Despite our opinion on ultra low-end graphics cards there are quite a number of them currently available supporting GPUs such as the Radeon HD 4350, GeForce 8400 GS, GeForce FX 5500/5200, GeForce 9400/9500 GT and GeForce 210. These sub $50 US graphics cards all have one thing in common, they are bloody slow!

They are so slow in fact that they are next to useless when it comes to playing the latest and greatest video games, regardless of quality settings. These graphics cards are all very slow as for one reason or another they are very memory bandwidth limited.

Whereas today’s typical mid-range gaming graphics cards, such as the Radeon HD 5750, has a memory bandwidth of over 70GB/s, the graphics cards mentioned above are all limited to bandwidths below 20GB/s, many less than just 10GB/s.

Of course not everyone can afford to dish out hundreds of dollars for a graphics card and we understand why these cheaper alternatives exist. However the primary reason most users purchase an add-in graphics card is to game. Otherwise purchasing a motherboard that supports an integrated-graphics platform (IGP) makes far more sense.

Alternatively the only other reason a low-end graphics card might be purchased is for an office computer that requires support for multiple monitors, which is not something all IGPs support. The point is, if you are not buying a graphics card for gaming, then gaming performance does not really matter, and if that is the case just about any ultra low-end graphics card will do.

For example, the GeForce 8400 GS supports dual 30” (2560x1600) displays, as does the GeForce 9400 GT, so you might as well buy the 8400 GS as it's cheaper. So when AMD told us they are releasing a new affordable graphics card using Radeon HD 5000 series technology, we did ponder for a moment what this could mean.

Make no mistake, the new Radeon HD 5450 which we are introducing today is blistering slow for gaming purposes, with a memory bandwidth of just 12.8GB/s due to a very limited 64-bit wide memory bus, coupled with low frequency DDR3 memory.

In terms of specifications the Radeon HD 5450 is very similar to Nvidia’s GeForce 9400 GT, which currently costs around $50 US. However the GeForce 9400 GT is a slug and the Radeon HD 5450 is no different. Therefore, regardless of the price tag, this product is no good for gamers, unless of course they are only playing titles released prior to 2003. In fact, mid-range graphics cards of 2003 would give the Radeon HD 5450 a real run for its money.

The more advanced graphics cards in the Radeon HD 5000 series feature a technology called “Eyefinity” which supports multiple-displays, three to be precise. AMD has told us that select Radeon HD 5450 graphics cards from their partners will support this technology.

Therefore we expect that only premium models will support Eyefinity, while typical Radeon HD 5450 graphics cards will be left with standard dual monitor support. Without this technology we are keen to learn how the new Radeon HD 5450 differs from previous models such as the Radeon HD 4650, which is a more powerful budget graphics card on paper.

At this stage we are unsure as to how AMD will price the Radeon HD 5450, though we are aware that it will become available in 512MB and 1GB variants sporting either DDR2 or DDR3 memory. Given the underwhelming specifications, we estimate that the 512MB version will cost about $50 US, while the 1GB cards, which we suggest you avoid, will cost $60 US plus, but at this stage we are just speculating.

A big plus about the Radeon HD 5450 consuming so little power is that it doesn't require an external power source. Rather, the PCI Express bus alone is capable of delivering enough current to this card.

As a result the Radeon HD 5450 generates very little heat and this is the reason why it can be passively cooled. However the sample we received from AMD does feature a tiny 40mm fan that cools an equally small 45mm x 45mm heatsink. The passively cooled reference design card features a much larger dual-slot heatsink that measures 85mm long, 55mm wide and 30mm tall.

Compared to the Radeon HD 5670, which measures 17cm, the Radeon HD 5450 is actually the same length. This is the same as the GeForce GT 240 and therefore should fit in any case that can support a mATX motherboard. However the Radeon HD 5450 is a low-profile graphics card and therefore measures just 5.5cm tall, where as a typical graphics card is 9.5cm tall.

The core configuration of the Radeon HD 5450 includes just 80 SPUs, 8 TAUs (Texture Address Units) and 4 ROPs (Rasterization Operator Units). That's considerably less than even the Radeon HD 5670, as it is the same amount as the previous generation Radeon HD 4350 and 4550 graphics cards.

Core clock speed is set at 650 MHz, which produces jut 104 GigaFLOPS of raw computing power, while GDDR3 memory operates at 800MHz. The Radeon HD 5450 can come configured with either 512MB or 1GB of memory -- the sample we are reviewing today features 1GB. As with all low-end graphics cards we highly recommend you purchase the lowest memory capacity model possible. This is because they are cheaper and do not sacrifice much, if any, performance.

There are no bridge connectors on the Radeon HD 5450, but it's still possible to link two of these graphics cards through internal CrossFireX. As mentioned before, the Radeon HD 5450 keeps Eyefinity support on select models. Like its higher-end variants in the 5000 series, you can hook up to three high resolution monitors (up to 2560x1600) to this board. If not for gaming, it can still be a handy feature to have for the ultimate productivity workstation spanning three monitors.

Hardware - Intel Core i7 965 Extreme Edition (Overclocked @ 3.70GHz) - x3 2GB G.Skill DDR3 PC3-12800 (CAS 9-9-9-24) - Seagate 500GB 7200-RPM (Serial ATA300) - Gigabyte GeForce 8400GS (512MB) - Gigabyte Radeon HD 4350 (512MB) - ATI Radeon HD 5450 (1GB) - Gigabyte Radeon HD 4650 (1GB) - Inno3D GeForce GT 220 (1GB) - Gigabyte Radeon HD 4670 (512MB) - Asus Radeon HD 3850 (512MB) - ATI Radeon HD 5670 (512MB) - Inno3D GeForce GT 240 (512MB) - Asus GeForce 9600 GT (512MB) - HIS Radeon HD 4770 (512MB) - Asus GeForce 9800 GT (1GB) - ASUS P6T Deluxe (Intel X58) Software - Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) - Nvidia Forceware 195.62 - ATI Catalyst 10.1 - ATI 8.69 RC3 Win7 Vista (Jan14)

Already the Radeon HD 5450 is looking to be quite a weak performer, with a score of just 701pts at 1680x1050 in 3Dmark Vantage. When compared to the 1221pts of the Radeon HD 4650, the Radeon HD 5450 was 43% slower, while it beat the Radeon HD 4350 by an 82% margin.

Despite the Radeon HD 5450 crushing the Radeon HD 4350 in 3Dmark Vantage, we find that when testing with Company of Heroes both graphics cards deliver similar results at 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. This is disappointing, as it means that the Radeon HD 5450 is 50% slower than the Radeon HD 4650 at 1680x1050 and 55% slower than the GeForce GT 220.

Much the same is seen when testing with Crysis Warhead, as the Radeon HD 5450 does little to improve upon the performance of the Radeon HD 4350. This again meant that the new Radeon HD 5450 is 36% slower than the Radeon HD 4650 and a staggering 61% slower than the GeForce GT 220 at 1680x1050.

The Far Cry 2 performance is dismal, with an average of just 12.3fps being rendered at 1680x1050 with the Radeon HD 5450. While this made the Radeon HD 5450 roughly 29% faster than the Radeon HD 4350, which managed 9.5fps, it meant that the Radeon HD 5450 was still 50% slower than the Radeon HD 4650 and GeForce GT 220 graphics cards.

For the first time the Radeon HD 5450 shows decent performance advantages over the Radeon HD 4350 when testing with Unreal Tournament 3. Still, with an average of just 24fps at 1680x1050, the Radeon HD 5450 was found to be 35% slower than the Radeon HD 4650, and a whopping 65% slower than the GeForce GT 220.

Although we tested S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat using medium quality settings, the Radeon HD 5450 managed just 9.7fps, making it 33% slower than the Radeon HD 4650 and 65% slower than the GeForce GT 220. This is a perfect example of why new rendering technologies such as DirectX 11 are completely wasted on low-end graphics cards such as the Radeon HD 5450, and are nothing more than marketing fluff.

Street Fighter IV is not exactly a demanding game, though despite this the Radeon HD 5450 averaged just 25fps at 1680x1050. Again this made the Radeon HD 5450 roughly 29% slower than the Radeon HD 4650 and 58% slower than he GeForce GT 220.

The World in Conflict results are also very disappointing, with the Radeon HD 5450 rendering just 11fps at 1680x1050. This meant that the Radeon HD 5450 was 42% slower than the Radeon HD 4650 and 56% slower than the GeForce GT 220.

Finally we have Wolfenstein, where the Radeon HD 5450 delivered 15fps at 1680x1050. This meant that the Radeon HD 5450 was 40% slower than the Radeon HD 4650 and 54% slower than the GeForce GT 220. Needless to say, the gaming performance of the Radeon HD 5450 has been very disappointing.

When overclocking the Radeon HD 5450 we were limited to the OverDrive function in the ATI Catalyst Control panel, which allowed for a maximum core and memory frequency of 700/900MHz. This minor overclock did proved a 15% performance increase at 1680x1050 in Company of Heroes. That said, going from 12.9fps to 14.9fps is hardly anything worth getting excited over.

While the Radeon HD 5450 may not have been very impressive when measuring gaming performance, the power consumption figures are quite good. When under load the Radeon HD 5450 did use 10% less power than the GeForce GT 220, though it is worth mentioning that more often than not the Radeon HD 5450 was much more than 10% slower than the GeForce GT 220. The same can be said about the Radeon HD 4650, as the Radeon HD 5450 consumed 22% less power under load but was also more often than not much more than 22% slower.

The heatsink and fan setup featured on our review sample was very low budget, and we hope that AMD’s partners can come up with far more impressive solutions. Despite the low power consumption levels of the Radeon HD 5450, our sample still ran rather hot, as it almost reached 60 degrees when under load. This made the Radeon HD 5450 hotter than the Radeon HD 4650 and GeForce GT 240 graphics cards, both of which did feature upgraded coolers.

Of course we are making an apples to oranges comparison here, or as I prefer, an apples to a lemon comparison. Although my extreme comparison may be pitching a pair of $400 US graphics cards against what will likely be a $50 US product, the fact that they are both members of the Radeon HD 5000 series troubles me.

I would say that the new Radeon HD 5450 goes as far as to tarnish the good name of the Radeon HD 5000 series. Of course I am sure AMD is just trying to use the strong reputation of the Radeon HD 5000 series to flog their latest low-end product. I’m just not sure if this is an intelligent move on their behalf.

Our issue with the Radeon HD 5450 is not so much that it is unbearably slow, but more the fact that we see no real purpose to this product. Looking at the current market position, we have the GeForce GT 220 retailing for $60 (512MB) - $70 (1GB), while the Radeon HD 4650 is priced at $50 (512MB) - $60 (1GB). Both graphics cards are considerably faster than the Radeon HD 5450.

The Radeon HD 4350, which the Radeon HD 5450 looks to be replacing based on the performance we saw, is priced at just $35 (512MB) - $45 (1GB). Therefore we expect that the Radeon HD 5450 will enter the market at these price points, depending on capacity. Should the Radeon HD 5450 immediately become available at $35 then it will replace the Radeon HD 4350 nicely.

Update: We just got word from AMD that the Radeon HD 5450 will launch at $50 (512MB) and $60 (1GB) which based on the results we saw is far too expensive for this product.

However the question still remains as to what to do with such a gutless DirectX 11 graphics card. Clearly gaming is off the table, as the Radeon HD 5450 really is unfit to play anything released within the last 5 years, at least with any kind of respectable visual settings enabled. Essentially the Radeon HD 5450 does nothing the older Radeon HD 4350/4650 graphics cards cannot.

Though having said that, the possibility to use Eyefinity does exist, well at least on certain cards anyway. AMD has informed us that their new Eyefinity technology, which is exclusive to the Radeon HD 5000 series, will be supported by select Radeon HD 5450 products. As we understand it, premium Radeon HD 5450 models will offer triple monitor support. Therefore, if this is a feature you require, then an Eyefinity enabled Radeon HD 5450 will likely be the cheapest way to get your hands on this technology.

Bottom-line, the Radeon HD 5450 does not feel like a step forward for low-end graphics cards, it offers the same lackluster performance and it will likely do so at the same price. It really does feel as though AMD are letting Nvidia off the hook here. Instead of smashing the GeForce 210/220/240 graphics cards with quality budget Radeon HD 5000 products, AMD is simply matching what is already available. The end result is a new graphics card with a new model name that essentially has nothing new to offer.

Reviewed By Steven Walton