AMD Radeon HD 6670 And 6570: Turkeys Or Turkish Delights?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]mchuf[/nom]I'm still puzzled that Nvidia has basically given this market to AMD. The GT240 can't compete with the 5670 or 6670 and can barely compete with the 5570 and 6570. Yet Nvidia doesn't have a DX11 card that doesn't require a secondary power plug. As a matter of fact the best card Nvidia has out there that runs only on Pci-e x16 slot power is the "green" version of the 9800GT. Much better than the GT240 and still available. Maybe you should have tested one of those also? There is a good size group that buy off the shelf pc's with 300w psus, yet still like to do some gaming as well as watch streaming video on their tv's. Nvidia's offerings to these people are pretty pathetic.[/citation]

Actually they do have a few cards out, GT430, GT440, GT520 that fall into this segment but their performance isn't all that great so get up to date -_-
 
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]Actually they do have a few cards out, GT430, GT440, GT520 that fall into this segment but their performance isn't all that great so get up to date -_-[/citation]

I knew about the GT430 and it's performance sucks. I didn't know about the GT520 and I only knew about the OEM version of the GT440. So thanks for the info! I'll investigate these further on my own. But ya, why wasn't the GT440 tested?
 
[citation][nom]Yuka[/nom]AFAIK there is no GTS450 low profile (though I think I saw a 5750 with a low profile PCB) that can match this card for the crowds it's aimed at.[/citation]

I believe there is both a low profile GTS 450 and 5750, actually. PowerColor makes the half-height 5750, I can't recall who makes the GTS 450 ATM.
 
[citation][nom]caamsa[/nom]Kinda wish you guys threw a 9600GT in there for laughs....but seriously you should have. I bet the performance of the 9600 would have been some where in the middle and same with the power draw. Also where are the Nvidia 430 and 440 cards?[/citation]

The 9600 performs between the GT 240 and 5670, but uses a lot more power if memory serves. The 6670 performs very close to the 8800 GT, so the 9600 GT doesn't stand up.

The 430 and 440 perform below the 5570, I didn't think it necessary to include them.
 
[citation][nom]scrumworks[/nom]gts 450 is included but no HD5770 which is even more affordable. Color me surprised...[/citation]

When I began testing for this article there was a $95 and $105 GTS 450. As I mention at the end, right before publishing the price went up to $115, as reflected in the charts at the front.

Obn top of that, at the end I write "A $99 Radeon HD 6670 is simply too expensive, particularly with the Radeon HD 5750 and GeForce GTS 450 priced a few dollars more."

Plus, we recommend the 5670.

You're stretching even harder than usual to create anti-AMD bias where none exists, scrum. 😉

 
[citation][nom]John Rambo[/nom]Could someone compare these cards to a 512MB 4670? How much better are they? This kind of GPU is perfect for people who don't want to buy new PSUs, don't care about playing the newest AAA commercial games,~ I would really like to know if it would be a good idea to say goodbye to my 4670 and get one of these.[/citation]

I have a 4670 myself. Performance wise, the 4670 and the 5570 are about the same - with the 4670 being a bit faster (5~8fps).

If you are looking for an upgrade, get at least a 5770 for $100 or so. Spending $80~90 for 40% increase isn't worth it.

PS: I play games in 1920x1200
 
The 6670 needs to come down in price a bit. Considering its tiny size, its easily cheaper to make than a 5670 card... and its TINY compared the the $115+ GF450 ($100 after rebate).

The slightly slower 5670 is hitting $62~75 now.... so once the 6670 hits $80, it'll be a good buy. But only if thats soon.

Price wise, Nvidia GF450 costs quite a bit more to make, it has heavier cooling, much bigger PCB and of course power requirements. So the 10% slower 6670 does pretty well against it.
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]The 9600 performs between the GT 240 and 5670, but uses a lot more power if memory serves. The 6670 performs very close to the 8800 GT, so the 9600 GT doesn't stand up.The 430 and 440 perform below the 5570, I didn't think it necessary to include them.[/citation]


Then my statement about AMD owning this segment is still correct.
 


Bulletstorm has a well-known 1680x1050 performance bug as mentioned.
 
In Bulletstorm, results at 1920x1080 are much faster that at 1680x1050. Was that a mistake or is there any other explanation for that?
 


Answer 3 posts above. 😉
 
Mr Cleeve, I found one, lol.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814261078

But looking at the blower, I would have to go for an aftermarket cooler if I want a silent GTS450, right? I don't know, maybe the performance trade (plus image quality that gives the 6670) is better. And that same reasoning goes for the 5750 low profile.

It would be interesting to see how they stack up against each other. The low profile PCB cards (custom PCB and reference designs) and non low profile ones. Specially on heat ad noise.

Cheers!
 

Not according to GA:-
According to this chart, the HD6770 is not even close the a HD5770 "Re-brand".

The HD6770 has much better specifications. Look at the bandwidth differences. Gpu is BARTS not JUNIPER.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/27/amd-radeon-hd-6770-and-6750-spec-sheets-emerge-give-nvidia-caus/

Obviously XFX/Best Buy decided to sell this before there were even drivers released for it.
Click to expand...
 
Wonderful. I've been anticipating more frugal cards that have greater performance, and this looks like a good example.
I disagree that the target market uses only 1680x1050 though; I'd think a HTPC card would be expected to be connected to a 1080p display of some kind. Even if some settings have to be turned down a little on the latest titles, that power-sipping HD6670 looks up to the job.
When the price gets down to $80 or so where it belongs, I may just have to buy one.
 
The power test is certainly false. Radeon 5670 consumers 13w at idle, therefore the 6670 cannot consumer 10w less. Probably the 5670 driver is not set up correctly (e.g. the GPU does not scale down to 157 Mhz, etc.)
 
The power test is certainly false. Radeon 5670 consumers 13w at idle, therefore the 6670 cannot consumer 10w less. Probably the 5670 driver is not set up correctly (e.g. the GPU does not scale down to 157 Mhz, etc.)
Click to expand...

Nope. Driver's correct and working properly, checked.

The TDP numbers aren't written in stone, you'll find there's fluctuations between even the same product. It's not perfect or ideal.
 
Great article Cleeve nicely done!!! why do people say things like PhysX makes games look better...all i will say is amd 55$ video card makes things look better then a nvidia 700$ video card does
 
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]The 9600 performs between the GT 240 and 5670, but uses a lot more power if memory serves. The 6670 performs very close to the 8800 GT, so the 9600 GT doesn't stand up.The 430 and 440 perform below the 5570, I didn't think it necessary to include them.[/citation]
yep, I own 2 powercolor 5750's in a micro-ATX board. planning on buying a half height case and using pico-atx for power in addition to a SFF PSU. working on cooling.
 
I should point that 5570 and 5670 have the configuration found in Llano APU and it's expected to Crossfire with. CrossFireX to be precise, so I expect a full review sometime soon.With some simple approximation a system with a Llano APU and a Radeon 5670 beats a GeForce GTS 450.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom