The Radeon HD 5670 is based on the same Evergreen GPU that makes up the HD 5800 cards, albeit seriously cut down to reach the $100 price point. The new card has a memory bandwidth of 64GB/s, versus 128GB/s on the Radeon HD 5850, and its core configuration has been halved compared to the mainstream HD 5770. The feature set remains intact, however, so you have DirectX 11 support, Eyefinity, HDMI audio bitstreaming, and of course low power consumption.

Read the full review at:
http://www.techspot.com/review/240-ati-radeon-hd-5670/

Please leave your feedback here.

I think that ATI originally intended this chip to how a lower cost position. When the 5750 came out, it was suppose to have the 1GB version at $129 and the 512MB version at $109. I figure that the 5670 would have entered at a lower price point if that was the case. The GT 240 is NVIDIA's entry at this price point, and the 5670 is beating it, but as you say, that doesn't mean much. It only means that NVIDIA isn't providing any real competition. The older cards (5770, 9800) are still better value, but are no longer produced, AFAIK, so will not remain on the market for long.

I figure that when the competition heats up (hopefully), AMD will drop the prices.

The card could perform a bit better after a few more driver releases. but it's like the review said, the performance is a bit too disappointing for it's price.

@ET3D: since nvidia doesn't have any plans for a low end card to be released anytime soon i don't think we'll see any price cuts. Maybe by the end of summer it will cost a bit less.

I agree that it seems like they really are just trying to milk the position they are in with NVIDIA's delay, and will drop prices as needed (looks like they have a lot of wiggle room in their margins).

Solid review, and I agree that at its current price (newegg showing $100-115 USD) it is not an attractive buy. The 4770 runs around the same price ($115 @ Newegg) and as shown improves performance substantially. But it also requires a 6 pin which some might not have, requiring them to then upgrade there PSU. If someone is looking for a low end card that has the ability to game at 1280 x 1024 or lower the 4670 is STILL the best bang for your buck (~$70). And if someone is really looking to game with the latest generation of cards go for the 5750 (~$140 newegg).

So until the price for the 5670 falls it just isn't a great card at its price point like you guys said. But maybe towards the end of the year it'll be there :) .

What we are forgetting (even though the reviewer made it plain) is that the review card has only 512 MB of RAM (half that of the compared 9800GT). While it also loses to the HD4770, that card also (where available) typically is in a 1 GB GDDR5 configuration; therefore, the comparison is not exactly apples-to-apples. (Besoides, doesn't the 9800GT req

@PGHammer,
1gb of ram on a card of this capability (or lack thereof) is useless and just added as a sales technique. 1gb of ram is only useful at higher resolutions (1920x1080 or 2560x1600) as a matter of fact the extra ram can have a slightly negative effect on low end cards, as it does here.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/M...70_1_GB/1.html

Well actually you can forget about the memory capacity on these mid-range/low-end graphics cards as it accounts for next to no performance. At 1920x1200 you would be lucky to score an extra frame using a 1GB 9800 GT opposed to the 512MB version. The larger frame buffer is really only required at 2560x1600 and even then heavy AA/AF must be used.

That said there will be no difference in performance between a 1024MB or 512MB Radeon HD 5670 graphics card. In short 1GB mid-range graphics cards are a bit of a scam, if there is a smaller alternative of course.

DAMN you red1776 you beat me by a minute

Yes Steve! however i think you called it more accurately what it is....a scam

You're wrong about the 1GB of memory. Going by Tom's Hardware graphics card charts as and example (because it was the easiest to find, though I remember other benchmarks), here is an example from the low end:

Far Cry 2, 1680x1050, 4AA, 8AF, Very High Quality:
- GeForce 8800 GT: 512MB 31.90 fps, 1024MB 35.20 fps
- GeForce 9600 GT: 512MB 27.70 fps, 1024MB 30.20 fps

Granted most games show a lot less difference, and though I remember one site doing the 512MB vs. 1GB comparison, I can't find it, so can't give more examples. Still, I think that paying another $10 for 1GB (which looks like the difference at Newegg) could be worthwhile.

Some more research shows that Far Cry 2 really is an exception. Tom's Hardware review's of the GT240 shows that in most cases a lower clocked 1GB card will perform worse than a slightly faster 512MB one. The 1GB only helps a little when using AA and on one occasion raises the min FPS. Still not bad if you didn't spend too much extra money on it.

This is funny, here is an article I wrote titled "Radeon HD 3850 (256MB vs. 512MB)" back at the start of 2008...

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=721

I bought a Radeon HD 5670 yesterday, installed in no time, easy to set up, no problems.

PC Specs (before HD 5670):
Phenom quad core 2.2GHz
4GB DDR2 RAM
Radeon HD 3200 (onboard)
1TB Seagate HDD

PC ran idle at 10-25% CPU usage, 25% RAM usage

PC Specs (current):
Phenom quad
4GB DDR2 RAM
Radeon HD 5670 1GB
1TB Seagate HDD

PC runs idle at 0-3% CPU usage, 5-15% RAM usage, and goes about it's latter usages while playing most games.

Testing out my new graphics card I played Modern Warfare 2, Tomb Raider Underworld, Far Cry 2, Mini Ninjas, Left 4 Dead 2, Dragon Age, and Assassin's Creed. I set ALL GAMES to optimal graphics settings, and (as I go for what humans can only see, which is around 30fps) never got below 30fps. I used to run games at 15-20fps (or lower... ) and I can only say I'm more than impressed. I was looking to buy the 5450 or 5570, but decided no, as I needed something better than just the fun of having dual monitors. I use Autodesk, softimage and 3DsMax, and could never run them very well. At the moment, they run amazingly smooth, and that makes me a happy camper.

AMD is still my favourite, and so far, hasn't let me down. I got what I wanted for my money, I'm impressed, and that's all it comes down to.

i recently purchased ATI HD5670 1024GDDR5 and i am impressed with
its performance

The inno3d GT240 was 512mb of of what? Was it GDDR3 or GDDR5? I'm guessing by how low the scores were especailly at higher resolutions it was GDDR3 right?

No GDDR5, the GeForce GT 240 is just that slow.

Not sure why you were expecting it to be any faster than it is, the performance was on par with the GeForce 9600 GT. The GeForce 9600 GT actually uses GDDR3 memory and it has a little more bandwidth at its disposal when compared to the GDDR5 version of the GeForce GT 240.

so its good for games then?

Depends on what you call good, I would say NO its not good at all. That said it all comes down to what you can afford and the Radeon HD 5670 can now be had for as little as $80, at that price its not bad. Still if you are serious about enjoying your gaming then for $70 more the GeForce GTX 460 offers a much better experience in today's games.

hi, everyone, i've just bought an ati 5670 with 1 gb gddr3 vram. My problem is i am getting very poor performance. For example I have played gta 4 with only 20 fps on everything low and 1024x768. My cpu is pentium 4 3.0 ghz. I think my cpu is causing the problem. Plz reply soon

I've just tried for the 2nd time in a few months to update the driver for the ATI HD5670 - the first time it messed up, the second time it caused a blue screen of death. I didn't want to get this brand of card to begin with, but it was part of the deal with Dell for this model of computer, so I cheaped out.

It does a lovely job, if I just don't update the driver. But what was the driver update for, anyway? Must be a reason.

Win 7-Pro 64 bit
Had a Virtual XP computer hibernated in the background.
Dell XPS 9100 with Intel Core i7 - 930 processor

Sharon Sivertsen, Illinois