ATI Radeon HD 5770 vs R9 285
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 285 and Radeon HD 5770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 285 outperforms HD 5770 by a whopping 291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 378 | 750 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.77 | 0.79 |
| Power efficiency | 6.55 | 2.94 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | Juniper |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (12 years ago) | 13 October 2009 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 285 has 884% better value for money than ATI HD 5770.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 | 34.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.29 TFLOPS | 1.36 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 256 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | 208 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 90−95
+275%
| 24 |
| Full HD | 190−200 | 50
−73.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.31
+58.8%
| 3.18 |
- R9 285 has 59% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6−7 | 6−7 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Valorant | 55−60 | 55−60 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75 | 70−75 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 6 | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 24−27 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Valorant | 55−60 | 55−60 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Valorant | 55−60 | 55−60 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 24−27 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 40−45 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 7−8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | 9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 5−6 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 8−9 |
4K
High
| Far Cry 6 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Valorant | 18−20 | 18−20 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 4−5 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 4−5 |
This is how R9 285 and ATI HD 5770 compete in popular games:
- R9 285 is 275% faster in 900p
- R9 285 is 280% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.97 | 4.08 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 13 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 108 Watt |
R9 285 has a 291% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 30% more advanced lithography process.
ATI HD 5770, on the other hand, has 43% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5770 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
