Skip to main content

ATI Radeon HD 5670: DirectX 11 For $99

Test Setup And Benchmarks

We chose to test the Radeon HD 5670 against graphics cards between $80 to $110--boards that would be in the same league, financially, as the new card. In addition, we tested the Radeon HD 5750 to demonstrate what the next level of DirectX 11-class hardware can do, even though it costs in the neighborhood of $130 online. It is notable that Radeon HD 4850 and GeForce GTS 250 will often perform similarly compared to the Radeon HD 5750.

Many of our test units are factory overclocked models. To better represent a level playing field (and to address some of the concerns we've seen in the comments section), we have underclocked all of these cards to reference clock rates. The only exception to this is the Radeon HD 4670, which comes with 800 MHz memory (compared to the reference 1,000 MHz). But this was not modified, as most Radeon HD 4670 models are actually sold running with 800 MHz memory. Even still, this shouldn't be much of a concern anyway, as the Radeon HD 4670 isn't even in the same performance or price range as the other tested cards. It is included only for reference.

Graphic Test System
CPUIntel Core i7-920 (Nehalem), 2.67 GHz, QPI-4200, 8MB Shared L3 CacheOverclocked to 3.06 GHz @ 153 MHz BCLK
MotherboardASRock X58 Supercomputer Intel X58, BIOS P1.90
NetworkingOnboard Realtek Gigabit LAN controller
MemoryKingston PC3-10700 3 x 1,024MB, DDR3-1225, CL 9-9-9-22-1T
GraphicsATI Radeon HD 5670725 MHz Core, 1,000 MHz Memory, 512MB GDDR5XFX Radeon HD 5750775 MHz Core, 1,200 MHz Memory, 1 GB GDDR5Underclocked to reference speed: 750 MHz core, 1,150 MHz memoryDiamond Radeon HD 4770750 MHz Core, 800 MHz Memory, 512MB GDDR5Gigabyte GeForce 9600 GT650 MHz Core, 1,625 MHz Shaders, 900 MHz Memory, 1GB DDR3Gigabyte GeForce 8800 GT (representing GeForce 9800 GT)700 MHz Core, 1,700 MHz Shaders, 920 MHz Memory, 512MB DDR3Underclocked to reference speed: 600 MHz core, 1,500 MHz shaders, 900 MHz memoryDiamond Radeon 4670750 MHz Core, 800 MHz Memory, 1GB DDR3
Hard DriveWestern Digital Caviar WD50 00AAJS-00YFA500GB, 7200 RPM, 8MB cache, SATA 3.0 Gb/s
PowerThermaltake Toughpower 1,200W1,200 W, ATX 12V 2.2, EPS 12v 2.91
Software and Drivers
Operating SystemMicrosoft Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit 6.0.6001, SP1
DirectX versionDirectX 10
Graphics DriversAMD Catalyst 9.12, Nvidia GeForce 195.62
Benchmark Configuration
3D Games
CrysisPatch 1.2.1, DirectX 9, 64-bit executable, benchmark tool Low Quality, Medium Textures, Shadows, Physics, Shaders, Water, and Sound, No AA
Far Cry 2Patch 1.02, in-game benchmark Medium Quality, No AA
Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2Version 1.0.0, Custom THG Benchmark Highest Settings, no AA
DiRT 2Version 1.0.0, Custom THG Benchmark Run 1: Ultra High Settings, No AA, DirectX 9Run 2: Ultra High Settings, No AA, DirectX 11
World In ConflictPatch 1009, DirectX 9, timedemo Medium Details, No AA/No AF
Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.Patch 1.02, DirectX 10 & 10.1, in-game benchmark Low Shadows, Sun ShaftsMedium View Distance, Environment, SSAOHigh Forest, TexturesHDR, Engine Heat, and DOE On, No AA
Left 4 DeadVersion 1.0.1.5., Custom THG Benchmark Run 1: High Settings, no AA, no AFRun 2: High Settings, Medium Shaders, 4xAA, 8xAF
Resident Evil 5Resident Evil 5 Benchmark VersionHigh Shadows and Textures, Medium Overall Detail, Motion Blur On, no AA, no AF
Fallout 3Patch 1.4.0.6., Custom THG Benchmark High Quality, No AA, No AF
Synthetic Benchmarks and Settings
3DMark VantageVersion: 1.02, PhysX Off, 3DMark scores
  • amdfangirl
    4800x900? Are you serious?

    Otherwise, great review. Just curious, are you going to make Flash 10.1 playback a benchmark? I'm just interested.
    Reply
  • amdfangirl
    Oh yes, could you add the hierarchy chart and show where the HD 5670 fits in?
    Reply
  • stridervm
    I wish there was a Radeon 4850 in the comparison chart for.... Comparison....
    Reply
  • noob2222
    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.

    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.

    Reply
  • notty22
    ..................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.

    Reply
  • belial2k
    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.
    Reply
  • duckmanx88
    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.
    Reply
  • cleeve
    noob2222It was slaughtered in the rest of the games by the 5670.
    "Slaughtered". +1 for hyperbole!
    Reply
  • noob2222
    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.
    Reply
  • Otus
    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
    Reply