Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How would a ati5450 perform on pre2005 games?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 11, 2010 12:39:57 PM

I have a computer connected to a 1920x1080screen. It's a athlon 64 3500 oced to 2.5ghz with 2gb ddr1 and win7 running under the hood.

My question is:

How well would a ati 5450 512mb perform at 1920x1080 on pre2005 games like..ut2004, painkiller, ut99, doom3 etc? I'm not looking 100 fps, but anything between 40\60 fps would be awesome!
I've looked all over the place on google and i wasn't able to find someone with a clear awnser to this.

I have a geforce 7300LE at the moment but that crappy card won't even run a 1080p movie correctly whereas my 9600gt did.

Hopefully the 5450 won't have problems running 1080p videos!


Thanks in advance!
May 11, 2010 1:06:03 PM

The card should be quite good for all video playback purposes. As for how well it will do in such old games at such a high resolution... those benchmarks are hard to find really. However this review has benchmarks for Far Cry, Quake 4 and Prey(uses the Doom 3 engine, modified);
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/HD_5450_1_GB/1.h...
The results aren't good(FPS in the low 20s) however that is with 4xAA and 16xAF. If you ditch AA/AF even those games would probably be over 30 FPS and they are slightly more intensive than the games you listed. So you should be ok I think.
May 11, 2010 1:25:38 PM

Indeed they are hard to find. And by the way i would ditch AA/AF right away since it doens't matter to me. 30 fps would still be good, but i'm still pretty curious how the card would perform on those older games or similar...quake4 was a good catch!

Here http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-card-radeo... toms puts the ati5450 one tear above the ati 9800xt...and i am not so sure that is really accurate!
Related resources
May 11, 2010 2:32:30 PM

The 5450 is definitely better than say an HD 3870 which worked with pre-2005 games just fine. I think you would be okay.
May 11, 2010 2:49:55 PM

isamuelson said:
The 5450 is definitely better than say an HD 3870 which worked with pre-2005 games just fine. I think you would be okay.



I don't think so and it is obvious that you didn't look up the specks. First the 5450 only has 80 shaders while the 3870 has 320. Second the the filtrates are much weaker than the 3870 with only 4 rop vs 16 of the 3870. I own a 3870 and an avid collector of gpus so I know what I am talking about.


The 5450 is good on a video playback as well power consumption biases while gaming even for retro might not be enough. The 5550 however might be enough but very hard to justify at the current prices.
May 11, 2010 2:59:47 PM

Yeah, the HD3870 is much better.
May 11, 2010 3:40:57 PM

Oops. I was thinking the 5750 (which is what I have), even though I typed 5450. [:isamuelson]

But most definitely, the 5450 isn't better than a 3870. Fat fingers and brain fart.
May 11, 2010 4:48:43 PM

I guess the card biggest problem is the fact that it's memory is 64bits instead of 128 or 256 bits...
But i really like the card because of the low profile it has, also that it has passive cooling and the power it saves. Oh, and it has built-in hdmi.

I can get the xfx version of the card for about €40

I really would like to have a small ideia of how it would perform on the games i listed at that resolution..
May 11, 2010 5:00:21 PM

I think your asking it to do something it won't be good at.
I know your speaking about older games
Xbit reviewed the low end 5 series cards compared against the 4670, 4770.
They concluded numerous times, the 5450 was not meant to play games. If gaming even older games is in the cards,:)  , I would look elsewhere.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-h...
Quote:
As for the Radeon HD 5450, you can start modern games on it but you cannot play: the frame rate of 15-25 fps makes the process far from enjoyable. Thus, the Cedar is only limited to decoding high-definition video.

Quote:
The Radeon HD 5570 lacks fast memory. It is competitive to the GeForce GT 240 GDDR5 in the HD-ready mode but slows down in the full-HD mode because of that. The Radeon HD 5450 fails as a gaming graphics card again.


Here is a new fact, that I didn't know about ? These cards support blu ray playback , but I guess the 5450 will not be able to support the new standard of blu ray 3d ? Might not be important to you at all right now, thought that was interesting.
Quote:
Finally, the Radeon HD 5450 presents no interest for gamers. But despite its weak 3D rendering capabilities, this card has a full-featured video processor and supports HDMI 1.3a, which may make it preferable to an integrated graphics core. The only exception is the Blu-ray 3D support. The Cedar has only one HD video decoding engine and cannot work with that upcoming format. The version from Sapphire discussed in our review is smaller than the reference card but gets hotter at work. It needs a well-ventilated system case. The reference card, on its part, is colder but may not fit into some compact enclosures due to its taller heatsink.
May 11, 2010 5:09:36 PM

rickzor said:
I guess the card biggest problem is the fact that it's memory is 64bits instead of 128 or 256 bits...
But i really like the card because of the low profile it has, also that it has passive cooling and the power it saves. Oh, and it has built-in hdmi.

I can get the xfx version of the card for about €40

I really would like to have a small ideia of how it would perform on the games i listed at that resolution..

You may want to look at the HD5570. It is also very low power and has low profile and passively cooled versions. It is a much better card than the HD5450.
May 11, 2010 5:58:16 PM

Ok i considered all your opinions, and i'm about to drop the ati5450 and go for a ati4670, more precisely this one


The card MUST be single sloted orelse it will hit my soundcard. This one seems to be a single slot card. What do you guys think about that and the card for the purpose i mentioned compared to the ati5450?
May 11, 2010 6:00:48 PM

Well it is good performance wise and is single slot but make sure you have good airflow in your case or it will overheat. Passive cooling only works when there is airflow.
May 11, 2010 6:10:23 PM

I believe that is still a dual slot card. It just that the heat sink takes up an extra slot above the card. That might still work for you if the sound card is below or to the right of your video card:

May 11, 2010 6:22:34 PM

It appears if the sound card is under the video card (which it should be) , it will work.
Its level with the expansion slot on that side, the backside towards your cpu , the heatsink extends there, it seems.
edit: Sam said essentially the same thing, did not read it well the first time. :) 
May 11, 2010 7:24:04 PM

notty22 said:
It appears if the sound card is under the video card (which it should be) , it will work.
Its level with the expansion slot on that side, the backside towards your cpu , the heatsink extends there, it seems.
edit: Sam said essentially the same thing, did not read it well the first time. :) 



It is bellow, but i noticed that the heatpipe would hit the top of my htpc case...back to square one..again.
May 11, 2010 7:37:20 PM

That's a nice card. Seems that i won't be able to find a fanless video card with the gpu power and dimensions i need.

It's hard to pick a silent card when they come with fan...i'll have to try harder :|
May 11, 2010 7:53:10 PM

Well, pleople on newegg say that card you recommended is very quiet. I think i'm going to buy that one :) 
May 11, 2010 9:27:59 PM

Very good find and both look to not be all that noisy. My mom's 6600gt is very silent and it is fan cooled while my 8800gtx is the same way when I pair it up with my Zalman VF1000.
!