OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£45VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):18 W

AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB

4.1/10

▼Worse than 96% of graphics cards

5.8

▼Worse than 94%

3.7

▼Worse than 97%

7.4

▼Worse than 93%

5.6
Gaming
Gaming
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Evaluates core hardware and software specifications for gaming performance.
When it matters
When you want to play demanding mobile games, 3D titles, or run graphics-intensive apps smoothly.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
45.0%
10
Floating-point performance
25.0%
1.0
VRAM
20.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
10.0%
6.4
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5.7
Video editing
Video editing
5.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Evaluates core hardware and software specifications for video editing performance.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this graphics-cards meets your specific video editing needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
35.0%
7.0
AV1 encode
30.0%
1.0
VRAM
20.0%
10
Floating-point performance
15.0%
6.4
PCI Express (PCIe) version
6.5
1080p
1080p
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Evaluates core hardware and software specifications for 1080p performance.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this graphics-cards meets your specific 1080p needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
55.0%
10
Floating-point performance
25.0%
1.0
VRAM
10.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
10.0%
6.4
PCI Express (PCIe) version
5.8
1440p
1440p
5.8/ 10
✕
What it is
Evaluates core hardware and software specifications for 1440p performance.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this graphics-cards meets your specific 1440p needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
50.0%
10
Floating-point performance
30.0%
1.0
VRAM
15.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
5.0%
6.4
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4.9
4K
4K
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Evaluates core hardware and software specifications for 4k performance.
When it matters
When evaluating how effectively this graphics-cards meets your specific 4k needs.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Score components
40.0%
10
Floating-point performance
35.0%
1.0
VRAM
20.0%
1.0
Ray tracing cores / units
5.0%
6.4
PCI Express (PCIe) version

Best prices

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

Best rankings

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB

4.1

Show more

Hide

Performance

2.8

Show more

Hide

3DMark Time Spy benchmark score

?

3DMark Port Royal score

PassMark (G3D) result

?

PassMark (DirectCompute) result

?

Floating-point performance

Show more

Memory

1.2

Show more

Hide

VRAM

Memory type

DDR3

GDDR version

Memory bus width

Maximum memory bandwidth

Show more

Platform & Features

5.6

Show more

Hide

PCI Express (PCIe) version

PCIe lanes

DirectX version

Vulkan version

N/A

OpenGL version

Show more

Connectivity & Media

4.9

Show more

Hide

Max displays supported

Max digital resolution

DisplayPort outputs

DisplayPort version

DisplayPort link rates

Show more

Power & Cooling

7.6

Show more

Hide

Thermal Design Power (TDP)

Power consumption while under peak load

Recommended PSU wattage

Board power limit

PCIe power spec

18 W

Show more

Design

8.9

Show more

Hide

Size

168x 117x 18 mm

Length

Height

Slot width

Weight

Show more

AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB vs the average graphics card

Why is AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB better than the average graphics card?

Show more

Hide

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
117 mm shorter card length
This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
168 mm vs 285 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
92% lower board power limit
This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (18 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
18 W vs 225 W
11.78x cheaper
AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£45 vs £530).
£45 vs £530
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

11.78x cheaper
AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£45 vs £530).
£45 vs £530

9.05x higher compute throughput
This graphics card has a higher compute throughput than the average graphics card (208 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
208 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS
Better FP64 ratio
This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
1:16 vs 1:64

Supports multi-GPU linking
This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
77.3% smaller GPU die
This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (67 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
67 mm² vs 295 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
92% lower board power limit
This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (18 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
18 W vs 225 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
117 mm shorter card length
This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (168 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
168 mm vs 285 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
86.3% lighter card weight
This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (140 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
140 g vs 1,021 g

Why is AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB worse than the average graphics card?

Show more

Hide

192 bit narrower memory bus
This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
64 bit vs 256 bit
10 GB less VRAM
This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
2 GB vs 12 GB
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
8x larger process node
This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
40 nm vs 5 nm
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
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

23.1% worse value for money
AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.84 vs 7.2).
5.84 vs 7.2
8% lower user score
User score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
▼▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB
the average graphics card
AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB has a lower user score than the average graphics card (7.41 vs 8.000).
7.41 vs 8

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 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
5 GTexel/s vs 381.2 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 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
2.5 GPixel/s vs 163.2 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 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
0.21 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
99.2% lower FP16 performance
This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
0.24 TFLOPS vs 29.725 TFLOPS
97.9% lower FP64 performance
This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
0.01 TFLOPS vs 0.48 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

192 bit narrower memory bus
This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
64 bit vs 256 bit
10 GB less VRAM
This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
2 GB vs 12 GB
97.1% lower memory bandwidth
This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (12.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
12.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
94.4% slower memory speed
This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (1066 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
1,066 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
39.1% slower VRAM clock
This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1066 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
1,066 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
93.8% smaller L1 cache
This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (8 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
8 vs 128
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 has a higher process node than the average graphics card (40 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
40 nm vs 5 nm
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.
Older PCIe version
This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 4).
2.1 vs 4.0
No FSR support
This graphics card does not support FSR, the average graphics card does.
12 older
This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2011 vs 2023).
April 2011
2,011 vs 2,023
No AI upscalers
This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
No mesh shaders
This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
No vs yes
No XeSS support
This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
No DirectStorage support
This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
Worse SAM support
This graphics card offers worse SAM support than the average graphics card (no vs yes).
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 3.0
Older shader model
This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
5.0 vs 6.8
No sampler feedback
This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
No vs yes
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 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
370 million vs 22,900 million

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 vs yes
No DSC support
This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
No vs yes
Older HDMI version
This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1).
1.4a vs 2.1
No VRR support
This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
No vs yes
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 (1.3 vs 2.3).
1.3 vs 2.3
Narrower decode codec support
This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
H.264/MPEG-2/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
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.
2 fewer monitors per output type
This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
1 vs 3
91.9% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (1.6 Gbps vs 20 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 20 Gbps.
1.62 Gbps vs 20 Gbps

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
12.3 dB noisier under load
This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (47.7 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
47.7 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 vs yes
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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

impulsegamer.com

01/04/2011

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon HD 6450 & 6670 Hardware Review Tom's Hardware

The AMD Radeon HD 6450 and 6670 are budget-friendly graphics cards designed for users who prioritize value over high-end performance. The review highlights that both cards feature 40nm architecture, DirectX 11 support, and AMD’s Eyefinity technology, which allows for up to three displays—a significant pro for office work, AutoCAD, or multimedia setups. While the HD 6450 is positioned as a low-profile, low-power solution for general tasks and video playback, the HD 6670 is the superior choice for "budget conscious" gamers. It manages playable frame rates in titles like Call of Duty: Black Ops (62 FPS at 720p), whereas the HD 6450 struggles significantly with gaming, often failing to reach smooth performance levels even at lower resolutions. The primary pros of these cards include their low power consumption, active or passive cooling options, and the ability to output to HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI, and VGA, making them highly versatile for older or multi-monitor systems. However, the cons are evident in their performance limitations; both cards scored in the low range on 3DMark 11 benchmarks, and the HD 6450 is explicitly labeled as...

phoronix.com

09/09/2011

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon HD 6450 Review - Phoronix

The Phoronix review of the PowerColor "Go Green!" AMD Radeon HD 6450 (1GB DDR3) highlights its suitability for HTPCs, featuring a silent passive cooler, low-profile design, and native HDMI 1.4a, VGA, and DVI outputs. On Linux, the card benefits from robust open-source Radeon driver support, providing better power management capabilities than competing community-developed drivers. Conversely, the "Caicos" card suffers from very poor OpenGL performance compared to NVIDIA's GT 220/240, rendering it unsuitable for gaming. Furthermore, AMD's XvBA/UVD3 video acceleration is inefficient compared to NVIDIA's VDPAU, leading to a recommendation for low-end NVIDIA hardware unless specifically backing AMD's open-source initiatives.

uk.pcmag.com

27/05/2011

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon HD 6450 - Review 2011 - PCMag UK

The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is a low-budget, entry-level discrete video card launched at $59 to replace basic integrated graphics in small or simple systems like home theater PCs. It features lean technical specifications, including 160 stream processors, 8 texture units, 4 ROPs, and support for DirectX 11, Eyefinity multimonitor setups, and AMD APP acceleration. While it successfully offers a minimal power draw of just 9 watts at idle and 27 watts under load, its 3D gaming performance is largely unplayable. In benchmarks for most games, it fails to reach even 13 frames per second at a low 1,024 by 768 resolution, making it a "Fair" 2.5-star rated component only suited for non-demanding tasks. The primary pros of this card are its low space and power requirements, as it occupies only one PCIe slot and delivers better performance than standard integrated graphics. However, the cons heavily outweigh these benefits, as the card is entirely useless for 3D gaming and is outperformed by similarly priced alternatives. For instance, the Nvidia GeForce GT 430 costs the same but turns in marginally better...

expertreviews.co.uk

19/04/2011

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon HD 6450 review

The AMD Radeon HD 6450 is an entry-level, half-height graphics card designed for casual gamers and slim media centre PCs. Priced at £34, this tiny card fits into a PCI Express x16 slot and draws all its power directly from the slot without needing auxiliary cables. In terms of specifications, it features 160 stream processors, a 750MHz core speed, and 512MB of DDR5 memory running at 900MHz. While it fails to deliver playable frame rates at standard benchmark settings—hitting just 9.7fps in Crysis and 20.5fps in Call of Duty 4—lowering the resolution to 1,280×720 and reducing detail settings significantly boosts performance to a playable 36.6fps and 45.4fps, respectively. The primary pros of the card include its low price, quiet operation, and the availability of passively cooled models from manufacturers like PowerColor. It serves as a budget-friendly, more powerful alternative to Intel's Sandy Bridge integrated graphics, easily outperforming the older Intel Core i5-2500K chip and its predecessor, the HD 5450. On the downside, the cons are its overall spectacular-lacking specifications and poor performance on higher graphic settings, making it unsuitable for...

m.hexus.net

19/04/2011

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon HD 6450 and HD 6670 graphics card review

The HEXUS review covers the AMD Radeon HD 6450 (£35) and HD 6670 (£75) GPUs, which are budget discrete graphics cards aimed at replacing a PC's integrated graphics. Architecturally, these chips represent only minor, incremental performance improvements over the older 5-series family because they are built using the same mature 40nm process. The core pros highlighted in the review focus heavily on multimedia capabilities rather than raw gaming horsepower. Specifically, the addition of the UVD 3 video block brings features like DisplayPort v1.2, HDMI 1.4a, and hardware acceleration for Blu-ray 3D, DivX, and Xvid codecs. Additionally, the HD 6450 functions efficiently on a very low 27W TDP—ideal for passive, silent cooling—while the HD 6670 successfully scales multi-monitor Eyefinity support from three up to four displays. Conversely, the prominent cons of both cards center on their lackluster raw processing gains and poor gaming efficiency under load. The HD 6670 delivers only a modest 10 per cent gaming performance bump over the 18-month-old HD 5670 it replaces, despite having a larger die size with 90 million extra transistors. Gaming benchmarks show the...

guru3d.com

07/04/2011

Summary of the review

Radeon HD 6450 review - Guru 3d

The Guru3D Radeon HD 6450 review highlights this entry-level graphics card as a low-market hardware update centered around the 40nm-based "Caicos" GPU core. A key pro noted in the evaluation is AMD's decision to double the number of stream processors compared to prior generations, packing a respectable 160 stream processors, 8 texturing units, 16 Z/Stencil ROP units, and 4 color ROP units. Furthermore, the review outlines its potential as an exceptional Home Theater PC (HTPC) component due to its low-profile layout and the integration of a full UVD 3 media engine, which easily handles advanced media playback features like Blu-ray 3D decoding. Conversely, the primary con of the Radeon HD 6450 stems from its target demographic, as it is strictly limited to low-level multimedia operations rather than heavy gaming workloads. While the card introduces useful upgrades such as support for up to 1GB of faster GDDR5 video memory and versatile multi-monitor configurations, its raw rendering performance remains inherently restricted by a narrow 64-bit memory bus interface. Ultimately, the review defines it as a budget-oriented solution that serves well for quiet...

tomshardware.com

07/04/2011

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon HD 6450 Review: Caicos Cometh

The AMD Radeon HD 6450, code-named "Caicos," enters the entry-level, sub-$60 graphics card market as a direct architectural evolution of the older Radeon HD 5450. Built on a 40 nm fabrication process, it features 160 stream processors—doubling the count of its predecessor—alongside 8 texture units, 4 color ROPs, and a 64-bit memory interface. The card launches in two distinct configurations: a slower, lower-power DDR3 variant and a faster GDDR5 version. Designed primarily for home theater PCs (HTPCs), it natively integrates UVD 3 technology, enabling seamless hardware acceleration for Blu-ray 3D video playback over HDMI 1.4a, alongside updated tessellation and Eyefinity multi-display enhancements. Pros and Cons Pros: The Radeon HD 6450 delivers a sizable and quantifiable performance improvement over the HD 5450 due to its doubled shader core count. It provides modern HTPC functionality with its UVD 3 engine, enabling full Blu-ray 3D decode acceleration. Additionally, it maintains a highly efficient thermal footprint, drawing a modest typical power of 20 W for the DDR3 version and 27 W for the GDDR5 variant, making it ideal for quiet, low-power media PCs. Cons:...

computerbase.de

08/09/2014

Summary of the review

Günstige Grafikkarten im Test: 19 × AMD und Nvidia von 20 bis 90 Euro im Vergleich ComputerBase

This 2014 review from ComputerBase evaluates 19 budget graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia priced between €20 and €90, utilizing an AMD A10-7850K test system running Windows 8.1. In the overall gaming performance ratings, AMD models demonstrate a clear advantage over their Nvidia counterparts. The Radeon R7 250X secures the top position by a wide margin, trailing just 17% behind the more robust Radeon R7 260, while the GDDR5-equipped Radeon R7 250 takes second place. Nvidia’s strongest showing in this budget tier is the GeForce GT 740 GDDR5, which lands in third place but still falls 3% short of the standard R7 250 GDDR5. Game-specific testing reveals that performance varies by title; AMD GPUs excel significantly in Trine 2 and Tropico 5, whereas Nvidia hardware gains the upper hand in Plants vs. Zombies. Additionally, the review notes a CPU bottleneck in Dota 2, where the host APU limits performance to roughly 60 frames per second on the fastest cards. The primary advantage highlighted in the review is the excellent price-to-performance ratio delivered by AMD's top budget entries and the substantial...

tomshardware.fr

17/12/2012

Summary of the review

Les performances de Far Cry 3 - Tom’s Hardware

Far Cry 3 Review Summary Far Cry 3 successfully revitalizes the franchise by combining the open-world tropical setting of the original game with deep exploration mechanics, outpost captures, diverse vehicular gameplay, and a unique tattoo-based skill system. Built on the Dunia 2 engine, the game features visually striking environments, high-quality global illumination, and exceptional anti-aliasing on dense foliage. Performance benchmarks reveal that the game is highly demanding on hardware, requiring a solid mid-range graphics card like the GTX 660 or HD 7870 to maintain a fluid 40 frames-per-second at 1080p with medium settings. On the positive side, it is incredibly fun, highly addictive, and features excellent CPU optimization that prevents severe bottlenecks on mainstream processors. However, the game suffers from noticeable graphical flaws, particularly a pixelated Level of Detail (LOD) pop-in transition effect on distant objects that is heavily visible on lower graphics presets. Additionally, animal animations can occasionally appear abrupt and unnatural. Even the most powerful graphics cards of the era struggle to maintain over 35 frames-per-second on Ultra settings, and multi-GPU setups experience uneven performance, with AMD CrossFire...

tomshardware.fr

21/11/2011

Summary of the review

Les performances de Elder Scrolls V : Skyrim - Tom's Hardware

Performance and Technical Summary The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim utilizes Bethesda's Creation Engine, delivering enhanced draw distances and refined weather animations, though it falls short of being a major graphical breakthrough compared to contemporaries like Crysis 2 or Battlefield 3. The game exhibits a heavy CPU bottleneck and is poorly optimized for modern hardware, scaling effectively across only two threads. However, performance scales remarkably well on older setups, allowing modest GPUs like the NVIDIA GT 430 and AMD HD 5570 to easily achieve a stable 30 frames per second at 1080p on medium settings. For demanding visual fidelity—including 4x MSAA alongside high-fidelity transparency anti-aliasing (TrSSAA or Adaptive AA)—a robust setup featuring at least an AMD HD 6850 or NVIDIA GTX 570, paired with a competent 3 GHz Sandy Bridge processor, is required to maintain a playable 30 FPS threshold. Pros and Cons Pro: Excellent performance scalability across budget PC hardware configurations. Pro: Immersive open-world gameplay featuring a compelling storyline and intuitive skill progression. Pro: Visually appealing presentation even at lower-tier medium graphic presets. Con: Severe technical CPU limitations and lacks...

tomshardware.fr

09/04/2014

Summary of the review

Elder Scrolls Online : 22 configurations comparées

This 2014 review of The Elder Scrolls Online (ESO) explores how the MMORPG transitions the franchise's iconic single-player formula into a multiplayer space, evaluating both its gameplay and technical optimization. On the positive side (pros), the game features highly versatile graphics scaling that allows it to run smoothly at 30+ FPS on very low-end GPUs (like the Radeon HD 6450) while offering great visual quality on medium-to-ultra settings with mid-range hardware. Exploration remains a major highlight, offering diverse environments like deserts and coastal cities. Additionally, the game's interface and combat feel immediately familiar to series veterans, and its CPU performance scales incredibly well across affordable hardware. Conversely, the review highlights several notable drawbacks (cons) regarding immersion and long-term viability. The transition to an MMO structure results in vast but empty zones, and NPC houses feel more like public halls than lived-in homes. Public quest instances often break narrative immersion—such as a stealthy prison escape devolving into a chaotic riot due to dozens of players sharing the same objective. On a technical note, the game fails to leverage multi-GPU setups, yielding...

tomshardware.fr

10/06/2014

Summary of the review

Watch Dogs : les performances - Tom's Hardware

The Tom's Hardware review of Watch Dogs evaluates the PC performance of the open-world game, revealing that it is exceptionally resource-intensive and heavily reliant on both GPU and CPU power. On the positive side (pros), the review praises the game’s overall visual beauty when fully maxed out, noting its impressive portrayal of an immersive, digital Chicago and the wide variety of realistic, inspired vehicles. The game also successfully optimizes multithreading for high-end desktop processors; complex calculations benefit greatly from multi-core setups, allowing high-tier AMD and Intel CPUs (like the FX-8000 series and Core i5/i7) to perform exceptionally well. Furthermore, entry-level hardware like the Radeon R7 240 or GeForce GT 630 can still manage a playable 30 frames per second at a lower 720p resolution. Tom’ On the negative side (cons), the PC port suffers from poor optimization compared to its console counterparts, leading to frequent and distracting frame-time stuttering and latency spikes across almost all tested configurations. Running the game at 1080p Ultra settings requires at least a Radeon R9 270 or GeForce GTX 760 just to hover around 30...

hardware.info

06/12/2012

Summary of the review

Vier passieve videokaarten review: 100 procent stil!

This 2012 review from ⁠Hardware Info evaluates four completely silent, passively cooled graphics cards: the Club 3D Radeon HD 7750 royalQueen 1GB, the Sapphire Radeon HD 6450 Flex 1GB, the Sapphire Radeon HD 7750 Ultimate 1GB, and the Zotac GeForce GT 640 Zone Edition 2GB. A major pro across all evaluated models is that none of the cards overheated during benchmarking tests, proving that passive cooling can adequately maintain stable operating temperatures under load. Specifically, the Sapphire Radeon HD 7750 Ultimate achieved excellent thermal performance by running five degrees cooler than its Club 3D counterpart, earning it a Silver Award, while the Zotac GeForce GT 640 Zone Edition received a Bronze Award. Additionally, power consumption remained stable across the board, with max system power draw during intensive loads (like Metro 2033) ranging efficiently from 164.2 W for the low-end Sapphire HD 6450 up to 202 W for the Club 3D HD 7750. Despite the benefits of absolute silence, the review highlights several distinct cons and limitations inherent to these older passive designs. A primary drawback for the Club 3D royalQueen...

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.

Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB

Extremely low power consumption, making it ideal for quiet office or media PCs
Supports up to three active displays via AMD Eyefinity technology
Available in low-profile and passively cooled (silent) variants for small form factor cases
Decent for home theater use (HTPC) with support for Blu-ray 3D and HD video decoding
Native full-size HDMI output for easy connection to modern displays
Significant performance jump over the previous generation Radeon HD 5450

What we don't like about AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB

Extremely poor gaming performance, often failing to reach playable framerates even at low resolutions
Weaker than many modern integrated graphics solutions
Active cooling models can have noisy, high-pitched fans
Legacy status means it is no longer supported by current Radeon drivers
DirectX 11 support is technically present but practically useless due to low hardware power
Poor value compared to slightly more expensive contemporary cards like the Radeon HD 6670 or HD 5570

Verdict

The AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB is an entry-level graphics card based on the 40nm Caicos architecture, featuring 160 stream processors, 8 texture units, and 4 ROPs. This variant is equipped with 2GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit interface, typically operating at a core clock of 625 MHz and a memory clock of 533–800 MHz. Its primary strengths include an exceptionally low thermal design power (TDP) of approximately 18W, a low-profile form factor suitable for compact systems, and passive cooling options that ensure silent operation for multimedia tasks. It also supports DirectX 11 and multi-display configurations via DVI, VGA, and DisplayPort or HDMI. However, its significant cons include outdated performance that struggles with modern gaming and 3D applications, limited memory bandwidth of roughly 9.28 GB/s, and a lack of official driver support for newer operating systems.

Best alternatives

NVIDIA GeForce GT 630

Graphics cards

ZOTAC GeForce GTX 1060 Mini

Graphics cards

AMD FirePro W2100

Graphics cards

NVIDIA GeForce GT 610

Graphics cards

ATI Radeon HD 5570

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE HD 6670 2GB

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon 550X

Graphics cards

MSI GeForce GT 710 2GB

Graphics cards

EVGA GeForce GTX 550 Ti 2GB

Graphics cards

ATI Radeon HD 5450

Graphics cards

NVIDIA Quadro 600

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon HD 7850

Graphics cards

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon HD 6450 2GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found