[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
The ASUS EAH5850 TOP, also known as the EAH5850 DirectCU TOP/2DIS/1GD5 (phew!) comes with 1 GB GDDR5, pre-overclocked, and with a custom cooling solution that promises to lower temperature by 20% and noise level by 35% than the AMD stock cooler. Let’s check it out.
The Radeon HD 5850 is a DirectX 11 graphics chip, and in the table below we compare the main specifications of the six video cards we included in our review. The EAH5850 TOP model from ASUS comes with a 5.5% GPU overclocking and a 12.5% memory overclocking.
| Video Card | Core Clock | Shader Clock | Memory Clock (Real) | Memory Clock (Effective) | Memory Interface | Memory Transfer Rate | Memory | Shaders | DirectX |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 675 MHz | 1,350 MHz | 900 MHz | 3,600 MHz | 192-bit | 86.4 GB/s | 768 GB GDDR5 | 336 | 11 |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 675 MHz | 1,350 MHz | 900 MHz | 3,600 MHz | 256-bit | 115.2 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | 336 | 11 |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 607 MHz | 1,215 MHz | 801.5 MHz | 3,206 MHz | 256-bit | 102.6 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | 352 | 11 |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 800 MHz | 800 MHz | 1 GHz | 4 GHz | 256-bit | 128 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | 1,120 | 11 |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 725 MHz | 725 MHz | 1 GHz | 4 GHz | 256-bit | 128 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | 1,440 | 11 |
| ASUS EAH5860 TOP | 765 MHz | 765 MHz | 1,125 MHz | 4.5 GHz | 256-bit | 144 GB/s | 1 GB GDDR5 | 1,440 | 11 |
You can compare the specs of these video cards with other video cards by taking a look at our AMD ATI Chips Comparison Table and NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table tutorials.
Now let’s take a complete look at this model from ASUS.
[nextpage title=”The ASUS EAH5850 TOP”]
The difference between the ASUS EAH5850 TOP and the AMD reference model is not only the factory-overclocking, but also the use of a different cooling solution.
Figure 1: ASUS EAH5850 TOP
Figure 2: ASUS EAH5850 TOP
This video card has three video outputs, one DVI-D, one HDMI, and one DisplayPort.
Figure 3: Video connectors
[nextpage title=”The ASUS EAH5850 TOP (Cont’d)”]
In Figure 4, you can see the video card with its cooler removed. Note how it requires one six-pin and one eight-pin auxiliary power connectors. In Figures 5 and 6, you can see the cooler by itself. Two thick, 8 mm, nickel-plated, copper heatpipes make direct contact with the GPU, connecting it to the heatsink.
Figure 4: Video card with the cooler removed
Figure 5: The GPU cooler
Figure 6: The GPU cooler
The reviewed card uses eight 1 Gbit GDDR5 chips, making its 1 GB video memory (1 Gbit x 8 = 1 GB). Each chip is connected to the GPU using a 32-bit data lane, making the video card’s 256-bit memory interface (32 bits x 8 = 256).
The chips used are K4G10325FE-HC04 parts from Samsung, which support up to 1.25 GHz (4.5 GHz QDR) and since on this video card memory is accessed at 1.25 GHz (4.5 GHz QDR), there is no margin for you to increase the memory clock rate while keeping the chips inside the maximum they support. Of course you can always try to overclock the memory chips above their specs.
Figure 7: Memory chips
In Figure 8, you can see the accessories that come with the reviewed card: one power adapter, one DVI-to-VGA adapter, one HDMI-to-DVI adapter, and one CrossFireX bridge. The product doesn’t come with any games.
Figure 8: Accessories
Before seeing the performance results, let’s recap the main features of this video card.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
The main specifications for the ASUS EAH5850 TOP video card include:
- Graphics chip: AMD ATI Radeon HD 5850 running at 765 MHz
- Memory: 1 GB GDDR5 memory (256-bit interface) from Samsung (K4G10325FE-HC04), running at 1.25 GHz (4.5 GHz, QDR)
- Bus type: PCI Express x16 2.0
- Video Connectors: One DVI-D, one HDMI, and one DisplayPort
- Video Capture (VIVO): No
- Cables and adapters that come with this board: One DVI-to-VGA adapter, one HDMI-to-DVI adapter, one power adapter, and one CrossFireX bridge
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: One
- Games included: None
- Programs included: None
- More information: https://www.asus.com
- Average Price in the US*: USD 310.00
* Researched at Newegg.com on the day we published this review.
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only variable was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- CPU: Core i7 Extreme 965 (3.2 GHz, 8 MB L2 memory cache)
- Motherboard: ASUS P6T Deluxe OC Palm Edition (2101 BIOS)
- Memories: 3x 2 GB G.Skill F3-10666CL7T-6GBPK (DDR3-1333/PC3-10666, CL7-7-7-18)
- Hard disk drive: Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000GLFS (300 GB, SATA-300, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache)
- Video monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 305T (30” LCD, 2560×1600)
- Power Supply: SilverStone Element ST75EF
- CPU Cooler: Intel stock
- Optical Drive: LG GSA-H54N
Software Configuration
- Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
- Video resolution: 2560×1600 @ 60 Hz
Driver Versions
- AMD/ATI video driver version: Catalyst 10.7
- NVIDIA video driver version: 258.96
- Intel Inf driver version: 9.1.1.1019
Software Used
- 3DMark Vantage Professional 1.0.1
- Aliens vs. Predator + Benchmark Tool
- Call of Duty 4 – Patch 1.7
- Crysis Warhead – Patch 1.1 + HOC Bench Crysis Warhead Benchmark Tool 1.1.1
- Darkest of Days
- Far Cry 2 – Patch 1.03
- Metro 2033
Error Margin
We adopted a 3% error margin. Thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark Vantage Professional”]
3DMark Vantage measures Shader 4.0 (i.e., DirectX 10) performance and supports PhysX, a programming interface developed by Ageia (now part of NVIDIA) to transfer physics calculations from the system CPU to the video card GPU in order to increase performance. Mechanical physics is the basis for calculations about the interaction of objects. For example, if you shoot, what exactly will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? Note that since we are considering only the GPU score provided by this program, physics calculations are not taken into account.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600. First we used the “Performance” profile, and then we used the “Extreme” profile (basically enabling anti-aliasing at 4x, anisotropic filtering at 16x, and putting all detail settings at their maximum or “extreme” values). The results being compared are the “GPU Scores” achieved by each video card.
| 3DMark Vantage – Performance | 1680×1050 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 12764 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 12747 | -0.1% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 10481 | -17.9% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 9660 | -24.3% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 9008 | -29.4% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 8926 | -30.1% |
| 3DMark Vantage – Performance | 1920×1200 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 10334 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 10184 | -1.5% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 8302 | -19.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 7608 | -26.4% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 7043 | -31.8% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 7021 | -32.1% |
| 3DMark Vantage – Performance | 2560×1600 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 6256 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 5998 | -4.1% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 4859 | -22.3% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 4216 | -32.6% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 3974 | -36.5% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 3466 | -44.6% |
| 3DMark Vantage – Extreme | 1680×1050 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 9680 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 9547 | -1.4% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 7964 | -17.7% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 7480 | -22.7% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 7479 | -22.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 7412 | -23.4% |
| 3DMark Vantage – Extreme | 1920×1200 | Di fference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 7704 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 7573 | -1.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 6327 | -17.9% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 5986 | -22.3% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 5868 | -23.8% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 5811 | -24.6% |
| 3DMark Vantage – Extreme | 2560×1600 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 4763 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 4571 | -4.0% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 3641 | -23.6% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 3596 | -24.5% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 3362 | -29.4% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 3177 | -33.3% |
[nextpage title=”Call of Duty 4″]
Call of Duty 4 is a DirectX 9 game implementing high-dynamic range (HDR) and its own physics engine, which is used to calculate how objects interact. For example, if you shoot, exactly what will happen to the object when the bullet hits it? Will it break? Will it move? Will the bullet bounce back? It gives a more realistic experience to the user.
To get accurate results we had to disable the 80 FPS limit in the game. To do this, input the command, “/seta com_maxfps 1000” (minus the quotes) into the console (` key). It can be set to any number greater than 200.
We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, maxing out all image quality controls (i.e., everything was set to the maximum values in the Graphics and Texture menus). We used the internal game benchmarking feature, running a demo provided by NVIDIA called “wetwork.” We are putting this demo here for downloading if you want to run your own benchmarks. We ran the demo five times, and the results below are the average number of frames per second (FPS) achieved by each video card.
| Call of Duty 4 – Maximum | 1680×1050 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 143.6 | |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 141.4 | -1.5% |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 141.3 | -1.6% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 120.6 | -16.0% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 116.8 | -18.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 114.3 | -20.4% |
| Call of Duty 4 – Maximum | 1920×1200 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 124.4 | |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 121.4 | -2.4% |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 119.6 | -3.9% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 102.6 | -17.6% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 102.3 | -17.8% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 96.1 | -22.7% |
| Call of Duty 4 – Maximum | 2560×1600 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 85.6 | |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 84.2 | -1.6% |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 82.5 | -3.6% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 70.4 | -17.8% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 69.7 | -18.5% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 62.8 | -26.6% |
[nextpage title=”Crysis Warhead”]
Crysis Warhead is a DirectX 10 game based on the same engine as the original Crysis, but optimized (it runs under DirectX 9.0c when installed on Windows XP).
We used the HardwareOC Crysis Warhead Benchmark Tool to collect the data for this test. We ran this program at three 16:10 widescreen resolutions, 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600, all at medium image quality (16x anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering) and using the Airfield demo. The results below are the number of frames per second achieved by each video card.
| Crysis Warhead – Medium | 1680×1050 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 70 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 69 | -1.4% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 63 | -10.0% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 61 | -12.9% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 57 | -18.6% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 49 | -30.0% |
| Crysis Warhead – Medium | 1920×1200 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 61 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 59 | -3.3% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 57 | -6.6% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 56 | -8.2% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 50 | -18.0% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 44 | -27.9% |
| Crysis Warhead – Medium | 2560×1600 | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB ) |
49 | 6.5% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 46 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 43 | -6.5% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 41 | -10.9% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 36 | -21.7% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 34 | -26.1% |
[nextpage title=”Far Cry 2″]
Far Cry 2 is based on an entirely new game engine called Dunia, which is DirectX 10 when played under Windows Vista with a DirectX 10 compatible video card.
We used the benchmarking utility that comes with this game, setting image quality to High (x8 anti-aliasing) and running the “Ranch Long” demo three times. The results below are expressed in frames per second and are an arithmetic average of the three results collected.
| FarCry 2 – Maximum | 1680×1050 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 76.4 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 75.8 | -0.8% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 75.3 | -1.4% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 72.5 | -5.1% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 70.0 | -8.4% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 65.6 | -14.1% |
| FarCry 2 – Maximum | 1920×1200 | Difference |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 63.2 | 1.9% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 62.0 | |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 61.0 | -1.6% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 60.4 | -2.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 58.0 | -6.4% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 53.5 | -13.8% |
| FarCry 2 – Maximum | 2560×1600 | Difference |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 45.6 | |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 44.9 | -1.6% |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 42.7 | -6.3% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 38.2 | -16.1% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 26.4 | -42.0% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 23.8 | -47.9% |
[nextpage title=”Aliens vs. Predator”]
Aliens vs. Predator is a DirectX 11 game that makes full use of tessellation and advanced shadow rendering. We used the Aliens vs. Predator Benchmark Tool developed by Rebellion. This program reads its configuration from a text file (our configuration files can be found here). We ran this program at 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600 resolutions, with low texture settings, x8 anisotropic filtering and x4 anti-aliasing.
| Aliens vs. Predator | 1680×1050 | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 63.9 | 2.4% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 62.4 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 59.7 | -4.3% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 55.8 | -10.6% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 46 | -26.3% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 43.4 | -30.4% |
| Aliens vs. Predator | 1920×1200 | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 53.3 | 1.7% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 52.4 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 51.3 | -2.1% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 44.7 | -14.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 36.6 | -30.2% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 34.5 | -34.2% |
| Aliens vs. Predator | 2560×1600 | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 30.4 | 1.3% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 30 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 27.9 | -7.0% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 26.8 | -10.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 21.3 | -29.0% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 20.5 | -31.7% |
[nextpage title=”Metro 2033″]
Metro 2033 is a DirectX 11 game. To benchmark this game we used FRAPS to record the average FPS while playing part way through the Chase level (the save file we used can be downloaded here). We ran this program at 1680×1050, 1920×1200, and 2560×1600 resolutions, setting texture quality at “Low,” anti-aliasing at “AAA,” anisotropic filtering at 4x, tessellation “on,” and DoF “off.”
| Metro 2033 | 1680×1050 | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 84.68 | 2.7% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 82.46 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 82.37 | -0.1% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 78.56 | -4.7% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 66.37 | -19.5% |
| Radeon HD 5830 |
63.13 | -23.4% |
| Metro 2033 | 1920×1200 | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 74.33 | 2.6% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 72.46 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 71.02 | -2.0% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 66.57 | -8.1% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 55.55 | -23.3% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 52.53 | -27.5% |
| Metro 2033 | 2560×1600 | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 53.60 | 3.8% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 51.62 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 49.76 | -3.6% |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 42.57 | -17.5% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 37.94 | -26.5% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 34.48 | -33.2% |
[nextpage title=”Darkest of Days”]
Darkest of days is a DirectX 9 game that implements a PhysX engine, moving physics calculations from the CPU to the GPU. Although it’s not very popular, we added this game because of its PhysX benchmarking feature. We ran this game at 1680×1050 with details set at “very high,” and both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering disabled. We ran three tests, first with PhysX set at “low,” where the game makes all physics calculations using the system CPU, then increasing it to “medium” (which adds leaves, wind and weapons impact effects due to bullets and grenades), and finally increasing it to “high” (which adds fog and smoke effects). The medium and high PhysX levels move physics calculations from the CPU to the GPU. Keep in mind that only NVIDIA-based cards support PhysX.
| Darkest of Days – 1680×1050 | Low Phys X | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 99.25 | 54.4% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 94.49 | 47.0% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 94.43 | 46.9% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 64.28 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 59.43 | -7.5% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 51.69 | -19.6% |
| Darkest of Days – 1680×1050 | Medium PhysX | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 78.09 | 2308.0% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 76.87 | 2270.5% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 69.41 | 2040.5% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 3.24 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 2.96 | -8.6% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 1.44 | -55.6% |
| Darkest of Days – 1680×1050 | High PhysX | Difference |
| GeForce GTX 465 | 46.92 | 3354.3% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (1 GB) | 45.83 | 3274.3% |
| GeForce GTX 460 (768 MB) | 42.78 | 3049.4% |
| Radeon HD 5830 | 1.44 | 6.1% |
| ASUS EAH5850 TOP | 1.36 | |
| Radeon HD 5850 | 1.36 | -0.1% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
In most games and simulations we’ve ran, the ASUS EAH5850 TOP achieved performance similar to the standard Radeon HD 5850. The times it was faster, the advantage wasn’t of statistical relevance. The reviewed model from ASUS was up to 7% faster than the standard HD 5850, but it cost way more than the standard model (USD 310 vs. USD 255). Pay 20% more to get up to 7% more performance? No, thanks.
Of course this model comes with a better cooling solution, but you have the option to buy the same video card without the factory overclocking for USD 280 (ASUS EAH5850 DIRECTCU/2DIS/1GD5).
Although the Radeon HD 5850 graphics chip is a good option and we’ve been recommending it since its launch, the ASUS EAH5850 TOP itself is highly overpriced, and, therefore, we can’t recommend it.
Leave a Reply