XFX ATi Radeon HD 5670 1024MB £59.99 delivered @ cclonline - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Excellent value graphics card. Select 'budget' delivery to receive free delivery in 5+ days

Ranks 55 out of around 950 graphics cards benchmarked on videobenchmark.net. The card has excellent reviews and from what ive read, it will work with low power PSUs as it draws relatively little power. Ive posted graphics cards before and quite a few people ask if they will work with 300w PSUs and from my research, it looks as if it will be fine provided you don't have a host of additional power hungry componants

Standard spiel:
All gamers were not created equal-until now. XFX is pleased to introduce the XFX ATI Radeon™ 5670 HD Graphics Card, offering the latest technology at a price that is transforming not only how the game is played, but who's playing it. Designed for power users who want an immersive 3D gaming experience as well as powerful content and entertainment capabilities, the XFX ATI Radeon™ 5670 HD Graphics Card delivers the ultimate work/play punch. Capable of supporting the latest DirectX® 11 games, users enjoy significant gains in gaming potential over DirectX® 10.1. And, with Microsoft® 7 support, users enjoy fast and easy video playback, editing and content transfer. Best of all, this power is packed in an energy efficient single-slot card that's easy to install.
Deal Tags:
More From CCLOnline:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
Chet Avatar
5y, 9m agoFound 5 years, 9 months ago
Options

All Comments

(64) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
£75-85 for the same spec card - very interesting to see the low PSU requirement. Is this at all worth getting for an aged Dell; the issue being the aged single core 3.00 Ghz processor being a major bottleneck?
Hot from me
#2
DarkFlame
£75-85 for the same spec card - very interesting to see the low PSU requirement. Is this at all worth getting for an aged Dell; the issue being the aged single core 3.00 Ghz processor being a major bottleneck?Hot from me

See http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5670,2533-17.html

Indicates max power draw of 76 watts and just 16 watts when idle. Not sure about the issue with low power CPU. I have a celeron e1400 and i'm 'umming and arring' about this card for the same reason in that it might not fulfil its potential with a poor CPU :s
#3
I've got a 350watt PSU and I've been wanting to upgrade my 4 year old 8500GT, but don't really want to spend extra on a PSU. Should I be safe?

I have a Foxconn 946GZ7MA-8KS2H mobo with a C2Q 2.4ghz processor. I generally have a media centre remote receiver and BT adaptor attached and occasionally my iphone charging! Can't remember what make the PSU is without opening my PC up!

Cheers if anyone can help!
#4
Just read the bit in the description! Think I'll go for it unless any warns me otherwise. It's £61.87 at Scan and I can get free delivery through AVForums and can have it by Wednesday.

Edited By: northlondon01 on Feb 08, 2011 02:47
1 Like #5
But its only ddr3 not ddr5 !!
It does make a difference about £15-20 ..
#6
anyone know of any alternatives of a similar price?
#7
zero2007
But its only ddr3 not ddr5 !!It does make a difference about £15-20 ..

You can get 512mb DDR5 for a similar price - is that a better option than going for a 1gb DDR3?
2 Likes #8
masterchieff
anyone know of any alternatives of a similar price?


I would personally go for this MSI R5750 for £8 more.

http://store.cbccomputers.com/products.asp?partno=R5750-MD1G

The 5750 gets ~30% higher performance than the GDDR5 version of the 5670, and the OP is GDDR3, so I'd expect the gap to be wider.
#9
NoxMortus
masterchieff
anyone know of any alternatives of a similar price?

I would personally go for this MSI R5750 for £8 more.

http://store.cbccomputers.com/products.asp?partno=R5750-MD1G


The 5750 gets ~30% higher performance than the GDDR5 version of the 5670, and the OP is GDDR3, so I'd expect the gap to be wider.

But that requires an additional power supply connector from your PSU unlike the XFX which might be a problem if you have a low power PSU.
#10
Thanks
banned#11
Chet
You can get 512mb DDR5 for a similar price - is that a better option than going for a 1gb DDR3?


The 512MB DDR5 is definitely the better option for gaming, not sure about if you were considering using it for a media centre.
#12
NoxMortus
masterchieff
anyone know of any alternatives of a similar price?


I would personally go for this MSI R5750 for £8 more.

http://store.cbccomputers.com/products.asp?partno=R5750-MD1G


The 5750 gets ~30% higher performance than the GDDR5 version of the 5670, and the OP is GDDR3, so I'd expect the gap to be wider.


£68 is a really hot price for a 1GB HD 5750 card - you should post it!
#13
Could anyone advise whether it would be worth changing my 2 x HD4870s in crossfire for one of these?
#14
Looking for the cheapo £60 gpu upgrade for my 4670, the 5750 looks tempting.

Anyone know when the 6670's are due?
#15
£75-85 for the same spec card - very interesting to see the low PSU requirement. Is this at all worth getting for an aged Dell; the issue being the aged single core 3.00 Ghz processor being a major bottleneck?

A very simplified way of telling is looking at the vista / w7 experience index scores. I am guesstimating but I would expect this card to pitch in somewhere between 5.9 and 6.4 (so max on Vista) and your processor (if you have upgraded from XP to Vista or 7..) would achieve around about the 4.2 mark so in short the bottleneck would be your CPU... BUT in games and graphic applications load will be taken off the CPU to the GPU on the card reducing the impact of slower processer.

Usual disclaimers apply but I would be confident that this card would trundle along nicely on any PSU 350W and upwards. I have installed Gigabyte GT430 OC editions (ebuyer) that perform well with 350w PSU for a similar price to this card.

Edited By: Ro_Stav1 on Feb 08, 2011 12:32
#16
doopydug
Could anyone advise whether it would be worth changing my 2 x HD4870s in crossfire for one of these?

I looked it up on videobenchmark.net and the 4870 appears to be a better card so you're best sticking with what you've got I reckon
#17
Chet
doopydug
Could anyone advise whether it would be worth changing my 2 x HD4870s in crossfire for one of these?


I looked it up on videobenchmark.net and the 4870 appears to be a better card so you're best sticking with what you've got I reckon


Thanks
#18
Could anyone advise whether it would be worth changing my 2 x HD4870s in crossfire for one of these?

Seconded Chet - the 4870 on it's own was performance ahead of it's time so crossfire-ing them is still a nice set up - the only thing this may do better is video transcoding - for sheer load managing stick with what you got!
banned#19
doopydug
Could anyone advise whether it would be worth changing my 2 x HD4870s in crossfire for one of these?

absolutely not !!!!

The 4870 is equivalent to the 5770. Two in crossfire BLITZ one of these cards.
banned 1 Like #20
The windows score system should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's not in depth like a proper benchmark. Also, AVOID benchmarking or checking your scores on Vista - you'll get a lesser score than in Win7 because Vista is a chunky OS, it uses more resources than Win XP or Win7 when idle - this is why Vista is considered a certified failure by most IT experts and users.
#21
I had the XFX 1GB GDDR5 version of this card (Radeon HD5670). In Windows 7 it scored 7.0 for desktop and gaming graphics (out of a max score = 7.9

Thanks for that - my numbers were estimates based on what I know of other cards so handy to know.

I would expect that if your DD5 model scored 7.0 then my numbers are probably about right..
#22
Anyone got any idea what this card would be like with games at low resolution? Like 1280x1024?
#23
The windows score system should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's not in depth like a proper benchmark. Also, AVOID benchmarking or checking your scores on Vista - you'll get a lesser score than in Win7 because Vista is a chunky OS, it uses more resources than Win XP or Win7 when idle - this is why Vista is considered a certified failure by most IT experts and users.

I totally agree that as benchmarking goes I wouldn't treat WEI as gospel but as this isn't an IT professional forum (although I am one) and the person that asked the question needed some simple tech advice. The point I was trying to make in the first comment was that even though you are correct there would be a difference in score if you ran it on one and then the other, either would give you an IDEA of the gap in performance between CPU and Graphics Card.
banned#24
Ro_Stav1
The windows score system should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's not in depth like a proper benchmark. Also, AVOID benchmarking or checking your scores on Vista - you'll get a lesser score than in Win7 because Vista is a chunky OS, it uses more resources than Win XP or Win7 when idle - this is why Vista is considered a certified failure by most IT experts and users.
I totally agree that as benchmarking goes I wouldn't treat WEI as gospel but as this isn't an IT professional forum (although I am one) and the person that asked the question needed some simple tech advice. The point I was trying to make in the first comment was that even though you are correct there would be a difference in score if you ran it on one and then the other, either would give you an IDEA of the gap in performance between CPU and Graphics Card.

Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!
#25
Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!
No worries - I hadn't taken offence, just thought you'd missed my point. Spot on with the HDD thing and I've noticed that even all but the most expensive SSD's are rarely able to get above 6.5 / 6.6 - I've been expecting them to move the goalposts for ages but it hasn't happened yet.

I keep meaning to do a little experiment seeing how decent speed mechanical HDDS (e.g F3) set up in a striped raid fare... any experience of this set up?
#26
is this better than a GTS 250 - and by how much? Need an upgrade at some point.
1 Like #27
Ro_Stav1
Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!

No worries - I hadn't taken offence, just thought you'd missed my point. Spot on with the HDD thing and I've noticed that even all but the most expensive SSD's are rarely able to get above 6.5 / 6.6 - I've been expecting them to move the goalposts for ages but it hasn't happened yet.

I keep meaning to do a little experiment seeing how decent speed mechanical HDDS (e.g F3) set up in a striped raid fare... any experience of this set up?


read this thread

Your text here

also anyone who is wondering what is best in terms of performance from the cards mentioned so far it goes

best-
4870
5770
5670
gts 250
worst-

also if you have a older machine that has a single core then you would be better of getting a newer i3 cpu setup with built in intel gma than this tbh as your cpu will bottleneck this card even though its not much of a performer, If your looking to spend just under a tonne then a amd 5770 is the card for you, just over then a gtx 460, £200ish = hd 6950, £300 = gtx 570.

Also stay away from xfx their customer support is non existant in europe and they only deal with direct rma's in the US so if your card go boom you aint got a chance in hell of a replacment from them. Aswell as the build quality of their cards which they produce themselves being extremley poor and several e-tailers have pulled their stock from sale altogether
1 Like #28
Ro_Stav1
Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!

No worries - I hadn't taken offence, just thought you'd missed my point. Spot on with the HDD thing and I've noticed that even all but the most expensive SSD's are rarely able to get above 6.5 / 6.6 - I've been expecting them to move the goalposts for ages but it hasn't happened yet.

I keep meaning to do a little experiment seeing how decent speed mechanical HDDS (e.g F3) set up in a striped raid fare... any experience of this set up?


read this thread

Your text here

also anyone who is wondering what is best in terms of performance from the cards mentioned so far it goes

best-
4870
5770
5670
gts 250
worst-

also if you have a older machine that has a single core then you would be better of getting a newer i3 cpu setup with built in intel gma than this tbh as your cpu will bottleneck this card even though its not much of a performer, If your looking to spend just under a tonne then a amd 5770 is the card for you, just over then a gtx 460, £200ish = hd 6950, £300 = gtx 570.

Also stay away from xfx their customer support is non existant in europe and they only deal with direct rma's in the US so if your card go boom you aint got a chance in hell of a replacment from them. Aswell as the build quality of their cards which they produce themselves being extremley poor and several e-tailers have pulled their stock from sale altogether
#29
Your talking out of your hat there

My GTS 250 will smack this up no problems
My brother in law has a 4870 and it only just beats it in most benchmarks



theelusiveyoda
Ro_Stav1
Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!

No worries - I hadn't taken offence, just thought you'd missed my point. Spot on with the HDD thing and I've noticed that even all but the most expensive SSD's are rarely able to get above 6.5 / 6.6 - I've been expecting them to move the goalposts for ages but it hasn't happened yet.

I keep meaning to do a little experiment seeing how decent speed mechanical HDDS (e.g F3) set up in a striped raid fare... any experience of this set up?


read this thread

Your text here

also anyone who is wondering what is best in terms of performance from the cards mentioned so far it goes

best-
4870
5770
5670
gts 250
worst-

also if you have a older machine that has a single core then you would be better of getting a newer i3 cpu setup with built in intel gma than this tbh as your cpu will bottleneck this card even though its not much of a performer, If your looking to spend just under a tonne then a amd 5770 is the card for you, just over then a gtx 460, £200ish = hd 6950, £300 = gtx 570.

Also stay away from xfx their customer support is non existant in europe and they only deal with direct rma's in the US so if your card go boom you aint got a chance in hell of a replacment from them. Aswell as the build quality of their cards which they produce themselves being extremley poor and several e-tailers have pulled their stock from sale altogether
#30
theelusiveyoda
[Also stay away from xfx their customer support is non existant in europe and they only deal with direct rma's in the US so if your card go boom you aint got a chance in hell of a replacment from them. Aswell as the build quality of their cards which they produce themselves being extremley poor and several e-tailers have pulled their stock from sale altogether

I had a faulty xfx mobo. Their customer support was slow in answering questions - usually 1 or 2 day turnaround for each one - but I didn't have any problems returning it and getting a replacement.

Not the best support in the world (and I'm certainly not recommending them), but in my experience not as bleak as you suggest.
1 Like #31
You're brother must have a dodgy PSU, the 5670 is faster than the gts 250 by about 5-10%. No ifs, no buts.

Shonk
Your talking out of your hat there

My GTS 250 will smack this up no problems
My brother in law has a 4870 and it only just beats it in most benchmarks



theelusiveyoda
Ro_Stav1
Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!

No worries - I hadn't taken offence, just thought you'd missed my point. Spot on with the HDD thing and I've noticed that even all but the most expensive SSD's are rarely able to get above 6.5 / 6.6 - I've been expecting them to move the goalposts for ages but it hasn't happened yet.

I keep meaning to do a little experiment seeing how decent speed mechanical HDDS (e.g F3) set up in a striped raid fare... any experience of this set up?


read this thread

Your text here

also anyone who is wondering what is best in terms of performance from the cards mentioned so far it goes

best-
4870
5770
5670
gts 250
worst-

also if you have a older machine that has a single core then you would be better of getting a newer i3 cpu setup with built in intel gma than this tbh as your cpu will bottleneck this card even though its not much of a performer, If your looking to spend just under a tonne then a amd 5770 is the card for you, just over then a gtx 460, £200ish = hd 6950, £300 = gtx 570.

Also stay away from xfx their customer support is non existant in europe and they only deal with direct rma's in the US so if your card go boom you aint got a chance in hell of a replacment from them. Aswell as the build quality of their cards which they produce themselves being extremley poor and several e-tailers have pulled their stock from sale altogether
#32
gooddeals9
Ro_Stav1
The windows score system should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's not in depth like a proper benchmark. Also, AVOID benchmarking or checking your scores on Vista - you'll get a lesser score than in Win7 because Vista is a chunky OS, it uses more resources than Win XP or Win7 when idle - this is why Vista is considered a certified failure by most IT experts and users.
I totally agree that as benchmarking goes I wouldn't treat WEI as gospel but as this isn't an IT professional forum (although I am one) and the person that asked the question needed some simple tech advice. The point I was trying to make in the first comment was that even though you are correct there would be a difference in score if you ran it on one and then the other, either would give you an IDEA of the gap in performance between CPU and Graphics Card.

Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!

my hard drive is the highest on my system @ 5.5 :o
#33
The fastest 5670 3dmark 2003 score on the orb is 34657 on a Quad Core
My GTS 250 scores 44766 on a Core2 Duo


jaydeeuk1
You're brother must have a dodgy PSU, the 5670 is faster than the gts 250 by about 5-10%. No ifs, no buts.

Shonk
Your talking out of your hat there

My GTS 250 will smack this up no problems
My brother in law has a 4870 and it only just beats it in most benchmarks



theelusiveyoda
Ro_Stav1
Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!

No worries - I hadn't taken offence, just thought you'd missed my point. Spot on with the HDD thing and I've noticed that even all but the most expensive SSD's are rarely able to get above 6.5 / 6.6 - I've been expecting them to move the goalposts for ages but it hasn't happened yet.

I keep meaning to do a little experiment seeing how decent speed mechanical HDDS (e.g F3) set up in a striped raid fare... any experience of this set up?


read this thread

Your text here

also anyone who is wondering what is best in terms of performance from the cards mentioned so far it goes

best-
4870
5770
5670
gts 250
worst-

also if you have a older machine that has a single core then you would be better of getting a newer i3 cpu setup with built in intel gma than this tbh as your cpu will bottleneck this card even though its not much of a performer, If your looking to spend just under a tonne then a amd 5770 is the card for you, just over then a gtx 460, £200ish = hd 6950, £300 = gtx 570.

Also stay away from xfx their customer support is non existant in europe and they only deal with direct rma's in the US so if your card go boom you aint got a chance in hell of a replacment from them. Aswell as the build quality of their cards which they produce themselves being extremley poor and several e-tailers have pulled their stock from sale altogether
#34
gooddeals9
The windows score system should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's not in depth like a proper benchmark. Also, AVOID benchmarking or checking your scores on Vista - you'll get a lesser score than in Win7 because Vista is a chunky OS, it uses more resources than Win XP or Win7 when idle - this is why Vista is considered a certified failure by most IT experts and users.


Is that based on experience? It's just, I've benched Vista against W7, and found Vista to outperform 7, albeit only by a small amount. The theory I've heard to explain it is that Win7 runs the GUI at a higher priority to make the OS seem snappier at the expense of other threads, which does sound plausible, I think. Not that it matters hugely, mind you, I'm just wondering.
#35
I just ran it on my quad

47087 On the GTS 250

Brother In Law's Radeon 4870 Scores 48222

Find me a 5670 that comes anywhere near 47087 and i will buy 10

Link To Comparison

jaydeeuk1
You're brother must have a dodgy PSU, the 5670 is faster than the gts 250 by about 5-10%. No ifs, no buts.

Shonk
Your talking out of your hat there

My GTS 250 will smack this up no problems
My brother in law has a 4870 and it only just beats it in most benchmarks



theelusiveyoda
Ro_Stav1
Same here, i work in IT. I wasn't getting at you, i was just saying don't take the scores for gospel truth. They're OK, but that's about it. Unless you have a SSD , your HDD is always the lowest subscore in my experience!

No worries - I hadn't taken offence, just thought you'd missed my point. Spot on with the HDD thing and I've noticed that even all but the most expensive SSD's are rarely able to get above 6.5 / 6.6 - I've been expecting them to move the goalposts for ages but it hasn't happened yet.

I keep meaning to do a little experiment seeing how decent speed mechanical HDDS (e.g F3) set up in a striped raid fare... any experience of this set up?


read this thread

Your text here

also anyone who is wondering what is best in terms of performance from the cards mentioned so far it goes

best-
4870
5770
5670
gts 250
worst-

also if you have a older machine that has a single core then you would be better of getting a newer i3 cpu setup with built in intel gma than this tbh as your cpu will bottleneck this card even though its not much of a performer, If your looking to spend just under a tonne then a amd 5770 is the card for you, just over then a gtx 460, £200ish = hd 6950, £300 = gtx 570.

Also stay away from xfx their customer support is non existant in europe and they only deal with direct rma's in the US so if your card go boom you aint got a chance in hell of a replacment from them. Aswell as the build quality of their cards which they produce themselves being extremley poor and several e-tailers have pulled their stock from sale altogether



Edited By: Shonk on Feb 08, 2011 17:17: ..
#36
Shonk
I just ran it on my quad

47087 On the GTS 250

Brother In Law's Radeon 4870 Scores 48222

Find me a 5670 that comes anywhere near 47087 and i will buy 10



No question the GTS 250 is a much faster card than the HD 5670, but the HD 4870 should be as far above the GTS 250 as the GTS 250 is above the HD 5670.

Definitely sounds like something's not right with your brother in law's set up to me.
#37
He's running the exact same setup as me

Only difference is
My PSU = CoolerMaster GX 750
His = OCZ 650

GPU = GTS 250
His = ATI 4870

He's even running a ghost image of my fresh windows install
And i set it all up

His q6600's running at 3.2ghz 400x8
Mine 3.33ghz 417x8

Thats it
Identical ram identical timings identical everything

And the 133mhz cpu speed made no diff to the benchmark im gpu limited
not cpu

Edited By: Shonk on Feb 08, 2011 15:32
#38
Its a good card but DDR3 lets it down.

I'd rather go for this http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=43047&tid=gsearch

DDR5 and plus I always prefer sapphire with ati. There is hardly any difference between the 512 and 1GB from the benchmarks I have seen out there.
#39
Yep the GTS 250 (provided it is not the lobotomised version with GDDR 3) will beat the 5670, but I dont think its by a huge amount tbh.
The bigger factor here is that (as previously stated by a user) XFX is appalling in Europe with support. And that is form bitter experience.

Edited By: jamadaia on Feb 08, 2011 15:35
#40
The 5670 is the best card around that does not require a dedicated power connection from the PSU, that is the selling point of this card, not it's raw gaming power. Get the 5750 for an extra £15 from the same site if you want good bang for buck. GTS 250 no thank you if you want a cool quiet PC

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!