Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

ATI Radeon HD 5670: DirectX 11 For $99
By

It might be worth a retrospective to consider the Radeon HD 4770. It was April 2009 and the GeForce 8800 GT and Radeon HD 4830 were true champions of the ~$100 price point. Then, AMD introduced the Radeon HD 4770, a potential game-changer built on TSMC's efficient 40nm process. The card boasted similar hardware specifications compared to the Radeon HD 4830, yet with a 175 MHz higher core clock and performance that often approached its powerful Radeon HD 4850 predecessor. Originally intended to compete at the same $100 level, the Radeon HD 4770 had incredible potential.

Ultimately, this seemingly unbeatable card never lived up to its potential as the budget gamer's savior. This is due to three main factors: supply issues, rising prices, and falling Radeon HD 4850 prices. The problem with supply is often blamed on the early days of TSMC's 40nm process, rumored to have produced lower yields than expected (and affecting the 5000-series until only recently). Poor supply, of course, leads to higher prices, with the Radeon HD 4770 commonly being sold between $110 to $140 online, instead of its $100 target. But the real nail in the card's coffin was the Radeon HD 4850 falling to near-comparable prices. Soon after the 4770's introduction, the Radeon HD 4850 could be found cheaper--as low as $100--effectively making the Radeon HD 4770 redundant.

Why the history lesson? Well, if you can't learn from history, you're doomed to repeat it. No matter how good a graphics card is, it needs to be priced appropriately in order to provide desirable value.

In fact, we've learned a little from recent history. The GeForce GT 240 was released in November of last year and built on TSMC's same 40nm process. We saw it as an opportunity for Nvidia to compete with ATI's Radeon HD 4670, employing a cheaper-to-manufacture, low-power GPU. As it turns out, GeForce GT 240 pricing didn't drop to where it needed to go relative to the other cards out there. At more than $85 for the slower DDR3 version, cost remains far too high for a card competing with its faster GeForce 9800 GT relative.

It is this cutthroat ~$100 environment where the Radeon HD 5670 will be forced to sink or swim at $99. Here it will have to compete against the similarly-performing $80 GeForce 9600 GT, the slightly-faster $95 GeForce 9800 GT, the clearly-superior $110 Radeon HD 4770, and the vastly more attractive $110 Radeon HD 4850 / GeForce GTS 250. Purely from a performance standpoint, it would be madness to buy the Radeon HD 5670 instead of spending a couple dollars more for the Radeon HD 4850 or GeForce GTS 250. DirectX 11 isn't much of an issue here. From what we've seen so far in our DiRT 2 results, the performance hit is too large to bear for the new Radeon HD 5670. Granted this is only one DirectX 11 title, but it certainly sets the stage.

Aside from gaming, yes, there is value to be found in ATI's design. For the home theater PC enthusiasts, and for those craving Eyefinity for non-gaming (productivity) applications, the Radeon HD 5670 is a great deal. For folks who don't want to upgrade their power supply, the Radeon HD 5670 does offer the fastest reference card performance you'll find without connecting a dedicated power cable.

There are some other nagging issues about this situation, though. Why isn't there a Radeon HD 5650 that utilizes DDR3 and enables a lower price? AMD told us to wait for the upcoming Radeon HD 5400/5500 instead, but if the company is continuing its "cut in half" strategy and we get a 200 (or 240) stream processor card, it's not even going to be able to stand against the older Radeon HD 4650. We can hope the Radeon HD 5500 will be a DDR3 version of the 5670, but based on how the Radeon product lineup has been structured in the past, with cut-down lower-end models, that's probably not likely.

Are we saying the Radeon HD 5670 is a bad card? Certainly not, it's a respectable mainstream offering. It just costs too much. At $80, this product would offer performance more in-line with its price tag. But at $100, that spread introduces too many strong competitors into the equation. We've seen products change to adapt to the market many times before. Maybe, if we're lucky, prices will quickly drop and allow the Radeon HD 5670 to be the game-changer it can be. At the $100 launch MSRP, however, a gamer is much better off investing a couple more dollars into a Radeon HD 4850 or GeForce GTS 250.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 150 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 17 Hide
    stridervm , January 14, 2010 5:28 AM
    I wish there was a Radeon 4850 in the comparison chart for.... Comparison....
  • 12 Hide
    duckmanx88 , January 14, 2010 5:46 AM
    notty22Just meh, no reason for this card to exist at all.


    low price point, low power consumption, and extremely close to the 9800GT in performance. Plenty of reasons to like this card. especially for a casual Sims or Torchlight gamer.
  • 10 Hide
    cleeve , January 14, 2010 2:15 PM
    LavaconThat said, this was a good review, but, we could use a little less bias around here. Had this review been about yet another renamed Nvidia card, THG would have been singing it's praise.


    No.

    I've explained this before. I've explained it in the forums back then, I even explain it in the last page of this review, and I'll explain it again to make it clear:

    When the GT 240 was introduced we were told it would be sub-$100 and weren't given much more than that for pricing detail. After seeing the performance, I assumed the price would drop to where it makes sense in the market - it seemed obvious that the cheaper-to-produce GT 240 would give Nvidia the flexibility to compete on price where the 9600 cards were expensive to produce. It honestly never occurred to me that they'd keep it priced against the vastly superior 4850. In fact, prices have dropped, and probably will continue to drop - but they're not even close to where they need to be for the GT 240 to make sense.

    In any case, that assumption was a mistake, or premature at the very least. I'm not perfect, never claimed to be. But that mistake is not bias. And I'm not willing to make that mistake again regardless of the manufacturer. So I am a bit more cautious about the conclusion this time.

    I acknowledge this on the last page of this review, actually I devoted a good paragraph to it. If this was biased, I'd be extolling the virtues of the GT 240 - I am not. It's a bad buy at the current price and I don't think I'm saying otherwise. This review makes it clear that the GT 240 is redundant at current pricing. If this review was biased against AMD, I wouldn't be steering people to the 4850, would I?

    No bias here dude, just caution to not repeat the same mistake. The 5670 has the potential to be a great card for the $, and if it drops to $80 I'll be extolling it's virtues from the rooftops. Even if it comes down to $90 I'll give it more props. That's common sense, not bias. Would it have made you feel better if I had recommended it over the 4850 at the same price?





Other Comments
  • 4 Hide
    amdfangirl , January 14, 2010 5:08 AM
    4800x900? Are you serious?

    Otherwise, great review. Just curious, are you going to make Flash 10.1 playback a benchmark? I'm just interested.
  • 3 Hide
    amdfangirl , January 14, 2010 5:13 AM
    Oh yes, could you add the hierarchy chart and show where the HD 5670 fits in?
  • 17 Hide
    stridervm , January 14, 2010 5:28 AM
    I wish there was a Radeon 4850 in the comparison chart for.... Comparison....
  • -7 Hide
    noob2222 , January 14, 2010 5:36 AM
    If it weren't for the 4770, this would be priced decently, at the same price it kills the 240. If they were to lower the price to $80 for the 5670, the 240 would get the dumb buy of the year award. IMO $90 would be about right, $80 is definatly too cheap.

    Quote:
    Here it will have to compete against the similarly-performing $80 GeForce 9600 GT


    ... wrong. it won crysis, was close in far cry2 and Hawx. It was slaughtered in the rest of the games by the 5670.

  • -5 Hide
    notty22 , January 14, 2010 5:40 AM

    ..................Radeon HD 5670 Radeon HD 4770
    Shader Processors 400 640
    Texture Units: 20 32

    Color ROPs: 8 16

    Those numbers against the 4770 show, a crippled card. Is this to leave something in the cupboard for the next generation ?
    Just meh, no reason for this card to exist at all.

  • 2 Hide
    belial2k , January 14, 2010 5:43 AM
    I think the points made here about the pricing could be made about the entire 5xxx series. At no point in the entire line is there a GOOD value. Everything can be beaten in price/ performance by previous generation cards or combination of cards...even the 5870 loses badly to two 4890s for less money. The only thing they have going for them is DX11 and eyefinity, which for most gamers are rather questionable "value" adds because of the huge hit DX11 gives framerates and the 3 monitors needed for eyefinity. All these cards need to come down in price before they become smart price/performance buys.
  • 12 Hide
    duckmanx88 , January 14, 2010 5:46 AM
    notty22Just meh, no reason for this card to exist at all.


    low price point, low power consumption, and extremely close to the 9800GT in performance. Plenty of reasons to like this card. especially for a casual Sims or Torchlight gamer.
  • 2 Hide
    cleeve , January 14, 2010 5:47 AM
    noob2222It was slaughtered in the rest of the games by the 5670.


    "Slaughtered". +1 for hyperbole!
  • -7 Hide
    noob2222 , January 14, 2010 6:08 AM
    Cleeve"Slaughtered". +1 for hyperbole!

    What would you call 12-20% faster across the board?
    oh, right, "similar" noting like the pot calling the kettle black huh.
  • -4 Hide
    Otus , January 14, 2010 6:10 AM
    4850 and 4770 will be out soon and prices for what units are left will probably rise in price. There's probably room for price cuts for 5670 at a
  • 3 Hide
    cleeve , January 14, 2010 6:11 AM
    noob2222What would you call 12-20% faster across the board?


    I'd call it "similar". Because the user experience is "similar".

    An actual human being would probably not be able to experience most of the differences that you're suggesting are monumental.
  • 0 Hide
    cleeve , January 14, 2010 6:17 AM
    Quote:
    Oh yes, could you add the hierarchy chart and show where the HD 5670 fits in?


    I'll be adding it to the existing hierarchy chart soon! :) 
  • 0 Hide
    cleeve , January 14, 2010 6:18 AM
    Quote:
    I wish there was a Radeon 4850 in the comparison chart for.... Comparison....


    Didn't have time to include both the 4850 and GTS 250, but they'll perform close to the 5750 and certainly better than the 4770.
  • 0 Hide
    noob2222 , January 14, 2010 6:21 AM
    CleeveI'd call it "similar". Because the user experience is "similar".An actual human being would probably not be able to experience most of the differences that you're suggesting are monumental.

    then why bother saying the 9800 is slightly faster, it would be just as similar in comparison.
  • 1 Hide
    amdfangirl , January 14, 2010 6:29 AM
    Quote:
    I'll be adding it to the existing hierarchy chart soon! :) 


    I reckon adding the chart to the end of GPU reviews would greatly help.

  • 0 Hide
    WINTERLORD , January 14, 2010 7:29 AM
    would love to see the 4670 in crossfire. any idea what it will beat
  • -1 Hide
    anamaniac , January 14, 2010 7:30 AM
    Yay, a 40nm 4670 with GDDR5...
    Is that really all it is?
    I just picked up some guys used 5770 for $150 (I'm Canadian, they cost $200 locally).
    Other than not needing any external power cables, useless.

    Go pick up a used 5750 from Craigslist instead people...
  • 6 Hide
    cleeve , January 14, 2010 7:37 AM
    Quote:
    then why bother saying the 9800 is slightly faster, it would be just as similar in comparison.


    Wow. Bickering over the minutia is what you're all about, isn't it? :D 
  • 2 Hide
    mitch074 , January 14, 2010 7:56 AM
    And here, I'm happy I decided 18 months ago that the 4850 was a good deal, if it's still powerful enough to be considered 'upper mainstream' in a world where cards twice as powerful as what came before come out every 9-12 months.

    My only regret is that those early models were soon forgotten by their makers, and they need heavy tweaking to get the juice out of them.

    The huge cooler I put on it made it much cooler (the original cooler failed), and virtually silent. The VBIOS hack I applied, reducing frequencies to 160/500 MHz, 0.92V at idle may have helped in the power draw department (it sure helped before the cooler change, by lowering temps from 80°C to 65°C), but probably not as much as these more recent cards.

    I'd love a similarly tweaked 4850 (more recent models actually offer most of these out of the box: dual slot cooler and tweaked freqs/voltages) being fully benched against these.
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , January 14, 2010 8:57 AM
    Pretty good review, actually Cleeve this is the best review I've seen you do yet.

    And yes, at $99 this card is too expensive. At $79 it would kill Nvidia off, maybe ATI don't want that.

    If you can, would be great to see 2 of these in crossfire soon.
Display more comments