Gigabyte Ready with 1 GB Radeon HD 4770 Variant

[wolf]

what a waste of time - that card will NEVER be able to fully utilse all 1Gb since it doesnt have what it takes to run high resolutions.

smart move Gigabyte - you may fool the general 'lets-buy-a-HP-Pc-from-pcworld' public but your not fooling me! good day to you sir!

I gotta disagree there, a large frame buffer is even more important when considering those high end settings and ESPECIALLY crossfire/SLi

4770's are a beast of a card with a WILD overclock possible, two together (especially OC) will beat if not cream a 4890, and at settings a 4890 would game at, yeah we do want 1gb.

I have an example with a couple of cards of my own - GTX260+ 1792mb, take crysis, MAX it out, 1920x1200, enthusiast, with 16xQAA. one 896mb card cannot do this, period (worse than a slide show), runs out of memory. One of my 260's handles it poorly, but its obvious the memory does it's job, two is SLi render the game at 20-30 fps where 2x896mb cards would still be a slide show.

Odd example, but goes to show t'aint nothing wrong with more VRAM than less, especially if you like your high settings and might plan on a second card sooner or later.

To Wrap up, buying my cards was not money efficient whatsoever, I knew that, but these 4770 1gb's have a real market out there.

 

[Mussels]

some awfully silly comments in here, and some insightful ones.

Since ram isnt additive, yes - this is great for crossfire. 1GB makes a lot of sense with two GPU's

secondly, i see comments about this adding "1-2 FPS" - since when has more ram, ever INCREASED fps? i cant recall that ever being the case.

The idea of adding more VRAM is that you increase the minimum FPS, when running at high resolutions or with high AA. the 4770 is a powerful beast when OC'd, and i can most definately see people using these on 1080P PC screens - 512MB hardly cuts it on a 24" monitor.

 

[Disparia]

If anyone wanted to see it:

Ugh, they went with a DVI/VGA/HDMI format instead of dual DVI... kill my dreams Gigabyte...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125298

 

[niko084]

Think about the reasons your lower end cards can't use 512, and your lower mid line cards can't use 1gb...

Now consider the fact that this card has GDDR5, I have near no doubts that this card will yield pretty fair performance gains in higher resolution.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

some awfully silly comments in here, and some insightful ones.

Since ram isnt additive, yes - this is great for crossfire. 1GB makes a lot of sense with two GPU's

secondly, i see comments about this adding "1-2 FPS" - since when has more ram, ever INCREASED fps? i cant recall that ever being the case.

The idea of adding more VRAM is that you increase the minimum FPS, when running at high resolutions or with high AA. the 4770 is a powerful beast when OC'd, and i can most definately see people using these on 1080P PC screens - 512MB hardly cuts it on a 24" monitor.

It adds fps when the card was ram limted in the first place but i dont know if thats the case now


edit: at 149 this is a pot of fail soup

 

[niko084]

secondly, i see comments about this adding "1-2 FPS" - since when has more ram, ever INCREASED fps? i cant recall that ever being the case.

The idea of adding more VRAM is that you increase the minimum FPS, when running at high resolutions or with high AA. the 4770 is a powerful beast when OC'd, and i can most definately see people using these on 1080P PC screens - 512MB hardly cuts it on a 24" monitor.

You post here is a little confusing.

Are you saying you can't recall it increasing fps at all, or just the max fps, while improving your minimum fps?

I have seen fairly consistent very small gains in max fps at high res on cards between 256-512 and 512-1024 of video ram on various cards. But it's performance increases are shown much more in the minimum fps and overall average do to that.

 

[Mussels]

You post here is a little confusing.

Are you saying you can't recall it increasing fps at all, or just the max fps, while improving your minimum fps?

I have seen fairly consistent very small gains in max fps at high res on cards between 256-512 and 512-1024 of video ram on various cards. But it's performance increases are shown much more in the minimum fps and overall average do to that.

adding more ram doesnt improve max FPS, was my point. its the wrong way to look at it.

its no different to adding more system ram - it can make a smoother ride, but the way i see it, more ram doesnt make a system "faster" (especially not in benchmarks)

 

[mdm-adph]

It adds fps when the card was ram limted in the first place but i dont know if thats the case now


edit: at 149 this is a pot of fail soup

What? I don't see that as FAIL at all:

"Here, toots, let me help you clean off that hair.

Nope -- honey, you're going to have to come back to my place and take a shower.

Otherwise, that could stain real quick, and then you'd have to bleach the whole thing."

 

[SonDa5]

$149.99 is probably the result of no competition. Extremely over priced.

Good idea. Poor price. Wrong timing with HD5000 series right around the corner.

 

[niko084]

$149.99 is probably the result of no competition. Extremely over priced.

Good idea. Poor price. Wrong timing with HD5000 series right around the corner.

Considering when clocked the 4770 lays next to the GTX 260 216 and uses far less power..

I would say it's priced right where the market allows it to be priced.

A lot of us agree that these cards are priced more than we would be willing to pay or than we think they are worth, but they are right in line unfortunately.