OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon HD 6450 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£9VRAM:1 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):18 W

AMD Radeon HD 6450 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 18 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon HD 6450
4.6/10

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

3.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 93%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

44%

2.7

Performance

24%

1.2

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

5.8

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

4.9

Connectivity

▼Worse than 97%
3.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models

3.7

Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.1

Average grade

20%

8.9

Popularity

Grades by review (18)
8 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 97%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-radeon-hd-6450
  • amd-radeon-hd-6450
  • amd-radeon-hd-6450
  • amd-radeon-hd-6450
  • amd-radeon-hd-6450
amd-radeon-hd-6450
amd-radeon-hd-6450
amd-radeon-hd-6450
amd-radeon-hd-6450
amd-radeon-hd-6450
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon HD 6450

Based on 8 · 11

Loved as a frugal, compact, quiet card for multiple monitors and video, but most find it too weak for gaming with too little memory.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon HD 6450

Based on 196 owners sharing their experience in online comments

47%positive14%mixed39%negative

Owners value its older-game performance and overclocking, while weak gaming speed limits newer and demanding titles.

What owners dislike

  • Many newer or demanding games, such as Fallout 4, Mafia 2 and Fortnite, drop to about 15 to 30 fps even on lowest settings.60
  • Games such as GTA V, Euro Truck Simulator 2 and CS:GO freeze or crash, often after a few minutes of play.9
  • Some cards show no picture after installation, flicker or tear, or show white, black or missing textures in games such as Battlefield 3.9
  • Newer drivers may not support Windows 7, and some hang every 40 minutes or fail to install with a black screen.7
  • Under gaming loads it can overheat within about 20 minutes on hot days, reaching around 76 °C or more, and passive coolers run hot.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon HD 6450

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

44%

2.7

Performance

24%

1.2

Memory

12%

7.6

Power

11%

5.8

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

4.9

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
3.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
?
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
?
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
?
FP32 performance
0.2 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 0.2 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 99.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
1 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 1 GB of VRAM, which is less than 98.2% of graphics cards and equal to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Memory type
DDR3
This graphics card uses DDR3 memory, which is older than on 99% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
28.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 28.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
1,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 1,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
2.1
This graphics card supports PCIe 2.1, which is older than on 97.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
11.2
This graphics card supports DirectX 11.2, which is older than on 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
?
OpenGL version
4.4
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.4, which is older than on 98.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
2560x1600
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 2560x1600, which is lower than that of 97.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
21.6 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 21.6 Gbps, which is faster than on 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
18 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 18 W, which is lower than that of 99.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
27 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 27 W under peak load, which is lower than 99.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
400 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 400 W PSU, which is lower than that of 90.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
18 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 18 W, which is lower than that of 99.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
27 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
168x 69x 19 mm
Length
168 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 168 mm long, which is shorter than 95.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.9% of graphics cards.
Height
104 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 104 mm tall, which is shorter than 90.8% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
130 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 130 g, which is lighter than 99.7% of Graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Radeon HD 6450 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 91.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (18 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    18 W vs 215 W
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 114.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    168 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 21 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (104 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    104 mm vs 125 mm
  • 91.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (18 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    18 W vs 220 W
  • 57.78x cheaper
    AMD Radeon HD 6450 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£9 vs £520).
    £9 vs £520
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 57.78x cheaper
    AMD Radeon HD 6450 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£9 vs £520).
    £9 vs £520
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 77.2% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (67 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    67 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 91.6% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (18 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    18 W vs 215 W
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 91.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (18 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    18 W vs 220 W
  • 87.7% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (27 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    27 W vs 220 W
  • 8 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (59 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    59 °C vs 67 °C
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 114.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    168 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 21 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (104 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    104 mm vs 125 mm
  • 87.2% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (130 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    130 g vs 1,014 g
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    8 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 vs 3
  • 8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    40 nm vs 5 nm
  • 67.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (625 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    625 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.5 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.9

    Popularity

    Grades by review (18)
    8 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 5 estimated from the review. 10 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 18.7% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon HD 6450 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.25 vs 7.4).
    6.25 vs 7.41
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 67.4% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (625 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    625 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 176 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (8 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    8 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 98.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    5 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 98.5% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (2.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    2.5 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 60 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (4 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    4 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 99.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    0.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 12 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2011 vs 2023).
    April 2011
    2011 vs 2023
  • 99.3% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 4,192 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (160 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    160 vs 4,352
  • 58.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.2 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 99.9% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    0.24 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 11 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (1 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    1 GB vs 12 GB
  • 93.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (28.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    28.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 94.7% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (1,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    1,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 71.4% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    500 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 93.8% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (8 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    8 KB vs 128 KB
  • Older GDDR version
    This graphics card uses an older GDDR version than the average graphics card (DDR3 vs GDDR6).
    DDR3 vs GDDR6
  • 8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    40 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • No FSR support
    This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 4).
    2.1 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (11.2 vs 12 Ultimate).
    11.2 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenGL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenGL version than the average graphics card (4.4 vs 4.6).
    4.4 vs 4.6
  • 98.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (370 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    370 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (2560x1600 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    2560x1600 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 10 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (105 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    105 °C vs 95 °C
  • 12.9 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (48.3 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    48.3 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 16 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (53 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    53 °C vs 37 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
23/07/2018
Hands-on review · older games and 3DMark tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is not great, but it is a cheap, better-than-nothing upgrade for small form factor PCs with weak integrated graphics.
9.0
ConnorReviewsandMore
≈ estimated
18/05/2014
Hands-on review · game tests on an older PC
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is good value for light gaming on an old, weak PC, though Battlefield 4 is out of reach.
8.0
AIRSOFTMAN819
≈ estimated
10/03/2014
Hands-on use · game tests and Windows Experience scores
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is highly recommended for low-end PCs and media centers, but not for demanding modern games.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
06/01/2018
Long-term test · one week of everyday use and gaming
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is weak for gaming, but it is a pleasant, silent option for everyday use in systems without integrated graphics.
4.0
technhealth
≈ estimated
21/11/2017
Hands-on test · low-settings gameplay at very low frame rates
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is not good enough for 2017 games, though it can still be fun at low settings.
8.0
SpudWhacker
≈ estimated
30/12/2014
Hands-on review · older games, browsing and fit
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is pretty good for older games in a slimline PC, though it can freeze browsers and runs hot.
4.0
Nicolas11x12 English
≈ estimated
04/11/2012
Hands-on review · dual graphics benchmarks with APU
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is not recommended in dual graphics with this APU; a better standalone graphics card is the smarter buy.
9.0
PCWizKids Tech Talk
≈ estimated
09/01/2012
Hands-on review · Crossfire and benchmark tests
Verdict
AMD Radeon HD 6450 is a great little low-profile card for entry-level PCs and home theater builds, though its cooler takes two slots.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
04/02/2012
Hands-on review · HTPC and Eyefinity
Verdict
The Sapphire HD 6450 FleX is a silent, passively cooled card for home theater and office PCs with out-of-the-box three-screen support, but it is not built for gaming.
7.0
impulsegamer.com
✓ explicit
19/04/2011
Hardware review · Budget multi-monitor card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is a budget card for office and multimedia PCs that drives three screens, but it struggles in games even at 720p.
5.0
uk.pcmag.com
✓ explicit
27/05/2011
Lab test · Basic PC upgrade
Verdict
The AMD Radeon HD 6450 suits small office or home theater PCs that need a basic upgrade from integrated graphics, but it is too slow for 3D gaming.
8.0
expertreviews.co.uk
✓ explicit
19/04/2011
Benchmark test · Budget HTPC card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is a tiny card that draws all its power from the slot, suiting slim media PCs and casual gaming at low settings.
7.0
hardwareluxx.de
≈ estimated
22/06/2011
Quick test · Passive media PC card
Verdict
The HIS Radeon HD 6450 Silence is a silent, passively cooled card for living-room PCs that plays HD video smoothly, but its cut-down chip limits gaming.
6.0
clubic.com
≈ estimated
07/04/2011
Quick test · Media center card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is a half-height media center card that decodes Blu-ray 3D in hardware, but it is too slow for games.
7.0
hwlegend.tech
≈ estimated
11/04/2026
Lab test · HTPC and media card
Verdict
The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is a quiet, low-power card for media PCs, with DirectX 11 and up to three screens, but it is too weak for modern games.
8.0
xtremehardware.com
≈ estimated
13/04/2026
Lab test · Gaming performance
Verdict
The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is an entry card for media PCs and three-screen work, and it suits casual gamers who play only occasionally.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon HD 6450

  • Silent operation (on fanless/passive cooling models)
  • Low power consumption (no external power connectors required)
  • Compact low-profile design fits in small form factor (SFF) cases
  • Supports multi-monitor setups (typically up to three displays)
  • Reliable for HD video playback and Blu-ray 3D decoding
  • Inexpensive upgrade for older systems lacking integrated graphics

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon HD 6450

  • Poor gaming performance (struggles with most modern 3D titles)
  • Obsolete driver support (last stable updates were years ago)
  • Sluggish performance on modern operating systems like Windows 10/11
  • Limited memory bandwidth (64-bit interface)
  • Outperformed by many modern integrated graphics solutions
  • Some retail versions lack the necessary low-profile bracket in the box

Verdict

The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is an entry-level graphics card launched in 2011, built on a 40nm process with the Caicos architecture. It features 160 stream processors, a 64-bit memory interface, and typically offers 512MB or 1GB of DDR3 or GDDR5 VRAM. Its core clock speeds range from 625 MHz to 750 MHz, while its ultra-low maximum power draw of 18W–27W makes it ideal for compact systems. Key advantages include its low-profile design, silent passive cooling options, and support for DirectX 11 and up to three displays via HDMI 1.4a, DVI, and VGA. However, its primary drawbacks are its very poor gaming performance and the fact that it is often outperformed by modern integrated graphics solutions.

Compare AMD Radeon HD 6450 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon HD 6450 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found