OVERALL

ALTERNATIVES

SPECS

VS AVERAGE

REVIEWS

ATI Radeon HD 5450 Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£25VRAM:1 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):19 W

ATI Radeon HD 5450 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.

ATI Radeon HD 5450

5.1/10

▼Worse than 86% of graphics cards

6.6

▼Worse than 78%

4.7

▼Worse than 89%

8.9

▲Better than 80%

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 ATI Radeon HD 5450

5.1

Show more

Hide

Performance

4.1

Show more

Hide

3DMark Time Spy benchmark score

?

3DMark Port Royal score

PassMark (G3D) result

?

PassMark (DirectCompute) result

?

Floating-point performance

Show more

Memory

2.8

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

19 W

Show more

Design

8.9

Show more

Hide

Size

168x 72.87x 25 mm

Length

Height

Slot width

Weight

Show more

ATI Radeon HD 5450 vs the average graphics card

Why is ATI Radeon HD 5450 better than the average graphics card?

Show more

Hide

40 more compute units
This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
80 vs 40
91.2% lower TDP
This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (19 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
19 W vs 215 W
53.8% lower PSU requirement
This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
300 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
115 mm shorter card length
This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (170 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
170 mm vs 285 mm
56 mm lower card height
This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
69 mm vs 125 mm
91.6% lower board power limit
This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (19 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
19 W vs 225 W
21.2x cheaper
ATI Radeon HD 5450 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£25 vs £530).
£25 vs £530

21.2x cheaper
ATI Radeon HD 5450 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£25 vs £530).
£25 vs £530
10.6% higher user score
User score
8.9/ 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
ATI Radeon HD 5450
the average graphics card
ATI Radeon HD 5450 has a higher user score than the average graphics card (8.85 vs 8.000).
8.85 vs 8
2.37x more popular
ATI Radeon HD 5450 is more popular than the average graphics card (10 vs 4.2).
10 vs 4.22

40 more compute units
This graphics card has more compute units than the average graphics card (80 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
80 vs 40
4.53x higher compute throughput
This graphics card has a higher compute throughput than the average graphics card (104 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
104 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

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.
80% smaller GPU die
This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (59 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
59 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

91.2% lower TDP
This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (19 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
19 W vs 215 W
53.8% lower PSU requirement
This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
300 W vs 650 W
91.6% lower board power limit
This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (19 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
19 W vs 225 W
15 °C lower load temperature
This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (52 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
52 °C vs 67 °C
58.3% lower idle power draw
This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (5 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
5 W vs 12 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
115 mm shorter card length
This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (170 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
170 mm vs 285 mm
56 mm lower card height
This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
69 mm vs 125 mm
84.9% lighter card weight
This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (154 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
154 g vs 1,021 g

Why is ATI Radeon HD 5450 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
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
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
2 fewer fans
This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
1 vs 3
66.1% lower base clock speed
This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (650 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
650 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.

9.8% worse value for money
ATI Radeon HD 5450 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.55 vs 7.2).
6.55 vs 7.2

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
66.1% lower base clock speed
This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (650 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
650 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.
98.6% lower texture rate
This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (5.2 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
5.2 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
98.4% lower pixel rate
This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (2.6 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
2.6 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
99.6% lower FP32 performance
This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
0.1 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
4,272 fewer FP32 units
This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (80 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
80 vs 4,352
79.2% lower FP64 performance
This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS

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
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
95.8% slower memory speed
This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (800 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
800 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
77.1% slower VRAM clock
This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (400 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
400 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 (GDDR3 vs GDDR6).
GDDR3 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.
No vs yes
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.
13 older
This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2010 vs 2023).
February 2010
2,010 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 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.
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
98.7% fewer transistors
This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (292 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
292 million vs 22,900 million

3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
0 vs 3
No AV1 encoding
This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
No vs yes
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.
Older HDMI version
This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.3a vs 2.1).
1.3a vs 2.1
No VRR support
This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
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
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
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.
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
86.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (2.7 Gbps vs 20 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 20 Gbps.
2.7 Gbps vs 20 Gbps

2 fewer fans
This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
1 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
13 °C higher idle temperature
This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (50 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
50 °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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

guru3d.com

04/02/2010

Summary of the review

Radeon HD 5450 review - Guru 3d

The Guru3D Radeon HD 5450 review highlights this graphics card as an incredibly affordable, entry-level DirectX 11 solution aimed at budget-conscious users and home theater PC (HTPC) builders. Launched at a low price point of just $49, the card focuses heavily on multi-monitor Eyefinity setup support (driving up to three displays) and multimedia enhancement rather than raw 3D gaming performance. In testing, Guru3D emphasized that the GPU leverages Enhanced UVD 2.0 to deliver seamless hardware acceleration for dual 1080P HD streams. This allows high-quality x.264 movie playback in software like Media Player Classic with virtually zero CPU strain, making it an excellent, low-profile backbone for quiet entertainment hubs. The primary pros of the Radeon HD 5450 include its extremely affordable pricing, versatile multi-display connectivity (featuring DVI, DisplayPort, and Sub-D), and low power draw that permits silent, passive cooling solutions. Additionally, it manages full DXVA hardware acceleration and image sharpening shaders flawlessly. On the flip side, the major con is its severely limited 3D processing capability. Equipped with just 80 stream processors and constrained by a narrow 64-bit memory bus, it...

tomshardware.com

03/02/2010

Summary of the review

ATI Radeon HD 5450: Eyefinity And HTPCs For Everyone?

The ATI Radeon HD 5450 is a budget-oriented, entry-level graphics card launched at a $50 price point, designed primarily for utility rather than gaming prowess. Its standout features include lowering power consumption and raising the bar for affordable GPUs by introducing Eyefinity multi-monitor support to casual users. For Home Theater PC (HTPC) builders, the card offers silent, passive cooling alongside highly desirable audio capabilities, such as bitstreaming Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. However, the review highlights that the card offers very poor value for gamers, as it only delivers passable performance on low-to-medium settings at a low 1280x1024 resolution. For similarly priced hardware, the older Radeon HD 4650 is a vastly superior gaming choice, and a CrossFire setup with two 5450s is explicitly dismissed as a waste of money. Additionally, because multi-monitor setups and compatible high-end audio receivers remain rare among average consumers, users upgrading from a Radeon HD 4550 will notice little practical benefit. Ultimately, cost-conscious users are advised to wait for AMD's forthcoming 5500-series cards for a better balance of price and performance.

pcper.com

10/02/2010

Summary of the review

AMD Radeon HD 5570 and 5450 Review

The AMD Radeon HD 5450 and HD 5570 graphics cards offer a low-cost, DirectX 11-capable solution designed specifically to appeal to home theater PC (HTPC) builders. Built on half-height card designs, these entry-level GPUs provide key advantages like Eyefinity multi-display support and lossless Blu-ray audio streaming. Priced between $49 and $59, the entry-level HD 5450 targets budget setups, utilizing a core setup that comfortably beats the similarly priced NVIDIA GeForce 210. Benchmarks show mixed gaming capability; while the HD 5450 outperforms the GeForce GT 220 in Batman: Arkham Asylum, it falls behind it in Far Cry 2. Meanwhile, the slightly faster HD 5570 is designed to compete directly against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 240 by enabling somewhat higher image quality settings like anti-aliasing.

hothardware.com

04/02/2010

Summary of the review

ATI Radeon HD 5450: DX11 On The Cheap

The ATI Radeon HD 5450 is introduced as an entry-level, low-power graphics card designed to bring DirectX 11 support to budget-conscious users. Acting as the antithesis to the high-end HD 5870, this compact half-height card is passively cooled. It integrates key technologies from the HD 5000 series, including ATI Eyefinity multi-display technology, the AVIVO video engine (specifically the UVD 2 engine), and PowerPlay power management. The primary pros of this GPU are its low power consumption, silent operation due to passive cooling, and affordable pricing for modern API support. Conversely, the major cons stem from its position as the lowest-tier variant in the lineup, which limits its raw performance. While it successfully handles modern features and video playback, it lacks the graphical processing power required for demanding, high-end 3D gaming benchmarks.

legitreviews.com

03/02/2010

Summary of the review

ATI Radeon HD 5450 512MB DDR3 Video Card Review

ATI Radeon HD 5450 Review Summary The ATI Radeon HD 5450 is an entry-level graphics card designed with a strong focus on Home Theater PC (HTPC) and small form factor (SFF) system builds. Priced highly competitively between $49 and $59, it features a core clock frequency of 650MHz, a memory clock frequency of 900MHz, and up to 80 Stream Processing Units built on a 40nm process. While its compute performance rating of 104 GFLOPS is modest, it effectively delivers more than double the power of AMD’s contemporary integrated motherboard graphics chipsets like the 785G and 790GX. This allows the card to efficiently offload heavy processing loads from the main system during multimedia playback. Pros and Cons Pros: Highly budget-friendly price point. Silent operation via a passive cooling reference design. Exceptionally energy-efficient, drawing only 6.5 Watts at idle and 19.1 Watts under full load. Space-saving low-profile half-height design ideal for mini-ITX cases. Advanced audio capabilities including HDMI output alongside Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstreaming. Cons: Limited overall compute performance (104 GFLOPS), restricting its capability for intensive 3D gaming. Narrow...

itpro.com

30/09/2011

Summary of the review

ATI Radeon HD 5450 review | ChannelPro - ITPro If you want, I can also look for articles focusing specifically on its performance in home theater PCs...

The ITPro review positions the ATI Radeon HD 5450 as an exceptionally affordable, entry-level graphics card tailored specifically for media centers and compact PCs rather than mainstream gaming. Priced at a budget-friendly £35 exc VAT for the 512MB variant, the card stands out for its low power requirements and tiny PCB footprint, which is roughly half the size of standard gaming GPUs. Tested on an Intel Core i7-920 system, the total rig power draw reached a modest 133W at peak load. Additional major advantages include its silent, passive cooling system and a flexible selection of display outputs comprising DVI-I, D-SUB, and DisplayPort, making it highly capable at offloading demanding 1080p Blu-ray decoding tasks with an average GPU usage of just 45%. However, the card’s meagre technical specifications—built on a 40nm die with a 650MHz clock speed, older GDDR3 memory, and just 80 stream processors—severely limit its performance boundaries. The primary drawback highlighted in the review is its inability to handle serious 3D gaming, evidenced by a sluggish 17fps frame rate during Medium-quality Crysis benchmarks at 1,280 x 1,024 resolution. Furthermore,...

wsgf.org

28/06/2010

Summary of the review

ATI Radeon 5670, 5550 & 5450 Review - Conclusions

The WSGF review of the ATI Radeon HD 5670, 5550, and 5450 highlights these cards as affordable, low-power solutions suitable for HTPCs due to their small form factor, lack of extra power connectors, and fanless, silent options, particularly for the HD 5550. While they capably handle older DirectX 9 games at standard resolutions, the review finds they are unsuitable for modern gaming, with the HD 5670 representing a poor value compared to higher-tier alternatives. Significant cons include severe performance limitations and the inability of these entry-level GPUs to support viable multi-monitor Eyefinity setups, despite marketing claims. The review notes that the lack of DisplayPort connectors on the HD 5550 and 5450 physically prevents triple-screen setups, making this series, including the HD 5670, a "hard sell" for users looking for performance beyond basic, single-screen functionality.

techpowerup.com

08/04/2010

Summary of the review

HIS Radeon HD 5450 1 GB Review TechPowerUp

The TechPowerUp review of the HIS Radeon HD 5450 1 GB highlights the card as an excellent, low-profile choice for HTPCs and silent media systems, featuring a completely silent, single-slot passive cooler, native HDMI with 7.1 audio, and low power consumption. However, the review identifies that the 1 GB of GDDR3 memory is a wasted, cost-inflating feature that offers no performance benefits, while the card's 3D gaming performance is far too weak for modern, demanding titles.

techpowerup.com

18/02/2010

Summary of the review

Sapphire HD 5450 512 MB GDDR3 Review - TechPowerUp

The TechPowerUp review positions the Sapphire HD 5450 512 MB GDDR3 as an ideal, silent, and energy-efficient HTPC component, featuring passive cooling and native HDMI 1.3a with 7.1 channel audio bit-streaming. Its low-profile, compact design is well-suited for media centers, with the card drawing minimal power—under 10W during video playback. However, the review highlights that the 3D gaming performance is weak due to a 64-bit interface, and the price is hard to justify over older alternatives unless DirectX 11 or specific audio features are required.

bit-tech.net

09/02/2010

Summary of the review

Radeon HD 5450 Review: HTPC Heaven? | bit-tech.net

The Radeon HD 5450 is a highly affordable, entry-level graphics card priced under £40 ($55) that positions itself as an ideal component for a Home Theatre PC (HTPC) rather than a high-performance gaming powerhouse. Its standout features include a passively cooled, silent design and the inclusion of the Universal Video Decoder (UVD2.2), which brings essential features for audio-visual enthusiasts such as HDMI 1.3a support, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS MasterHD bit-streaming. Built on a 40nm manufacturing process, the card is exceptionally power efficient, drawing a mere 6.4W when idle and only 19.1W under load. Furthermore, it helps boost overall system productivity by freeing up main system memory that would otherwise be shared with an Integrated Graphics Processor (IGP). On the downside, the card suffers from severely limited computing horsepower, making its advertised "DirectX 11 Gaming" capability practically useless for demanding modern titles. Hardware limitations like a narrow 64-bit memory interface further restrict its performance data transfer rates. Additionally, the reference model lacks a low-profile bracket in the box, requiring buyers to verify if third-party partners include one for half-height cases. Potential...

expertreviews.co.uk

04/02/2010

Summary of the review

Sapphire Radeon HD 5450 review

The Sapphire Radeon HD 5450 is a highly compact, budget-oriented graphics card reviewed at £41 inc VAT that targets niche, non-gaming applications like home media centres and multi-monitor office setups. Architecturally, it stands out as the cheapest card in its family to support DirectX 11, ATI Eyefinity triple-monitor configurations, and high-definition audio formats like Dolby TrueHD for Blu-ray playback. On the physical design front, its primary pros include a half-height, low-profile design that seamlessly fits into slimline PC cases, alongside a passive heatsink that guarantees completely silent operation while consuming an exceptionally low 19.1W of power. Furthermore, it efficiently unloads the CPU by providing smooth hardware video acceleration and reducing video encoding times via ATI Stream technology. Conversely, the card suffers from notable cons, most prominently its severe lack of graphical horsepower, making it entirely unsuitable for modern 3D gaming despite its technical DirectX 11 compliance. Testing revealed it heavily struggled with performance, only managing to achieve fluid frame rates in older titles like Call of Duty 4 by dropping the resolution to 1,280×720 and disabling anti-aliasing. Connectivity is another...

techspot.com

04/02/2010

Summary of the review

ATI Radeon HD 5450 Review - TechSpot

The TechSpot review defines the ATI Radeon HD 5450 as an ultra-affordable, 40nm entry-level GPU designed for HTPCs and basic display output, featuring DirectX 11 support and passive cooling options. Pros include extremely low power consumption (19W under load), a low-profile form factor, and multi-display capabilities via Eyefinity. Conversely, the card is deemed unsuitable for modern gaming, delivering "exceptionally poor" performance with sub-15 fps results in tested titles due to a 64-bit memory bus. While overclocking yields negligible gains, competitors like the GeForce GT 220 offer significantly better performance for a similar price, making the HD 5450 a weak choice for anything beyond basic 2D tasks.

tomshardware.com

04/02/2010

Summary of the review

ATI Radeon HD 5450: Eyefinity And HTPCs For Everyone?

The ATI Radeon HD 5450 is a $50 entry-level discrete graphics card designed specifically for the non-gaming crowd, acting as a direct replacement for the older Radeon HD 4350 and 4550 models. While it completely lacks the processing power required for modern 3D gaming, it successfully inherits high-end features from the rest of the Radeon HD 5000-series family. This makes it an attractive, low-cost solution for specific target audiences, such as office professionals needing multi-monitor setups and home theatre PC (HTPC) builders looking for robust multimedia capabilities. Pros and Cons Pros: It introduces budget-friendly triple-display Eyefinity multi-monitor support and features Dolby TrueHD/DTS-HD Master Audio over a protected audio path. Additionally, it features DirectX 11 support and passive cooling options, making it silent and power-efficient for small-form-factor builds. Cons: The card suffers from severely limited 3D gaming performance due to its cut-down hardware architecture, which makes features like DirectX 11 gaming functionally unusable. It is also a poor value for performance scaling, as running it in a CrossFire configuration is completely impractical compared to buying a single, superior mainstream card. If...

guru3d.com

03/02/2010

Summary of the review

Radeon HD 5450 review

The Guru3D Radeon HD 5450 Review highlights this $49 entry-level DirectX 11 graphics card as an exceptional budget solution tailored strictly for value desktops and Home Theater PCs (HTPCs) rather than gaming. Built on a 40nm process with a mere 80 stream processors and a 64-bit memory bus, its primary architectural appeal is bringing premium modern features down to the absolute lowest price bracket. Reviewer Hilbert Hagedoorn highlights several major pros, including its completely silent passive cooling design, extraordinarily low power consumption (drawing only about 23W under full GPU load), and multi-monitor ATI Eyefinity support capable of driving up to three displays at high 2560x1600 resolutions. Furthermore, the addition of an upgraded UVD 2.0 engine allows the card to seamlessly handle DXVA 1080P video playback and dual-stream Blu-ray decoding with post-processing enhancements while keeping CPU utilization practically at zero. Conversely, the review explicitly outlines the card's stark cons, most notably its abysmal 3D gaming performance. Testing in titles like Far Cry 2 reveals that even when lowering settings and disabling anti-aliasing at a baseline 1024x768 resolution, games remain completely unplayable...

hartware.de

19/02/2010

Summary of the review

Low Profile: Radeon HD 5450 und 5570

This hardware review by Hartware evaluates and compares two entry-level, low-profile AMD graphics cards from February 2010: the MSI R5450-MD1GH (Radeon HD 5450) and the PowerColor HD 5570 (AX5570 1GBD3-LH). Both tested models feature a slim low-profile design and are equipped with 1 GByte of GDDR3 memory. While the ultra-budget HD 5450 (starting around €40) is primarily marketed as a silent option for home theatre PC (HTPC) systems, the slightly more expensive HD 5570 (starting around €60) is targeted by AMD as an affordable gateway into basic "HD Gaming". Both GPUs leverage modern 40 nm manufacturing processes, fully support DirectX 11, and offer hardware-based video acceleration. However, because neither test card includes a physical DisplayPort connection, their multi-monitor capabilities are strictly capped at two concurrent displays instead of the triple-monitor configuration typically supported by ATI Eyefinity technology. The main advantages (pros) highlighted in the evaluation include exceptionally low power consumption, with the HD 5450 drawing a mere 6W at idle and maxing out at a 19W TDP, alongside a completely silent passive cooling setup on the MSI variant. The PowerColor...

hardware.fr

24/02/2010

Summary of the review

La vraie consommation de 73 cartes graphiques

This 2010 benchmarking review details a new testing methodology designed to measure the precise power draw of 73 distinct graphics cards across four scenarios: 2D desktop use, Blu-ray playback, 3DMark06, and FurMark stress testing. The evaluation highlights a clear trend over a three-year span: while maximum 3D power consumption for high-end single-GPU cards remained relatively stable around 190W to 210W, manufacturers successfully increased performance within the same thermal envelopes. The review particularly praises the massive efficiency gains made during idle (2D) and video playback tasks by newer architectures, such as ATI's Radeon HD 5000 series, which vastly outclassed older, power-hungry models. Pros and Cons Pro: Excellent multi-scenario testing (2D, Blu-ray, and heavy 3D loads) isolates exact power draw from both the PCI-Express slot and auxiliary connectors. Pro: Exceptional idle and playback efficiency found in newer cards like the Radeon HD 5870 (19.6W in 2D) and GeForce GTX 285 (29.5W in 2D) compared to older 70W+ architectures. Pro: Clear generation-on-generation performance-per-watt scaling in mainstream tiers without increasing overall power footprints. Con: Out-of-spec power spikes in older dual-GPU cards, notably the Radeon...

hardware.fr

04/03/2010

Summary of the review

Comparatif géant : 89 GPU NVIDIA et ATI/AMD - HardWare.fr

This mega-benchmark by HardWare.fr delivers a massive, comprehensive review evaluating 89 DirectX 10 graphic processing units (GPUs) from Nvidia and ATI/AMD across a timeline spanning from November 2006 to March 2010. The testing methodology evaluates a total of 3,204 results by benchmarking 73 distinct graphics cards for real power consumption across four major titles—including Crysis Warhead, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, and H.A.W.X—using nine detailed resolution and quality presets. The review aims to cut through years of confusing product rebadges and renames by establishing clear overall performance indices, anti-aliasing impact ratios, and raw performance-per-watt metrics for legacy and modern cards alike. A major pro of this review is its scale, tracking progress from pioneering flagships like the Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX up to modern multi-GPU solutions like the AMD ATI Radeon HD 5970. It highlights a significant 3.1x generational performance multiplication in the high-end tier over three and a half years. However, a key con identified in the final conclusion is that this performance growth actually reflects a historical slowdown compared to previous eras (such as the 3.7x jump between...

hardware.fr

04/03/2010

Summary of the review

89 GPU NVIDIA et ATI/AMD ! - version imprimable HardWare.fr

This massive retrospective benchmark review evaluates 89 NVIDIA and ATI/AMD DirectX 10/11 graphics cards released between 2006 and 2010, testing them across four representative games (Crysis Warhead, Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, and H.A.W.X.). The clear standout of the roundup is ATI's 40nm Radeon HD 5000 series, which completely dominates NVIDIA in both single-GPU (HD 5870) and dual-GPU (HD 5970) raw performance, as well as efficiency. The pros of this era highlight an exceptional evolution in performance-to-power efficiency—specifically led by the sub-30W Radeon HD 5450 and the mid-range HD 5570/5670—alongside major architectural leaps like hardware-accelerated HD video decoding, DirectX 11 support, and the rise of GPU computing via CUDA, PhysX, and OpenCL. Conversely, the review exposes several distinct cons regarding the industry's trajectory. While high-end gaming performance increased threefold since the landmark GeForce 8800 GTX, this growth curve actually represents a stagnation compared to previous generational leaps. Entry-level performance stagnated even harder, only doubling in four years, with some newer budget models like the DDR2 version of the Radeon HD 5450 actually performing worse than the older HD 4350. Furthermore,...

geeknetic.es

04/02/2010

Summary of the review

Radeon HD 5450. DirectX 11 ya es un estándar - Geeknetic

The Geeknetic review of the AMD Radeon HD 5450 highlights this budget graphics card as a basic, efficient, and functional hardware choice for casual users and multi-media configurations. The entry-level GPU is priced under €50, lowering the barrier to entry for modern features like full DirectX 11, OpenCL, and DirectCompute 11 support. Its standout pros include incredibly low power demands, running at just 6.4W while idling and peaking at 19W under a full workload. This ultra-efficient architecture allows the card to operate entirely with silent, passive cooling heatsinks, completely doing away with loud, bulky fans. Additionally, it boasts massive utility for Home Theater PCs (HTPCs) by offloading high-definition video processing directly onto the hardware, maintaining a mere 4% CPU usage during 1080p playback. It further excels by offering multi-monitor workflows via AMD Eyefinity technology, which safely manages up to three HD outputs across HDMI, DisplayPort, VGA, or DVI lanes. Conversely, the prominent cons of the hardware center squarely on its severe, entry-level graphical bottlenecks. The processor is crippled by only 80 stream processors, 4 ROPs, and an exceedingly narrow 64-bit...

nexthardware.com

18/02/2010

Summary of the review

AMD Athlon II X3, Sapphire 760G, HD5450 e HD5570

The NextHardware review evaluates a budget PC build featuring an AMD Athlon II X3 440, Sapphire 760G motherboard, and Radeon HD 5450/5570 graphics cards, highlighting excellent value for HTPC and office use. Key pros include the X3 440's solid multitasking performance and the motherboard’s flexible, affordable hybrid support for DDR2/DDR3 memory. The passively cooled HD 5450 offers silent HD playback, while the HD 5570 handles light 3D gaming. Conversely, the review identifies that the Radeon HD 5450 lacks the processing power for modern 3D gaming, and the HD 5570 requires significant resolution compromises for playable performance. Additional cons include the motherboard's limited capacitor quality for longevity and the lack of an L3 cache, which hampers the Athlon II’s raw gaming capability.

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.

Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about ATI Radeon HD 5450

Extremely low power consumption, typically under 20W at load.
Silent operation when using models with passive cooling.
Excellent for Home Theater PCs (HTPC) due to hardware-accelerated HD video decoding.
Supports multi-monitor setups through ATI Eyefinity technology.
Low-profile design fits easily into small form factor (SFF) cases.
Very affordable entry-level pricing.

What we don't like about ATI Radeon HD 5450

Extremely poor gaming performance, even for titles from its launch era.
Inadequate for modern 3D games even at low settings.
Limited 64-bit memory bus significantly restricts bandwidth.
Lacks support for modern operating systems like Windows 11.
Often outperformed by newer integrated graphics solutions.
DirectX 11 support is largely nominal as the card lacks the power to run DX11 features effectively.

Verdict

The ATI Radeon HD 5450 is an entry-level graphics card launched in February 2010, built on a 40 nm process with the Cedar graphics processor. It features 80 stream processors, a core clock speed of 650 MHz, and was typically paired with either 512 MB or 1 GB of DDR2 or DDR3 memory on a 64-bit interface. Its primary characteristics include support for DirectX 11, ATI Eyefinity multi-display technology, and a low-profile design that often utilizes passive cooling. Main pros include a very low power consumption of approximately 19W, silent operation for HTPC builds, and hardware-accelerated video decoding (UVD 2.2) with support for HD audio bitstreaming. However, its cons include extremely limited gaming performance even by 2010 standards, narrow 64-bit memory bandwidth, and an inability to handle modern 3D titles effectively.

Best alternatives

AMD Radeon HD 7850

Graphics cards

EVGA GeForce GTX 650

Graphics cards

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon HD 6670

Graphics cards

NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 OEM

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE GeForce GT 630 2GB

Graphics cards

NVIDIA Quadro K600

Graphics cards

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti

Graphics cards

GIGABYTE HD 6670 2GB

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon 550X

Graphics cards

NVIDIA Quadro 600

Graphics cards

AMD Radeon HD 6750

Graphics cards

See best alternatives in Buying Guide

Compare ATI Radeon HD 5450 with other products in the Graphics cards category

Graphic comparison of ATI Radeon HD 5450 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found