Radeon HD 6450 vs ATI HD 5770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 5770 and Radeon HD 6450, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI HD 5770 outperforms HD 6450 by a whopping 766% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 714 | 1285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.77 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.87 | 1.99 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Juniper | Caicos |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 13 October 2009 (15 years ago) | 7 April 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | $55 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
ATI HD 5770 and HD 6450 have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 800 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 34.00 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.36 TFLOPS | 0.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 40 | 8 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 208 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5) |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | + | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 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 | 24
+1100%
| 2−3
−1100%
|
| Full HD | 50
+900%
| 5−6
−900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.18
+246%
| 11.00
−246%
|
- ATI HD 5770 has 246% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+813%
|
8−9
−813%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1000%
|
3−4
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+780%
|
5−6
−780%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI HD 5770 and HD 6450 compete in popular games:
- ATI HD 5770 is 1100% faster in 900p
- ATI HD 5770 is 900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.07 | 0.47 |
| Recency | 13 October 2009 | 7 April 2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 30 Watt |
ATI HD 5770 has a 766% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 6450, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and 260% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 5770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
