AMD's Radeon HD 6450: UVD3 Meets The HTPCby Ryan Smith on April 7, 2011 12:01 AM EST
Mass Effect 2
Electronic Arts’ space-faring RPG is our Unreal Engine three game. While it doesn’t have a built in benchmark, it does let us force anti-aliasing through driver control panels, giving us a better idea of UE3’s performance at higher quality settings. Since we can’t use a recording/benchmark in ME2, we use FRAPS to record a short run.
Most of Mass Effect 2’s graphical settings are locked in, so while there is some customization it doesn’t change the look of the game, or its performance for that matter. Depending on how fast you like your FPSes, it’s either 1280 or 1024 before the game becomes adequately playable, however most people should be good at 1280 with 34fps. As with Civilization V the gains over the 5450 are through the roof, as the 6450 just about doubles the 5450’s performance. Ultimately the less ROP-bound a game is, the better it’s going to do on the 6450 versus the 5450.
With that said, the 6450 does have trouble keeping up with faster cards at higher resolutions. While the 5570 is only ahead by about 15% at 1024, this becomes 43% at 1280. NVIDIA’s lineup also does quite well here as we’ve come to expect. Meanwhile Intel’s HD Graphics once again comes close; the HD3000 is only behind by about 20%, making it a potential threat at 1024.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
lukechip - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkIn the April 2011 Video Card MSRP list, you've omitted the Radeon HD 6950 2GB. Given that this was the first 6950, and in my mind, the 'real' 6950, why is it not listed ?
Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkThe MSRP list isn't mean to be a definitive list of every card at every price point; but still, that was a rather silly omission. I've since added it.
ImSpartacus - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkAlso missed the GTX 590, but I understand that the purpose of the chart was to show the 6450's position, not to be completely and ultimately definitive.
Ryan Smith - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkNo, that would be because I'm an idiot.
The chart was taken from the GTX 550 Ti article, which predated the 590 (which is why it's not there).
GeorgeH - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkThis might be a great HTPC card for an existing box, but unless AMD has seriously screwed up I can't see this card being terribly attractive for much of anything once Llano ships.
ImSpartacus - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkI would've liked to see some discussion on that topic. Llano will probably be pitiful on the CPU end, but if they can cram a strong GPU into the product, these $50 GPUs will eventually become extinct.
starfalcon - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkI suppose with Llano and Ivy Bridge, discrete graphics for HTPC use will essentially be extinct.
For gaming I wonder if they will be willing to release any low end graphics that can be beaten by IGPs, if not, then I wonder what the lowest end cards they will release will be.
vol7ron - Thursday, April 7, 2011 - linkI agree, unless they will be used in other ways. I'm not sure what max resolution IGPs can support. Also, I'm sure if you use the HTPC as more of a PC than HT, you will probably need the additional parallel processing (or dedicated GPU).
All-in-all these cards remind me of dedicated cards from the 90s :)
starfalcon - Friday, April 8, 2011 - linkI know IGPs can do 2560x1600.
With Sandy Bridge I think it only can do it with display port but besides that 1920x1200 with HDMI/DVI. Shouldn't be a problem.
What will you need the additional parallel processing for?
Or dedicated GPU?
Sandy Bridge supports quick sync and Llano should have lots of processing capabilities, Ivy Bridge should have more and more stuff also.
vol7ron - Sunday, April 10, 2011 - linkSay you're playing a game, want to put it on pause and watch some TV, or have multiple display setups and want to watch TV while playing a game. Add a DVR capture card and you'll be need more CPU and GPU processing.
I'm just not sure how great the performance would be. Especially assuming you wanted to attach this to a 46"+ display. It might be "capable", but we all know that word is very misleading and quality is hard define when you don't see it with your own eyes.