AMD’s Radeon HD 5570: Low Profile, Higher Performance
by Ryan Smith on February 9, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Conclusion
With AMD's positioning of the Radeon HD 5570 in the marketplace, you can get a few very different outcomes depending on what you’re looking for. As a video-only HTPC card, it’s no better than the 5450 in features, while it’s worse in terms of power consumption and noise. Based on our research the 5570 isn’t the HTPC über card we were expecting it to be, so if you can bear the limitations of the 5450, that’s going to be the better card. Otherwise the 5670 is the most capable choice out there. The 5570 does nothing better than either of those two cards when it comes to HTPC use.
Meanwhile if we take a look at overall performance, the 5570 doesn’t fare much better. The move from GDDR5 to DDR3 has a significant impact on the performance of the Redwood GPU in most cases, bringing the 5570 well below the 5670 and similar cards. The lower-end of the 5000 series has been consistently overpriced when it comes to overall performance, and the 5570 is no different. The GDDR3 9600GT can be found for around the same price point, and is anywhere between just as fast as the 5570 to completely clobbering it. The 5570 can’t compete amidst that much of a memory bandwidth gap. If you can fit a full-sized card, you can do much better than the 5570 when it comes solely to performance; the 9600GT and the GT 240 are both much more capable cards for the $80-$85 price tag.
Last, but certainly not least however, is the area the 5570 excels at: low-profile cards. The low-profile market is basically dominated by bottom-tier cards such as the GeForce 210, Radeon 4350, Radeon 5450, and of course a number of even older cards. The 5570 is faster than every single one of them, usually by a factor of 2-3x. Compared to the 5450 in particular, it fits in the same form factor and offers around 3x the performance for only $25 more. The use of Redwood as opposed to Cedar does mean it consumes more power and generates more heat, but this should be a bearable tradeoff for the significant performance improvement in most low-profile cases.
The only catch we would add to that is that while the 5570 is going to be the fastest mass-market card, technically speaking it’s not the fastest low-profile card ever made. We’ve seen a low-profile 9800GT from Sparkle that should make quick work of the 5570, but at 2x the power draw of the 5570, it’s a specialty card that would only work in a limited number of well ventilated low-profile cases. The 5570 in comparison is going to be the fastest low-profile card on mass-market.
With that out of the way however, there’s not a whole lot else we can say. By being a low-profile card the 5570 is a more compelling second-tier card to the 5670 than the 4650 was to the 4670, but otherwise it brings with it all the pitfalls of trying to shave down the price of an already decently cheap card. Unless you need a low-profile card or a card that specifically meets the 5570’s power characteristics, you’re going to be better off looking at other cards, particularly if you can swing a little more money for something like the Radeon 4850 while it’s still available.
36 Comments
View All Comments
vlado08 - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
Please give us comparison with intel HD graphics and also Ion in video post processing. Can we change gamma in intel drivers? Can we select different interlacing? Can we select the output RGB or YUV, 0-255 or 16-235? In some articles here on Anandtech you point intel HD as an perfect HTPC graphics? But is it really?Moizy - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
I forgot that you included those screen shots of the 210 and the 220 doing the "cheese slices" test in the 5450 article. Thanks for pointing that out. I downloaded those screen-shots as well. Very useful for comparison.It's kind of irritating that they (AMD and nVidia) can't get the HTPC thing fully right unless you spend $100 and get a card that has a bunch of 3D capabilities that aren't needed if you just want to enjoy HD. I wonder, though, if half of the 5570's video-quality issues are driver-related and not hardware-related. As far as I know, the 4670 can handle all of the video-quality stuff, and 5570 seems very comparable hardware-wise.
mariush - Wednesday, February 10, 2010 - link
We wouldnt need these 100$ cards just to run a movie well if the crap that INTERLACING is would have been removed from the HD standard.Almost all the performace problems are caused by the need to deinterlace content. With progressive content, these cards don't have issues.
Slaimus - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
The card really should be clocked at ~500Mhz with lower voltage, and maybe even 80 disabled SPs. All of that power wasting rendering ability is mostly idling while waiting for memory.MrSpadge - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
Agreed. Although that could become a HD5550.wolrah - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
Why do we still have VGA ports on these things? Those still using old-ass monitors can use an adapter off the DVI-I port that pretty much every video card includes for free. Give me DVI-I Dual Link, HDMI, and DisplayPort. VGA is dead and can be adapted with no downsides from other ports, there is no reason to keep putting that useless port there.Taft12 - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how every penny needs to be scrimped with the miniscule margins on these parts, especially given DVI royalties.MadMan007 - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
You couldn't take a metal tool to the Sapphire heatsink to find out what material it is? I doubt it's actual 'paint' it's probably anodizing on aluminum which should be easy to scrape through.Ryan Smith - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
I actually tried scraping through it, but I don't exactly have the right tool for the task. At any rate, Sapphire tells me it's Aluminum.shiggz - Tuesday, February 9, 2010 - link
Any idea if this card can handle MPCHC "sharpen complex 2" without stuttering on 720p files?