I dealt with XP until a year ago, but now even my homeserver is running 7, and it just feels tighter and more efficient than XP ever did.

BTW, the 5770 is an excellent card, built one with an Athlon II x2 240(@3.6ghz) and a 785 motherboard with that little card and the machine flies! Gives my Old 3.46Ghz Core2 Duo with 2x8800GTs a run for it's money.
 
I would get something more powerful than my 5770 if I was gaming regularly at 1920 x 1080.
 
geekcomputing said:
Looking to upgrade but i wonder which would be the better choice?

The 260 seems faster but the 5770 should be more future proof and has room for the drivers to help it out. plus i have read the ATI card runs cooler and quieter. (i hate loud computers)

So whats everyones opinion?

Running XP 64 bit.
8 gigs of ddr 3
Quad core amd 3.21 gig herz
Corsair 750 PSU

If i go the ATI route i might overclock just a little.

So whats the deal guys?
Click to expand...

You can’t future proof your system if you stick with XP. First upgrade to Win7, think of it as XP better looking sister with all the bells and whistles and then some. I have recovered from crashes that in WinXP would have required a reboot however Win7 allowed me to not only close the game but re-launch it and it worked fine without a reboot, can’t say XP was ever that forgiving.
Win7 manages memory and system resources allot better then XP or Vista/More secure then XP and Vista the list goes on and on and I am sure you can find more specific details about Win7 using the internets. If you care about DX11 or eyefinity then go with the 5770, I personally own one and it’s a great card I game at 1920x1080 with Ultra/Max///games like L4D2/DoWII run smooth as silk. Have not tried Crysis on my new system but on my old PC with this Card 1600x1200 was very playable. Red Faction Guerilla all settings max except/aa off/shadows medium and runs great... No complaints with the card so far.
 
Last edited:
Windows 7 really is all it's been cracked up to be. I have 6GB of RAM in my system and it idles at about 1.5GB usage. It's also just a much more responsive OS, or at least it feels that way.

If you game regularly at 1920 x 1080 I'd suggest spending a bit more and getting a GTX 275 or even better, a 5850. I use a 5870 but it's because I couldn't resist...
 
xp 64 bit works just fine for me.
no problems what so ever.
i have to use 64 bit to access the amt of ram i have.

I''m a true minimalist when it comes to OS's.

i might try win7 just to see if its bloatware or not.
 
Ah my time is limited.
I'm in the Army.
They keep us quite busy.

"idles at about 1.5GB usage"

man, what in the heck could possibly require 1.5 gig idle.
i just do not understand bloatware OS's of today.
In fact id take win2000 if it were still be undated. Loved that OS. so fast.. so light.

i really do not see the point in upgrading OS's other than Micro$haft is marrying DX to them.
anyway.. im just an old fart thats stuck in his ways of when every kilobyte of ram counted.
C64 anyone?
 
geekcomputing said:
xp 64 bit works just fine for me.
no problems what so ever.
i have to use 64 bit to access the amt of ram i have.

I''m a true minimalist when it comes to OS's.

i might try win7 just to see if its bloatware or not.
Click to expand...
I would venture a guess to say you will not be disappointed.
Windows 7 is by far the best OS to come out of Redmond in a long time, some might say its the best ever.

also, just a note.
The way it handles ram is very different than XP.
Just because it shows ~2Gb use at idle, does not mean its really using all that ram.
someone with more knowledge can explain it better, but suffice it to say, your gonna be happy with it.
 
I'll try it out soon. Thx for the advice.

going to drop the cash on a 5770 tonight as it meets my price points given my time available to play.
I can always just replace it later on or crossfire it if the price is low enough.
 
I can't explain the memory usage very well either but Win7 basically loads up a bunch of stuff and sits it in your memory if you have the extra memory to spare but it will discard things as memory starts to run out. Then again with 8 gigs unless you're doing some heavy graphic work of some sort it won't fill up to start with.
 
geekcomputing said:
xp 64 bit works just fine for me.
no problems what so ever.
i have to use 64 bit to access the amt of ram i have.

I''m a true minimalist when it comes to OS's.

i might try win7 just to see if its bloatware or not.
Click to expand...


Then run DOS or Linux or just use a portable OS.. If you use this machine as a gaming rig then you will want future proof, part of that future is a new OS. Minimum and gaming don’t work very well together especially since things change so rapidly. You haven’t been burned by an OS unless you were sold a PC with WinME and used DUN. Once DX11 becomes the standard developers will drop XP support, 2012 MS is planning another OS rollout which means 2013… On April 8, 2014, all Windows XP support, including security updates and security-related hotfixes will be terminated…
 
You are very misinformed about Vista. It uses ram more efficiently. Superfetch blows away XP's prefetch, especially with 8 gigs of ram.
Click to expand...

This. 7 is better than vista and XP/Vista in every possible way, except for the lack of drivers. To not upgrade to it because of some misplaced vista hatred based on false assumptions is just silly.
 
I'd get the 5770- kind of cool to say you have an "All-AMD" system- plus you can use some of AMD's ulitites to overclock and monitor your whole system. I assume you are using a AMD mb chipset too. However, if you can wait prices will come done even more soon and you may have even faster options when Fermi is released in March.

I use a Geforce 260 and am very happy with it though. My other system has a 4850. I will say the 2D is a bit sharper with the 4850 then the 260.

BTW- I will comment on the Vista thing- I never had a lot of issues either with Vista. I was never sure why all the hate. I will say that Win 7 is excellent though.
 
friend'scatdied said:
The HD 5770 is a tad slower at stock, but even with as modest as a 50 MHz overclock (which nearly all units seem to hit just fine; most can hit 1GHz core with vcore adjustment) on the core to 900MHz the 5770 nestles between the GTX 260 216/4870 and the 4890 in performance. It consumes less power than any of the other cards mentioned, runs cooler, and is definitely quieter than the 4870 and 4890 (not sure about MSI's cyclone version, though).

The real winning factor for the 5770 is native audio through HDMI, and quality home theater functionality. The 48x0 series and the GTX 260 216 can't touch the 5770 here.
Click to expand...

I agree. For me the key was the native audio to my receiver.
 
geekcomputing said:
Ah my time is limited.
I'm in the Army.
They keep us quite busy.

"idles at about 1.5GB usage"

man, what in the heck could possibly require 1.5 gig idle.
i just do not understand bloatware OS's of today.
In fact id take win2000 if it were still be undated. Loved that OS. so fast.. so light.

i really do not see the point in upgrading OS's other than Micro$haft is marrying DX to them.
anyway.. im just an old fart thats stuck in his ways of when every kilobyte of ram counted.
C64 anyone?
Click to expand...
I am a huge fan of XP, but I finally installed my copy of Windows 7m that I had been sitting on for months and I love it. If you can get a copy with a student email for $30, jump on it.
 
geekcomputing said:
i might try win7 just to see if its bloatware or not.
Click to expand...

I didnt ditch XP 64 either , it is still pretty good :) . Windows 7 has a lot of services enabled you would never use. I have disabled a boatload of them.

Under windows 7 it is pretty easy even the taskmanager allows you to see whats running service wise.
 
geekcomputing said:
Ah my time is limited.
I'm in the Army.
They keep us quite busy.

"idles at about 1.5GB usage"

man, what in the heck could possibly require 1.5 gig idle.
i just do not understand bloatware OS's of today.
In fact id take win2000 if it were still be undated. Loved that OS. so fast.. so light.

i really do not see the point in upgrading OS's other than Micro$haft is marrying DX to them.
anyway.. im just an old fart thats stuck in his ways of when every kilobyte of ram counted.
C64 anyone?
Click to expand...

Timex Sinclair 1000 with the 1 cubic foot x 16 KB expansion module anyone?

Anyways, I was a beta tester for both vista and win 7. I never upgraded to Vista (which should tell you something), but all my boxes are running Win 7, 32 and 64 bit and I don't miss xp at all!!! As for ram I use about 1gb at idle out of 6, but you'll never miss it. (just get win 7....you won't regret it)

As for vid cards, I'm still using 9800gtx/gx2's so I have no opinion there. Thanks for the job you're doing.....some of us old farts were there 20 yrs ago and wish we finished it then ;)


 
geekcomputing said:
Ah my time is limited.
I'm in the Army.
They keep us quite busy.

"idles at about 1.5GB usage"

man, what in the heck could possibly require 1.5 gig idle.
i just do not understand bloatware OS's of today.
In fact id take win2000 if it were still be undated. Loved that OS. so fast.. so light.

i really do not see the point in upgrading OS's other than Micro$haft is marrying DX to them.
anyway.. im just an old fart thats stuck in his ways of when every kilobyte of ram counted.
C64 anyone?
Click to expand...

FYI, although my laptop and desktop will both typically use about 1.25GB, it is possible to lower that number if you want to be a kilobyte pincher. Definitely give Win7 a try... you can always revert to a XP GUI if you don't like all of the features of Aero! ;)
 
geekcomputing said:
Looking to upgrade but i wonder which would be the better choice?

The 260 seems faster but the 5770 should be more future proof and has room for the drivers to help it out. plus i have read the ATI card runs cooler and quieter. (i hate loud computers)

So whats everyones opinion?

Running XP 64 bit.
8 gigs of ddr 3
Quad core amd 3.21 gig herz
Corsair 750 PSU

If i go the ATI route i might overclock just a little.

So whats the deal guys?
Click to expand...

You'll want to go win 7 64 soon, and with a 5770(oc of cos), you should be happy with the overall performance increase......and down the road maybe a cf set up could get you thru another year or 2.
 
Windows 7 is very efficent with memory. Memory not being used is wasted.

On my netbook++ (12 inch intel celeron dual core su2300 a CULV processor). The OS+Antivirus uses 750 megs of memory out of 2 gbs.
On my desktop the OS+Antivirus uses 2043 megs of memory out of 12 gbs.

Windows 7 loads services only if you have extra memory to use. If you start loading up programs filling the memory near brim Windows 7 scales back the services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore when you aren't using the excess memory Windows 7 uses the free memory as a cache. Remember my desktop with 12 gbs of memory, well 2 gbs are being used by the OS, 320 megs by firefox, and 70 megs by cyberlink. Well instead of wasting the remaining 9.6 gbs of memory, Windows 7 reallocates this memory as cache, allowing programs to load faster. Currently I have 9672 megs of memory cached, but 9792 megs of memory free. If I need that memory to load another program windows 7 easily removes the excess data from the cache and loads the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally having a buttload of memory is kinda useless if it is just going to sit there. What is the point of having 8 or 12 gbs of memory if your programs are only going to use 2 to 6.

Even if you have a 64 bit operating system most programs will never go above 2 gbs of memory used per program. This is because most programs were designed as 32 bit programs not 64 bit programs (for if they were compiled as 64 bit programs they wouldn't work on a 32 bit OS.) With the Windows on Windows 64 (wow64). The 64 bit Operating System has two system folders and treats 32 bit programs as 32 bit and 64 bit as 64 bit.

If it is a 32 bit program it can only use 2 gbs of memory by design (this was due to Microsoft not wanting a single program to overwhelm the OS since the OS would only have 3.25 to 3.5 effective gbs of memory on a 32 bit OS).

The program has to be recompiled as a 64 bit program to use more than 2 gbs. Though most programs never do this for they lose 32 bit compatibility. Thus your 8 gbs is wasted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is wasted unless you use that ram more intelligently by smartly loading services when you have ram free, and use the excess ram as cache.
 
Last edited:
Roland00 said:
Windows 7 is very efficent with memory. Memory not being used is wasted.

On my netbook++ (12 inch intel celeron dual core su2300 a CULV processor). The OS+Antivirus uses 750 megs of memory out of 2 gbs.
On my desktop the OS+Antivirus uses 2043 megs of memory out of 12 gbs.

Windows 7 loads services only if you have extra memory to use. If you start loading up programs filling the memory near brim Windows 7 scales back the services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore when you aren't using the excess memory Windows 7 uses the free memory as a cache. Remember my desktop with 12 gbs of memory, well 2 gbs are being used by the OS, 320 megs by firefox, and 70 megs by cyberlink. Well instead of wasting the remaining 9.6 gbs of memory, Windows 7 reallocates this memory as cache, allowing programs to load faster. Currently I have 9672 megs of memory cached, but 9792 megs of memory free. If I need that memory to load another program windows 7 easily removes the excess data from the cache and loads the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally having a buttload of memory is kinda useless if it is just going to sit there. What is the point of having 8 or 12 gbs of memory if your programs are only going to use 2 to 6.

Even if you have a 64 bit operating system most programs will never go above 2 gbs of memory used per program. This is because most programs were designed as 32 bit programs not 64 bit programs (for if they were compiled as 64 bit programs they wouldn't work on a 32 bit OS.) With the Windows on Windows 64 (wow64). The 64 bit Operating System has two system folders and treats 32 bit programs as 32 bit and 64 bit as 64 bit.

If it is a 32 bit program it can only use 2 gbs of memory by design (this was due to Microsoft not wanting a single program to overwhelm the OS since the OS would only have 3.25 to 3.5 effective gbs of memory on a 32 bit OS).

The program has to be recompiled as a 64 bit program to use more than 2 gbs. Though most programs never do this for they lose windows 7 compatibility. Thus your 8 gbs is wasted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is wasted unless you use that ram more intelligently by smartly loading services when you have ram free, and use the excess ram as cache.
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself! No really...I couldn't.
I'm a PC and I said this :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top