Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

More Radeon HD5670 problems

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 5, 2010 11:51:55 PM

Hi everybody,

I posted a couple weeks ago when I had received my new HIS Radeon HD5670. I couldn't get the card to work, apparently, because it was PCI-E 2.1 x16 and my motherboard only has a PCI-E 1.0 x16 slot. At the advice of one of the posters I returned the video card to Newegg for refund, and I bought another Radeon HD5670 about a week later that was PCI-E 2.0 x16. I received that card today, uninstalled the drivers for my NVIDIA GeForce 6200SE w/Turbocache, removed that card and installed the HD5670 and my monitor went straight into standby mode again.

HP M7350N
CPU: Intel Celeron D @ 2.8GHz
MOBO: Asus P5LP-LE
RAM: 2GB
PSU: 650W PowerKing

I've done everything I can think of, again, to get this card working. I installed the installation CD's drivers before installing the card, I tried the latest Catalyst drivers, I used Guru3D's driver sweeper program to completely remove the old NVIDIA drivers. I went into the BIOS and changed the "Primary Video Adapter" from PCI, to PCI-E, and back again.

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated,
this is really starting to piss me off.

More about : radeon hd5670 problems

May 6, 2010 1:19:54 AM

Pretty sure that all 5xxx series are PCI-E 2.1
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 1:33:33 AM

Thanks for the quick reply cgintz,

According to Newegg, Amazon (where I bought the card), and the box the card comes in it's PCI-E 2.0 x16
m
0
l
Related resources
May 6, 2010 1:48:24 AM

Also pretty sure that they don't put 2.1 on the box :(  Had the same thing happen with my 5770. Always just says PCI-E 2.0
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 2:07:29 AM

Oy vey...

Can anyone confirm that all Radeon 5000 series cards are PCI-E 2.1? I really, really hope I do not have to return this card. It took $22 to get my last card back to Newegg for refund (shipping + restocking fee), and I spent $83 on the card.

EDIT - I just read on another forum that the 5000 series Radeon cards are all PCI-E 2.1. I'm going to see if I can get Sapphire to send me a 4000 series card on the grounds of false advertising because this is ridiculous. I bought this card specifically because it was PCI-E 2.0 and multiple websites say the card is PCI-E 2.0.
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 3:17:50 AM

the PCI-E 2.1 is backward compatible with previous version...
have you tried to install the card in another computer?
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 3:29:57 AM

wa1,

I believe PCI-E 2.1 is supposed to be backwards compatible with PCI-E 1.0 slots, but after the trouble I've gone through with these last two cards, and reading around the internet I've come to believe than some, if not most, of the PCI-E 2.1 video cards are not backwards compatible with PCI-E 1.0 slots.

I've already sent a support ticket to Sapphire to see if they can send me an equivalent, in performance and price, Radeon 4000 series card that is, for sure, PCI-E 2.0. Based on the fact that I would not have bought this card if Newegg, Amazon, and the Graphics card box it's self did not say PCI-E 2.0

If anybody has any other ideas I'm open to try them, but I've done everything I can think of.
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 8:32:19 AM

Buy a new mobo :( 
m
0
l

Best solution

May 6, 2010 8:58:35 AM

cgintz said:
Pretty sure that all 5xxx series are PCI-E 2.1

That is true!

You either need ASUS to release a new BIOS enabling PCIe 2.1 compatibility, a new motherboard, or a PCIe 2.0 video card, such as something from ATI's 4000-series, nVidia's GT/GTS/GTX 200-series, or earlier.

It's not about the cards not being backwards compatible, it's about the motherboard being forward compatible with PCIe 2.1 cards. BIOS updates are required to allow PCIe 2.1 cards to work in PCIe 1.0 and 1.0a boards. Some (many considering their age) motherboards lost manufacturer support prior to PCIe 2.1 being introduced, therefore PCIe 2.1 devices don't work in them.
Share
May 6, 2010 2:32:53 PM

This may be a dumb question but you have the gma 950 turned off in the bios right?I had a similar problem with a ati 4650 on a Hp a6838f most times just installing a pci-e card will disable the intagrated graphics though.
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 4:37:30 PM

Thanks for the responses guys,

cgintz, last night I was actually looking around for a motherboard that would support my current CPU and RAM, but I've already spent $90 on the video card, and a new motherboard is going to be at least $50 and I haven't been able to find one that supports my DDR2 PC2-3200, at Newegg anyways. But, that was before I knew that all 5000 series Radeon cards are PCI-E 2.1 x16. The fact that multiple websites and the video card's box says PCI-E 2.0 is just not right, to me anyways. I'll see if I can get Sapphire to send me a 4000 series card, at least a 4670. I've got 30 days to send the card back to Amazon for an 85% refund and I'll probably have to pay to ship it too.

RazberryBandi, from what I understand there wasn't a whole lot of changes to PCI-E 2.1 compared to PCI-E 2.0; but I could be wrong. I highly doubt ASUS would even waste their time on a 5 year old, low-end motherboard.

erick81, that's the strange thing. My motherboard doesn't have any integrated graphics. There's no option to turn it on or off in the bios, and when I take my GeForce 6200SE out I get absolutely no video.
m
0
l
May 6, 2010 11:17:57 PM

You're right about ASUS not supporting that board, which is why I mentioned motherboards losing manufacturer support prior to the introduction of the PCIe 2.1 standard.

According to that link you provided for your motherboard, it actually does have on-board Intel GMA graphics (945G chipset). Regardless, that's not the actual issue. The issue is the PCIe 1.0 slot being incompatible with a PCIe 2.1 card.
m
0
l
May 7, 2010 12:36:44 AM

I completely understand what you're saying RazberyBandit. I wouldn't waste my time trying to contact ASUS, or even HP to inquire about updating the bios.

As far as the integrated graphics go, yesterday was the first time I had even seen IG even mentioned for my motherboard. I've been in and out of this computer dozens of times and I have never, ever seen anything about integrated graphics. Not that it matters, my 6200SE isn't all that much better than IG anyways. All I know is I'm getting tired of playing 5+ year old PC games on medium-high settings in 800x600 resolution. Updating my video card should not be this hard.

Thanks for all the help guys, I really appreciate it. It all comes down to what Sapphire wants to do right now, if they won't replace this card with something from the 4000 series (hopefully a 4750 or better) then I might see if I can get a relatively cheap motherboard, and new ram because no new boards support my PC2-3200 ram, then I'll just keep this 5670. If not, it's off to ebay to see if I can get a used 48xx card.
m
0
l
May 8, 2010 12:37:59 AM

Don't rule out "weaker" cards, like ATI's 4650 & 4670, or nVidia's 9600GT. All those cards are capable gamers in most titles at lower resolutions, and can easily breathe life into older systems at very affordable prices.
m
0
l
May 8, 2010 12:57:07 AM

Would it even be worth it buy a card higher than a 4670, considering the slot it will go into a PCI-E x16 1.0?

I've also seen from the reviews and benchmarks that the 9600GT outperforms the HD4670, but most of the cards, even 4670, are around $80, they used to be less. What's with the price increase?

EDIT: Sapphire's support won't help me at all, looks like I'm going to have to return the card. Theres no way I'm going to buy a $60 motherboard just to work with this video card, and then I'd have to get new RAM too.
m
0
l
May 9, 2010 2:46:15 AM

I can only guess prices are increasing because production of those cards is decreasing.

As for Sapphire's support - their support is generally a laughing stock anyway.

With an older system such as this, the real bottleneck is the CPU and it's older sub-system. No matter what graphics card you put in there, those components will limit the system's performance, especially at resolutions of 1680x1050/1600x1200 and below where CPU use is more predominant in games. That is why I suggested something mid-range and affordable instead of higher-end and more expensive because the heart of the system is what's holding performance back. Though, with 4850 and GTS250 prices still hovering around the $100 mark, most people still consider them good buys. They'd also offer greater performance than the original 5670 your purchased.

One last graphics upgrade in that system would make it capable of playing most of the current games fairly well. Just try not to rely on it for too much longer, as a full system upgrade (Motherboard, CPU, RAM) or a completely new build would yield better results than a simple graphics card upgrade.
m
0
l
May 19, 2010 12:35:45 AM

Best answer selected by corsairfreak.
m
0
l
!