ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 vs ATI HD 5670
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5670 with Radeon Xpress 1250, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 5670 outperforms ATI Xpress 1250 by a whopping 1745% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 886 | 1453 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.23 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | Redwood | RS690 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 28 February 2007 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 400 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 120 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 64 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 15.50 | 1.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.62 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 4 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 9.0b (9_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 26
+2500%
| 1−2
−2500%
|
| Full HD | 33
+3200%
| 1−2
−3200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.61 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+56%
|
24−27
−56%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how ATI HD 5670 and ATI Xpress 1250 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5670 is 2500% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5670 is 3200% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI HD 5670 is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI HD 5670 is ahead in 31 test (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.03 | 0.11 |
| Recency | 14 January 2010 | 28 February 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 80 nm |
ATI HD 5670 has a 1745.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 5670 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Xpress 1250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 5670 is a desktop card while Radeon Xpress 1250 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
