The Radeon 5450 Appreciation Thread

S

Sottilde

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
177
I sold my 5970 about a month ago, to stave off the hard depreciation that occurs whenever a new card comes out. I wasn't really counting on Cayman delays so I was stuck with a machine with no video card. I have work that I want to get done and web sites that need visiting so I quickly grew impatient and looked for a fill-in card.

I found the 5450 Eyefinity edition, $35 new on Newegg. Got it in two days, and it works great with all 3 monitors, just like my 5970 did. Even plays TF2 at acceptable frames at 1280x720 with its spartan 80 stream processors. I got some pretty serious frags last night, almost as if 1280x720 is easier to play than 5760x1080 was with my 5970. Makes you think.

I appreciate the living hell out of this card. AMD/ATI really delivers some serious value at $35 for a card that can play low-tech games and drive 3 monitors all at once. I can see these things making a big splash in the business world. In fact, in my office, we used to spend $50+ for USB/VGA adapters to add a third monitor to some users' workstations. With this, we have a cheaper, native solution, and with multiple, we can do 6 monitors.

I'm keeping this card around for a good long time, if anything as a desktop extender, or an HTPC card. Draws almost no power when idle and very little when at load. No fans.. my machine has never been quieter. Pure awesome.
 
Glad you like it. I sort of miss the days when you didn't need a power cable of some sort running to your graphics card(s).
 
I almost got a 5670 for the same reasons. no extra power, and for the casual gamer its more than enough. (ended up with a 5750 only 'cause the price was right), but I cannot imagine putting $300+ down for a video card. I envy and am jealous of the ones who can without a thought otherwise...but that's another topic I suppose.
 
I don't play too much, the last game I played through was swfu2 and I was able to play at 1920x1080 with everything at max except af I think was at 80%? (they had a scroll bar for that setting not a number so I don't know exactly).

but hell, as you can tell I'm not into it enough to worry. As long as I get shadows and reflections and stuff, I don't mind turning down resolution or aa/af a bit.
 
I'm also thinking of getting a cheap card such as this for casual gaming but I am worried it might not be enough. I plan on gaming on a 24" 1900x1200 monitor though. Any advice? I really don't feel like spending $200+ on a video card.
 
SticKx911 said:
I don't play too much, the last game I played through was swfu2 and I was able to play at 1920x1080 with everything at max except af I think was at 80%? (they had a scroll bar for that setting not a number so I don't know exactly).

but hell, as you can tell I'm not into it enough to worry. As long as I get shadows and reflections and stuff, I don't mind turning down resolution or aa/af a bit.
Click to expand...

Heard that. These lower-end AMD/ATI cards are fantastic. The fact that I could actually run TF2 on high settings with this $35 card blew my mind.
 
I agree :D, I have twin HD4350s lying around, and am contemplating more. They are very well suited for their purpose (office SFF PC), yet they have some serious oomph to them when the time calls :)
 
Hulk said:
I'm also thinking of getting a cheap card such as this for casual gaming but I am worried it might not be enough. I plan on gaming on a 24" 1900x1200 monitor though. Any advice? I really don't feel like spending $200+ on a video card.
Click to expand...

It would struggle with some games and few would run with high settings, not even TF2 at that resolution. Buy an older era higher end card used for a similar, slightly higher price, such as a 8800 GT or Radeon 4850. Or whatever, really, for casual gaming you might not notice a big difference. Just keep your expectations low and you will be pleasantly surprised either way.
 
I have a HD 5450 I picked up for $30 on Newegg, and a HD 4650 I picked up for $30. Neat little cards.
 
Hulk said:
I'm also thinking of getting a cheap card such as this for casual gaming but I am worried it might not be enough. I plan on gaming on a 24" 1900x1200 monitor though. Any advice? I really don't feel like spending $200+ on a video card.
Click to expand...


requiem99 said:
It would struggle with some games and few would run with high settings, not even TF2 at that resolution. Buy an older era higher end card used for a similar, slightly higher price, such as a 8800 GT or Radeon 4850.
Click to expand...


I agree with the 8800GT suggestion. I had a 9600GT (which is a little less powerful than the 8800GT) and it worked well at 1920x1080. I played Modern Warfare, Left 4 Dead and older games. I sold that and my new backup card is the GT 240. That one is even less powerful and I can tell. Now I have to game at 1600x900 for Left 4 Dead.

A 9800/8800GT should work fine for 98%+ of the games out there (at 1920x1200). Most on high detail (but without AA unless its an older game) but of course demanding games like Metro 2033 and Crysis would kick its ass unless you lowered the resolution. Should be able to get one of those for around $50 or so used.
 
How about a 5700 at 19x12 resolution? How does that card compare to the 9800/8800gt?
 
The passively cooled HD5450 in my secondary HTPC is a champ. I throw 25Mbps 1080P MPEG2 transport streams at it and it doesn't even flinch.
 
don't kid yourself because a 5450 is slower than a 3650 or 8600gt and those cards are pretty poor themselves above 1024x768. the 5450 is a good card for many things but modern gaming isn't one.
 
A 5450-based graphics core is also what will power AMDs Bobcat APU next year. So even the tiniest netbook will be able to play TF2 at typical netbook resolutions.
 
Hulk said:
How about a 5700 at 19x12 resolution? How does that card compare to the 9800/8800gt?
Click to expand...


5750 or 5770 will both be better than the 9/8800GT

You can look up reviews to see about how much better depending on the game.

But in that price range, I recommend to get the GTX 460 768MB. I'm seeing $115AR deals on those with some regularity. I picked up the Asus version about two weeks ago and sold the HAWX 2 key for $18 bringing me down to $97 before taxes.


forgot to add that the GT 240 I was talking about above is the GDDR5 version
 
Mr. Bluntman said:
Glad you like it. I sort of miss the days when you didn't need a power cable of some sort running to your graphics card(s).
Click to expand...

I can see where you might.

I've had two graphics cards in the XP and later era that required external power - AIW 9700 Pro and Radeon X1650 Pro; both AGP and both built by ATI. (WIth my Mom's new PC sporting PCIe x16 options with onboard Intel G31 graphics standard, my membership in [H]'s AGP Club is temporarily in abeyance until I get test PC #2 rebuilt around the P4 2.4 and the latter of the two ATI cards. It will be used strictly for testing of non-Windows operating systems (primarily Linux).)

However, since I personally moved to PCIe, I have not owned a powered GPU (despite having gone through two PCIe graphics cards; the HIS HD3450 and the current VisionTek HD5450). For this same reason, I haven't needed a PSU upgrade, despite now running three hard drives (two of them SATA) and the single SATA DVD burner.

That means that staying with bus-powered has saved me money!

Also, you don't have to completely forego gaming, as those that favor higher-end/higher-powereds GPUs think when talking about cards in the budget category, such as this one. You won't (except for some older titles, such as Valve's Half-Life and HL2) be running full-tilt at desktop resolutions and refresh rates and with all the eyecandy turned on, but you can run even most AA titles at a comfortable 1280x720 with Medium LOD ort better in some cases, depending on the rest of your hardware. SC2 runs on Mighty Mouse at 1440x800 at, surpriringly, High detail in single-player, with Medium at the same resolution de rigeur in multiplayer - not expected in the least. Besides, in most cases, the reason why you *don't* want to run full-tilt, even if you have the hardware to do so, is that it gets expensive using all that electricity. (Again, you save money; a good thing these days.)

Lastly, unless you are going to show the screencaps or video elsewhere, who will know what resolution you're running against, and on what hardware? Who would honestly *care*? Unless it's showing off, what is the real point, as differences between one resolution and another are only apparent for two reasons - framerate differences, and (in only some cases) the size of the apparent viewfield, and that is only going to be really noticeable if one is below eyeball detection range (typically, 30 fps) and one is not. If both are below that cutoff, then it could be something external to the GPU (such as the CPU or HDD) causing the difficulty; if neither is, then without software, you can't quantify a subtle difference of 3 fps or less *unless* it is reflected in chop (which can also be affected by external conditions).

I asked quite a while ago a favor of the [H]orde members that have SC2 and higher-than-midrange hardware - play your favorite maps at High detail at 1280x720, 1440x800, and 1680x1050, and tell me what the differences were, both objective and subjective.

So far, I have heard nothing. Fine.

I have a similar question for us in this "club" - pick your favorite map, and play at Low, Medium and High LOD at 1280x720, and I want the differences, both objerctive and subjective, between the detail levels.
 
Hulk said:
I'm also thinking of getting a cheap card such as this for casual gaming but I am worried it might not be enough. I plan on gaming on a 24" 1900x1200 monitor though. Any advice? I really don't feel like spending $200+ on a video card.
Click to expand...

Relax. While not many casual games can go full-tilt to 1920x1080, the HD5450 can drive those that do there easily.

I can, in fact, give three examples, all from the same company - casual-gaming king PopCap Games.

1. GyroMancer (JV with Square Enix), a cross between Bejeweled TGwist and a hidden-object game; reminds me a LOT of not only Bejeweled Twist itself, but Puzze Quest: Galactrix.

2. Bejeweled Twist. This variation on the classic match-three formula uses a newer engine than Bejeweled 2, and can truly be said to be PopCap's first true HD game (as it predates GyroMancer). My Mom and I have 23" (myself) and 24" (Mom) LCD FP displays (both Acer TNs), while Mom's onboard Intel G31 graphics can't push Twist all-out (Ultra is 1920x1080), my HD5450 can with ease (on either monitor).

3. Bejeweled Blitz. The latest version of the match-three game, this game has two modes (offline and online), and both a standalone downloadable version and a Flash-based browser page (hosted by social-networking site Facebook). The downloadable version uses the classic matching format of Bejeweled 2 and the original Bejeweled (as does the browser/Facebook-linked online mode of both variants). Like Twist, it has an Ultra mode in the downloadable version (with, like Twist, the same top resolution of 1920x1080) and appears to be using the same engine (which will make yet another appearance in the forthcoming Bejeweled 3 next week (12/7/2010)). Again, like Twist, drop-dead goegeous in full-screen Ultra mode, and smooth as glass with the HD5450.

Amazingly, I seldom play any of the three games full-screen any more; instead, I choose to play them in a window!
 
requiem99 said:
It would struggle with some games and few would run with high settings, not even TF2 at that resolution. Buy an older era higher end card used for a similar, slightly higher price, such as a 8800 GT or Radeon 4850. Or whatever, really, for casual gaming you might not notice a big difference. Just keep your expectations low and you will be pleasantly surprised either way.
Click to expand...

1280x720 (typical console resolution) is actually a safe bet for all but the most demanding of titles, even with the low-budget cards like the HD5450 in 512 MB trim (I have the VisionTek passive-cooled 512MB DDR3 version). I can play any (and by that I meant exactly that) game that is out there today at 1280x720 at Medium LOD, with older games allowing increases in LOD or resolution or both. Few casual games allow anything remotely close to that (I posted earlier in this thread regarding three exceptions to that stipulation); however, those that do find the HD5450 a willing wheelman.

There is also one extremely pleasant surprise - because my display supports HDMI, I don't need any sort of sound card (putting me in the surprising position of being able to shelve the Sound Blaster X-Fi I bought three years ago). It's just as true in Linux as it is in Windows. For most users that went budget, that means one fewer niggling detail to worry about.

Lastly, in addition to the solid (and atypical in this price range) HDMI, DX11, 1080p, and multidisplay (minimum is two monitors at once) is, in most cases, the utter lack of moving parts (such as a fan). Most HD5450 cards are entirely passive-cooled. While that also means no GPU overclocking, that generally is not a factor at this price.

I'm going to try and talk Mom into buying one for her new system as an upgrade from her onboard graphics, and at these prices, it should take little effort.
 
UtopiA said:
It's funny how completely terrible that resolution is.
In fact, I don't think I would game at all if I were forced to use 1280x720.
Click to expand...

For games designed for higher resolutions (most non-ports from consoles, and PC exclusives), that's agreed. Even some console ports (Burnout Paradise) look better at higher resolutions).

However, that fits fewer and fewer games to be honest, and (with few exceptions) includes console ports.

That is, in fact, a major peeve of mine with regards to console ports to be honest.

Then, with the older (read, XP-era) casual games - all too many of them are limited to a God-awful 1024x768! (Most of the games from the PopCap Game Collection,unfortunately, fall into this category.) Thank goodness that all of these same titles allow windowed gameplay! (That option also comes in handy if you are playing a game with a 4:3 AR on a typical FP display, which is generally 16:9 or 16:10.)

The three casual games that support 1920x1080, but that I play in a window, I play that way to avoid getting TOO sucked in!
 
UtopiA said:
Why?
Isn't that engine like 5 years old now?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I have yet to see any other game that I like quite as much. I'm not saying I'm going to give up high-end cards - I'm just waiting for a 6970. But man is it a great stop-gap.

Funnily enough I get better average scores in TF2 with my 5450 at 1280x720 than I used to with my full-tilt overclocked 5970 at 6024x1080... what's that about.
 
Sottilde said:
Yeah, but I have yet to see any other game that I like quite as much. I'm not saying I'm going to give up high-end cards - I'm just waiting for a 6970. But man is it a great stop-gap.

Funnily enough I get better average scores in TF2 with my 5450 at 1280x720 than I used to with my full-tilt overclocked 5970 at 6024x1080... what's that about.
Click to expand...

Some games are designed *not* to be played at the maximum FTB (Full Tilt Boogie) resolution - TF2 (and the original maps in TF Classic) are examples (it may also fit my HD Casual Gaming List earlier in this thread).

It's another reason why issues with certain games at or near their resolution-capability ceilingsa that may be blamed on the hardweare or even the display itself may just be the game code saying "You shouldna gone there!"

Some games look great at 1920x1080, and on practically any capable hardware (such as my HD Casual Gaming threesome), while others look like crap no matter how good (or bad) the hardware may be. That alone says that sometimes, it's *not* all about the hardware.
 
Sottilde said:
I found the 5450 Eyefinity edition, $35 new on Newegg. Got it in two days, and it works great with all 3 monitors, just like my 5970 did. Even plays TF2 at acceptable frames at 1280x720 with its spartan 80 stream processors. I got some pretty serious frags last night, almost as if 1280x720 is easier to play than 5760x1080 was with my 5970.
Click to expand...

If TF2 is all you play, then your 5970 is already overkill. You can max-out that game on a 5870 and be done with it.

Also, you're comparing stream processors, but the reality is that TF2 is ROP-limited (it's a very simple game designed for graphics cards from 2006). The ROP difference is 32x2 versus 4.

Makes you think.
Click to expand...

About what, exactly? It can't even run one of your monitors at native resolution, let-alone power the Eyefinity setup your purchased, so it's not much use to you except as a backup card.

What do you want from your gaming system? Do you want quiet, or do you want Eyefinity?
 
defaultluser said:
If TF2 is all you play, then your 5970 is already overkill. You can max-out that game on a 5870 and be done with it.

Also, you're comparing stream processors, but the reality is that TF2 is ROP-limited (it's a very simple game designed for graphics cards from 2006). The ROP difference is 32x2 versus 4.



About what, exactly? It can't even run one of your monitors at native resolution, let-alone power the Eyefinity setup your purchased, so it's not much use to you except as a backup card.

What do you want from your gaming system? Do you want quiet, or do you want Eyefinity?
Click to expand...

Comgratulations - you just walked into the High-End Hardware Trap

You have started thinking that every game (and every application) has to be played at the highest resolution that your high-end hardware can stand. If you are playing older games (and all except for a few *casual games*), that won't be possible at all, even at such seemingly-plebian resolutions as 1920x1080. Some modern games are deliberately resolution-limited as well (this is typical of console ports, in fact). Also, some games look like crap at such tall resolution levels (and they look no better with the detail turned up).

I like resolution-switching less than most (I call it an utter pain in the rear, to be honest) - however, because I am limited by something called a BUDGET, I will have to deal with it for the foreseeable future.
 
PGHammer said:
Comgratulations - you just walked into the High-End Hardware Trap
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I play my games on an old 19" CRT, with a target resolution of 1280x960. My current card is a GTX 460 and it can max-out games at this resolution with 8xAA plus transparency AA. I have never paid more than $300 for a video card in my life, and I prefer the $200-250 range.

I was simply putting myself in the OP's shoes, saying that, after shelling-out all that money for an Eyefinity setup, it would feel pretty stupid for the OP to not make use of it. Also, there are quiet, low-power video cards that CAN easily handle TF2 at 1080p maxed (5670), which is why I can't understand the love for this crappy 5450 (except for pure office work setups).
 
I was surprised that this thread was started by a 5970 owner, I was expecting it to be someone who was stoked about lossless audio HD video blue ray play back in the 35 dollar card.
 
defaultluser said:
No, I didn't. I play my games on an old 19" CRT, with a target resolution of 1280x960. My current card is a GTX 460 and it can max-out games at this resolution with 8xAA plus transparency AA. I have never paid more than $300 for a video card in my life, and I prefer the $200-250 range.

I was simply putting myself in the OP's shoes, saying that, after shelling-out all that money for an Eyefinity setup, it would feel pretty stupid for the OP to not make use of it. Also, there are quiet, low-power video cards that CAN easily handle TF2 at 1080p maxed (5670), which is why I can't understand the love for this crappy 5450 (except for pure office work setups).
Click to expand...

I suppose what I was really saying was that I'm surprised at what you can get for $35. The 5450 does three monitors, which is great for work, full HD video, and it has pretty solid 3D performance considering it is the absolute bottom-rung GPU.

I remember when high-end cards had significant trouble with 1024x768. It's pretty cool (and a testament to the longevity of the Source engine, as well) that the bottom-end can do 1280x720 pretty solidly these days.

I'll be buying a 6970 when it's available, of course I bought Eyefinity for a reason. Under no circumstances do I prefer 1280x720 gaming, although it is less of a sensory overload for me, as Eyefinity's fisheye sometimes gets to me. More than that, I think the CFX microstutter was what really threw me off. But the ability of this card as a stopgap and in an extreme budget / HTPC situation is incredible.
 
Bootleg Usher said:
I was surprised that this thread was started by a 5970 owner, I was expecting it to be someone who was stoked about lossless audio HD video blue ray play back in the 35 dollar card.
Click to expand...

However, the real point of threads like this is that the low-end (even the bottom-end) has changed from what it used to be. Look at the major onboard-graphics players of today (nVidia, AMD, Intel) - all can tackle at least DX10 with their integrated graphics setups (with both nV and AMD putting DX11 on the table); and that is just laptops, notebooks, and netbooks. The floor graphically isn't where it was from even the launch of Windows Vista, let alone XP. Basically, DX10 is the new floor.

And included in that package (even for the bottom-end HD5450) is being able to forgo even onboard audio (and lose nothing). If you have speakers built into your HDMI-supporting FP display, the HD5450 can do double-duty as a sound card at least as capable as any onboard card. And that capability is available in Linux in addition to Windows.

I don't even *have* a BD drive; however, should I ever go Blu in the future, I need only add the drive and media - the rest of the requirements are already in place.

While graphics hardware improvments are most noticeable at the ceiling, their changes impact the floor as well (and sometimes with a bigger, though more subtle, impact than at the ceiling).
 
I upgraded my old x1950xtx to a cheap HD4670 early this year (February?).

Honestly, I don't do much gaming on my box these days except for Dragon Age and some TF2 - both at 1920x1200. Other than that, Civ 4 and old Win98/ DOSbox stuff.

My HD4670 cost me about $30 on a newegg combo deal and it does the job. Nothing fancy, but since I'm not an FPS guy much these days (do what little I do on the xbox 360 - Gears and some casual BF:BC2), great bang/buck. Pretty awesome little card for $25-$30.

I think console games are holding down graphical requirements (as people are ranting about in the news forum thread about it). I don't think you need a crazy amount of power right now unless you're an FPS junkie. Won't need it until the next console generation shows up, I think.
 
GreenMonkey said:
I upgraded my old x1950xtx to a cheap HD4670 early this year (February?).

Honestly, I don't do much gaming on my box these days except for Dragon Age and some TF2 - both at 1920x1200. Other than that, Civ 4 and old Win98/ DOSbox stuff.

My HD4670 cost me about $30 on a newegg combo deal and it does the job. Nothing fancy, but since I'm not an FPS guy much these days (do what little I do on the xbox 360 - Gears and some casual BF:BC2), great bang/buck. Pretty awesome little card for $25-$30.

I think console games are holding down graphical requirements (as people are ranting about in the news forum thread about it). I don't think you need a crazy amount of power right now unless you're an FPS junkie. Won't need it until the next console generation shows up, I think.
Click to expand...

And even FPS junkies may not need it all, if you are talking last generation's FPS titles (not Crysis, but UE3 games such as the original Gears of War and even UT3 itself).

I just went back and reinstalled UT3 (with the Titan Pack and patch five, of course) and cranked up the resolution to 1680x1050. Mighty Mouse didn't fail me in the least.

I'm actually getting decent frame rates, even at that tall resolution and LOD. (The original Gears of War could likely be cranked even higher, both in terms of screen resolution *and* detail levels, as it's not as hard on either CPU or GPU as UT3, oddly enough.)

Quake 3 Arena/Team Arena and even Quake 4? 1920x1080 are far from outside the reality matrix, despite the Mobility GPU in desktop clothes.

All the above are easily playable today on Windows 7 (x64), despite their age.
 
Yeah, I think the biggest thing against the 5450 is the much faster Redwood GPU are normally around 10-15usd more :(

If pricing falls regularly down to HD4350 levels, I can really see this GPU picking up a bit, but in all likelyhood, the HD5550 will drop down again (I got mine for 30usd AMIR - which was cheaper than most HD5450 at the time :(). To this fact, I have a small HD4350 collection already, spread around the computers I have at home :)


As to playing games, I was decently impressed by what the HD4350 could do - at 1600x900 it was no slouch, and at 1920x1200 it allowed my to play CoD4 without serious graphical issues (curse the stupid 8500gt I blew money on!).
 
you guys are absolutely exaggerating what the 5450 and 4350 are capable of some games. those turds are not even as fast as my 3.5 year old 8600gt which struggles to play many modern games at 1280 with more than medium settings. CoD 4 at 1600 or 1900 on a 4350? BS unless thats all low. I also owned a 4670 which has 4x the shaders as a 5450/4350 and even it could not play many games smoothly on decent settings at 1680 much less 1920.
 
cannondale06 said:
you guys are absolutely exaggerating what the 5450 and 4350 are capable of some games. those turds are not even as fast as my 3.5 year old 8600gt which struggles to play many modern games at 1280 with more than medium settings. CoD 4 at 1600 or 1900 on a 4350? BS unless thats all low.
Click to expand...

It IS all low. I was still happy as hell since it was leaps and bounds better than my 8500gt - which couldn't even run it stably at 1280x800 (stuttering out of the wazoo).

AOE3 can run all maxxed out, with the exception of AA (which I never touched) at 1080p.

SC2 can run @ 1080p with all low, textures Ultra (1GB variant) at 20fps with dips into the 11fps range (though my i7 930 was providing the raw CPU power behind this... I don't dare try this on my Phenom II :D).



Exaggerating? No. Suprised the lowest tier card can still pull some decent punches? Yes.
 
jeremyshaw said:
It IS all low. I was still happy as hell since it was leaps and bounds better than my 8500gt - which couldn't even run it stably at 1280x800 (stuttering out of the wazoo).

AOE3 can run all maxxed out, with the exception of AA (which I never touched) at 1080p.

SC2 can run @ 1080p with all low, textures Ultra (1GB variant) at 20fps with dips into the 11fps range (though my i7 930 was providing the raw CPU power behind this... I don't dare try this on my Phenom II :D).



Exaggerating? No. Suprised the lowest tier card can still pull some decent punches? Yes.
Click to expand...
technically its not leaps and bounds better than your 8500gt. it is right in between an 8500gt and 8600gt which for modern games is quite pitiful. your 5450 is over 30% weaker than even the gpus used in 5 year old 360/PS3 which barely play games at 30fps at sub 1280x720. plus the console versions of games usually have more things offloaded onto the cpu to make up for the weak gpu.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top