ATI Radeon HD 5450: Eyefinity And HTPCs For Everyone?

[nforce4max]

[citation][nom]brisingamen[/nom]i bet atleast one person will buy this and attempt to play crysis.[/citation]

Back when I was a noob and broke I did exactly that with a 2400 pro and ironically it did a better job in that one game than my old 7600gs.

 

[aneasytarget]

This is a good card for HTPC or a 2nd computer doing only Internet / YouTube. The low power requirements and the passive cooling means grandma's computer will last a really long time.

 

[dertechie]

Might want to double check your Far Cry results. That GeForce 210 seems to be breaking a few mathematical laws there. . .

 

[schmich]

DisplayPort requirement sounds like a pain :/

 

[dupaman]

Question: why do you guys run the Far Cry 2 bench in dx9 when dx10 tends to yield better framerates?

 

[wiinippongamer]

nice heatspreader

 

[brisingamen]

i have seen this card with both ddr2 and ddr3, i wonder how big the difference is with such meager muscle and will we ever see a ddr5 part of this nature and how the performance will scale in those configs vs cost.

 

[pender21]

For $50, they should have made it faster than the 4650, not slower than the 4550.

 

[Tomtompiper]

I hate ATI, nor I am goint to have to buy one of these for my HTPC and since it run's on Linux it will probably take some tinkering to get working. At least the drivers are open source now so it will be days instead of months for a driver update.

 

[liemfukliang]

Wao. I didn't comment that. It was the work of Indonesian Internet, my post cut. I hate Radeon 54xx becase it not 2x 44xx. I like Radeon HD 58xx because it is 2x 48xx. I like HD 57xx because it is 2x HD 47xx and about the same as HD 48xx. I hate 56xx because it is not 2x HD 56xx. The hi end Radeon has 1600 SP, the mainstream should be half of it or 800 SP, and the low end must be half of mainstream or 400 SP. The only thinks that true is for hi end and mainstream (58xx and 57xx). I hope $50 Fermi will be 2x, 3x, or event 5x than this HD 54xx.
(I think I should check again wheater my comment be croped)

 

[pnyhater]

The card is ATI's budget 5000 series. It is a "good" ard, but it fails in comparison to its siblings. I would recommend the card to anyone who does moderate gaming (not Crysis) or does light multimedia work. Overall it is a nice card with some flaws but is better than a good number of equally priced cards on today's market.

 

[bin1127]

I like the flashback to the pentium core. Red Alert and 133MHZ = heaven.

 

[ottozero]

Ok this card is not made for users of this website. This card is made for the users extended family members who are cheapskates and dont play video games, but just surf the internet and watch movies (SD) on their PC's.

This is the kinda of Video card that a non-Computer-Dedicated-user-would consider.

I currently use the 4670 1gb and I only Play WOW and CNC games. I use Duo screens one @ 1920x1080(main) and the other @ 1440x900 (secondary). This video card meets my needs.

 

[ottozero]

[citation][nom]stridervm[/nom]It exists for the people who are still playing on a 1024x768 monitor but still want DX11, yes, they exist. =P[/citation]


I no one of those people... My Brother in law LOL!!!! I started playing WoW @ that resolution in 2004, and after many upgrades and reboots I now Play @ 1920x1080 and I would like to go triple monitor in the future LOL....

 

[Guest]

does this card suffer from the BBC HD acceleration issue in widows 7 mc?

 

[4ILY45]

[citation][nom]Ciuy[/nom]who the hell plays Crisys on these crappy cards? These are made to be used ONLY for HTPCss[/citation]

well i do.. on a Nv 9500GT. I play it on med (no AA/AF)@ 1600X900 & still it has a decent enough framerate.. P.S. not everyone can afford fancy graphics cards..

 

[Kelavarus]

[citation][nom]4ILY45[/nom]well i do.. on a Nv 9500GT. I play it on med (no AA/AF)@ 1600X900 & still it has a decent enough framerate.. P.S. not everyone can afford fancy graphics cards..[/citation]

Bingo. Yep, I had a 9500 GT recently as well.

Dunno why everyone seems to think anyone who wants to game can afford a really nice video card. In fact, for MOST people I know, this is not true.

I'd LOVE to get a 5850, or even a 4850, but I can't afford it. Ironically enough, considering the comments, I picked up a 4550 for cheap a while ago, because it's better than the integrated HD 3200 I have, and use that. It plays all games on low, so... I can still game, while I save up.

 

[retirepresident]

Just like everyone said Intel Core i7-920 130watts. Use AMD Athlon II X4 605e 45watts for this test. This card is more gear towards HTPC.

 

[Guest]

Hey i am buying a PC, i have everything figured out, but still little confused with the graphic card. Can anyone tell me what n which one should i use. Presently what i have been told is to go in for NVIDIA 8500 GT. I am not looking for a very expensive card. Something reasonable and good, which can support all kinds of games.

 

[shubham1401]

Hey i am buying a PC, i have everything figured out, but still little confused with the graphic card. Can anyone tell me what n which one should i use. Presently what i have been told is to go in for NVIDIA 8500 GT. I am not looking for a very expensive card. Something reasonable and good, which can support all kinds of games.

Ewww.... Don't get 8500GT.
Can't even handle new games at lowest settings.

Wass ur budget?

 

[cleeve]

[citation][nom]akshit_raj[/nom]Presently what i have been told is to go in for NVIDIA 8500 GT. I am not looking for a very expensive card. Something reasonable and good, which can support all kinds of games.[/citation]

The 8500 GT is terrible. The Radeon HD 4650 is much, MUCH better and about the same $50 price online.

 

[razor512]

the card is not fast enough handle direct x 11, it is just lone how in the early 90's, some companies made 64 bit processors but you don't see any of them on computers running windows xp 64 f vista or windows 7

the card can support something new but it is not fast enough to be useful with the new stuff so it is the same as not supporting it.

 

[Pershing121]

"Left 4 Dead is not a beautiful game. It's fun, that's different. It looks like Quake 3 Arena with a few more poly and better textures. It's hard to notice how bad it looks when you're frantically running around, but actually stop and look at stuff and you'll see what I mean."

quake 3 arena runs about 30 times as well and came out ages ago. So if it looks so bad why does it have such high system reqs compared to q3?

 

[hixbot]

because the guy is full of bs. l4d looks much better than q3. heck HL2 looks better than q4 or d3. the hl2 engine got a face lift for hl2 so it looks even better. hl2 engine has had a long life, and proved to be one of the most scalable graphics engines of all time.

 

[hixbot]

* the hl2 engine got a face lift for l4d