ATI Radeon HD 5770 vs GeForce GT 1030
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 1030 and Radeon HD 5770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 1030 outperforms ATI HD 5770 by a considerable 42% 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 | 617 | 705 |
| Place by popularity | 25 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.31 | 0.87 |
| Power efficiency | 14.40 | 2.81 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | Juniper |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (8 years ago) | 13 October 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GT 1030 has 166% better value for money than ATI HD 5770.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 800 |
| Core clock speed | 1228 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1468 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 1,040 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 108 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 35.23 | 34.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.127 TFLOPS | 1.36 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 40 |
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 x4 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 208 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 4800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 48.06 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | + |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 30−35
+25%
| 24
−25%
|
| Full HD | 24
−108%
| 50
+108%
|
| 1440p | 21
+50%
| 14−16
−50%
|
| 4K | 9
+50%
| 6−7
−50%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.29
−3.5%
| 3.18
+3.5%
|
| 1440p | 3.76
+202%
| 11.36
−202%
|
| 4K | 8.78
+202%
| 26.50
−202%
|
- GT 1030 and ATI HD 5770 have nearly equal cost per frame in 1080p
- GT 1030 has 202% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GT 1030 has 202% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+93.8%
|
16−18
−93.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+58.3%
|
12−14
−58.3%
|
| Fortnite | 47
+95.8%
|
24−27
−95.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+42.1%
|
18−20
−42.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+54.5%
|
10−12
−54.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 28
+64.7%
|
16−18
−64.7%
|
| Valorant | 152
+176%
|
55−60
−176%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+62.5%
|
16−18
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 95−100
+35.6%
|
70−75
−35.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+29.7%
|
35−40
−29.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+41.7%
|
12−14
−41.7%
|
| Fortnite | 36
+50%
|
24−27
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24
+26.3%
|
18−20
−26.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 13
+18.2%
|
10−12
−18.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+123%
|
12−14
−123%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24
+41.2%
|
16−18
−41.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Valorant | 123
+124%
|
55−60
−124%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 12−14
+33.3%
|
9−10
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 20
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+29.7%
|
35−40
−29.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−18.8%
|
18−20
+18.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 25
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50
+45.2%
|
30−35
−45.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+27.6%
|
27−30
−27.6%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+48.9%
|
45−50
−48.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
−41.7%
|
16−18
+41.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+42.9%
|
21−24
−42.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
This is how GT 1030 and ATI HD 5770 compete in popular games:
- GT 1030 is 25% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5770 is 108% faster in 1080p
- GT 1030 is 50% faster in 1440p
- GT 1030 is 50% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 1030 is 800% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI HD 5770 is 293% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 1030 is ahead in 52 tests (88%)
- ATI HD 5770 is ahead in 6 tests (10%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.11 | 4.29 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 13 October 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 108 Watt |
GT 1030 has a 42.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 260% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 1030 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.
