Faster Graphics For Lower Prices: ATI Radeon HD 4770

88 Comments

View All Comments

• coldpower27 - Wednesday, April 29, 2009 - link

  Yeah, it's kinda odd how GPU's simply skipped the 45nm base node this time around. I guess it's good in away quicker progress. Also much needed considering how much MORE core logic GPU's have then CPU's which over 50% of the transistor budget is cache.
  
  This is only a test shuttle basically for the 40nm process small simple part, for high yields and to work out the kinks before deploying complex parts on this new process.
  
  Sorta like G92b for Nvidia

• RagingDragon - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link

  AMD and Nvidia GPU's are fabbed by TSMC. I don't think TSMC have a 45nm process - they jumped to 40nm instead, which seems sensible to me: timewise TSMC's 40nm process is entering production almost halfway between Intel's 45nm and 32nm processes.

• armandbr - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

  here are crossfire numbers
  
  http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1421/radeon-hd-...">http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/1421...4770-per...

• Exar3342 - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

  I see no reason why this couldn't be in a single-slot solution. That is what everyone really wants...I would grab 3 of these if they were available in such a way.

• AmazighQ - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

  really dont post a review as bad as this
  you make the 4770 look like any other card while its performance to price ratio is even greater then the 4850
  final point this review failed miserably

• frowny - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

  Why are you guys focusing on 4770 vs GTS250? The correct comparison is 4770 vs 9800GT since those are the same price points.

• frozentundra123456 - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

  This card seems to be kind of in limbo to me. It isnt a performance leader, but still is not particularly low in power consumption. It still requires a power connector and is dual slot (dual slot ???). In performance it is also bracketed by the 4830 and 4850. Price is also not outstanding.
  To showcase 40nm architecture, I would have thought that AMD would have had either a higher performance card or an improved performance 4670 type card that required no power connector and was single slot.
  At this point, I would choose a 4670 for low power and no connector required or go with a 4850 or 4870 for better performance.

• FireSnake - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

  "or go with a 4850 for better performance"
  
  Read the article first, and stop writing nonsense!

• frozentundra123456 - Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - link

  Don't be rude. I did read the article. It states that the 4770 is faster than the 4830. I took this to mean that the 4850 was faster than the 4770. Looking closely at the graphs, it is faster in some games, but not in others. I don't mind people pointing out mistakes, but you can be nice about it.

• RagingDragon - Wednesday, May 13, 2009 - link

  The 4770 is going to replace the 4830, which will be (or has been?) phased out of production. The card is intened for gamers wanting more performance than a 4670 but who don't want to pay for a 4850. Looks to me like the target market is gamers with 1680x1050 panels. For lower resolutions less expensive cards would make more sense, for 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 the 4850, 4870 or 4890 makes more sense, and if you want to game at 2560x1600 you'll probably want a dual-GPU solution....