Sapphire Radeon HD 5850 Xtreme 1GB Review

Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
It may seem odd that we're taking a look at an HD 5850 card in 2011, but Sapphire just released an "Extreme" edition that's well worth the look. In addition to great pricing, the card features an improved VRM design, a more efficient cooler, and a shorter PCB. But, in the end, it's the $150 price tag that makes this card an absolute winner.

You can read through our look at Sapphire's Radeon HD 5850 "Extreme", and then discuss it here. Need a $150 GPU offering? This is it.
 
R

Relayer

E.M.I.
Excellent card for the price. The 5850 was a great value when it was introduced, and at these prices, it's still a great value today.

Kudos for Sapphire not trying some rebrand scheme.
 
D

dOdGE.dIZ

Obliviot
Greetings.

I have a question (in fact, several) about the power consumption of this model.

This is the only site (that I know of, and I read around 6-7 other reviews) that measured the power consumption of the Xtreme above the reference card. Well above. Near HD5870 territory, with much less kit to push, at a slower pace.

Since, as the article states, "Sapphire has implemented a brand-new VRM design, to improve power efficiency", dismissing the 44W the "new" Xtreme draws over the "old" reference card as a curiosity, instead of the Bizarro World contradiction that it clearly is, seems... bizarre.

10% discrepancies maybe justified by (non-)optimization (AKA, cost-cutting). 25-30% is either a malfunction or a mistake.

Would very much appreciate some clarification on whether those values are reproducible (with a different card perhaps), and if they are, what Sapphire has to say about this.

While I'm here: for 1600x1200 gaming (yep, still on a CRT), mainly DX9 and 10, bells'n'whistles chiming/blowing full throtle, would the 256bit 5850 kick that much butt over the 128bit 5770? And @1900x1200 (well, I'll get one... eventually...)?

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Welcome to the forums!

dOdGE.dIZ said:
This is the only site (that I know of, and I read around 6-7 other reviews) that measured the power consumption of the Xtreme above the reference card. Well above. Near HD5870 territory, with much less kit to push, at a slower pace.
Click to expand...

Yes, the results were in fact repeatable with our testing methods. It could in fact be that our sample wasn't "ideal" from the perspective that most other cards might not draw more power, but that's what we had, so we ran with it. I do agree that it's odd to see an increase, and I'll follow-up with Sapphire on this to see if there's a reason for it, or to see if our sample could have been, for the lack of a better word, "borked".

dOdGE.dIZ said:
While I'm here: for 1600x1200 gaming (yep, still on a CRT), mainly DX9 and 10, bells'n'whistles chiming/blowing full throtle, would the 256bit 5850 kick that much butt over the 128bit 5770? And @1900x1200 (well, I'll get one... eventually...)?
Click to expand...

The difference between the HD 5770 and HD 5850 isn't enormous, but there are notable gains. In our tests, for example, we went from 60 FPS in Dirt 2 at 1680, to 87 FPS with the HD 5850. That's rather stark. According to 3DMark 11 (not the best measure, but it's simple), the HD 5850 is about 40~45% faster than the HD 5770... quite substantial.

I should note that you're safe to use our 1680x1050 results to compare to your own setup, as the pixel counts are not far off:

1600x1200 = 1,920,000
1680x1050 = 1,764,000

If you take any of our 1680x1050 results, you'll see slightly reduced performance on your native resolution, as it draws more pixels on the screen at once (there's more to it than this, but for the sake of keeping it simple, that comparison works well enough).
 
D

dOdGE.dIZ

Obliviot
Hi Rob, thank you for the replies.

Regarding the 5850 vs. 5770 question, I was under the impression that the 256bit cards would only really stretch their (considerable) legs at 1920x1080 and beyond, while the 5770, a card I always liked from the price/performance/efficiency perspective, would keep within 20-30% at lower resolutions.

Considering that, for some games, I have to dial it down all the way to 1280x960 (otherwise I have to squint to read anything at all) the much cheaper and a lot frugal/cooler 5770 seemed to hit the sweet spot. Add to that good scalability in CF, and one would have that rarest of beasts, a graphics card that made perfect sense.

Now this Xtreme card kicked that assumption in the teeth. It's the sensible buy, because it makes no sense.


BTW, I realized now that I may have given the impression that I own a 5770, while in fact I'm running a 3850 (that's a THREE). I was thinking of finding a good deal on a 5770. Now I can have a 5850 for around 20% more. Fiddlesticks!!
 
Rob Williams

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
dOdGE.dIZ said:
Regarding the 5850 vs. 5770 question, I was under the impression that the 256bit cards would only really stretch their (considerable) legs at 1920x1080 and beyond, while the 5770, a card I always liked from the price/performance/efficiency perspective, would keep within 20-30% at lower resolutions.
Click to expand...

For the most part, that's been the case for a while. To push a good mid-range card, a higher resolution is the best measure of seeing a great improvement, but there are still benefits to be seen at a resolution like 1680x1050. The problem, though, is that the gain might not even be needed, given that at that resolution, the performance might be outstanding to begin with in a lot of titles (Dirt 2, for example, delivers 60 FPS with maxed-out detail settings).

It's when the resolution is lower than 1680x1050 that the need for a faster card becomes nonexistent. At 1280x1024 or lower, there's just no reason to go with a card more expensive than $100... none. Even that might be pushing it with some of the solutions we have available.

dOdGE.dIZ said:
Considering that, for some games, I have to dial it down all the way to 1280x960 (otherwise I have to squint to read anything at all) the much cheaper and a lot frugal/cooler 5770 seemed to hit the sweet spot. Add to that good scalability in CF, and one would have that rarest of beasts, a graphics card that made perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Which games, out of curiosity? I tend to never decrease the resolution before decreasing the graphical detail levels, because I find that lower resolutions are uglier than having lower-resolution textures, or things like that.

dOdGE.dIZ said:
BTW, I realized now that I may have given the impression that I own a 5770, while in fact I'm running a 3850 (that's a THREE). I was thinking of finding a good deal on a 5770. Now I can have a 5850 for around 20% more. Fiddlesticks!!
Click to expand...

The HD 5850 Extreme would be a major improvement over the HD 3850... no comparison. It'd be a great upgrade, that's for sure - especially for the price-point. It's cheaper than an HD 6850, but faster. It's a no-brainer :D
 
R

Relayer

E.M.I.
Rob, I just read that the latest version of Trixx supports the 5850 Extreme (voltage control, etc.). If you have the time could you try to O/C the card and report on it? Not an entire review, just clocks and maybe one bench.

Thanks

Sorry, second time I posted in the 6790 thread instead of here. Tough to get old. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top