Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI Radeon HD 5450 On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ATI Radeon HD 5450 On Linux

    Phoronix: ATI Radeon HD 5450 On Linux

    While AMD soon will be introducing the Radeon HD 6000 graphics cards, there is still plenty of life left to the Radeon HD 5000 series especially for those interested in open-source support with the Evergreen GPUs finally being supported by the open-source driver stack complete with OpenGL acceleration via a Mesa driver and this support will continue to mature before there is the same level of support for the next-generation Southern Island GPUs in the open-source world. In this article we are reviewing the ATI Radeon HD 5450 "Cedar" graphics card, which is AMD's lowest-end Evergreen GPU but will set you back less than $50 USD.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15325

  • #2
    I don't like the subjective comments of the review. You are being pro nvidia. I would like to see much more objective comments. With plain comments and graphs numbers the reader could see by his own if the card is interesting for him or not. There is no need to remark the parts you like.

    1) Right off the bat we see the ATI Radeon HD 5450 run well below that of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 or even the previous-generation Radeon HD 4650

    2) Even those on a tight budget would be much better off buying a graphics card for $60 USD or more like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 that is much more capable...

    3) If you are just interested in supporting AMD for their open-source efforts, this is a fine card but obviously with even the proprietary Catalyst driver producing low frame-rates, do not expect much...

    4) There is also video playback acceleration via XvBA (the X-Video Bitstream Acceleration) architecture, but that is currently buggy in the latest driver revisions

    5) Anyone interested in a low-power, passively-cooled graphics card for a HTPC / media PC still would be much better off getting any NVIDIA
    1) ATI 5550 - 5570 performs much better. Specially HIS ATI 5550 & 5570 DDR5, those are 2x - 3x faster than 5450.

    2) same as 1

    3) Exactly you could expect 70% 3d and 200% performance on 2d vs fglrx. But being the driver currently under heavy development you could find some bugs, only opengl 2.1 ...

    4) They are not released xvba, so it is not buggy, simply it is not released.

    5) Ok, this one seems more correct. Especially if you want 40 Mbps hidef video. 10 mbps hidef video could be handled by cpu easily.

    Comment


    • #3
      ATI 5550 & 5570 have fanless versions too and are priced 70-80$.

      The fair comparison price / performance should be:

      ATI 5450 vs GT 210
      ATI 5550 & 5570 vs GT 220
      ATI 5600 vs GT 240
      ...

      Comment


      • #4
        Speaking as a long-time fglrx user...

        Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
        I don't like the subjective comments of the review. You are being pro nvidia...
        Given a choice between buying a "fglrx-only" AMD card and an NVIDIA card, the NVIDIA card would win!

        In spades.
        Hands down.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by chrisr View Post
          Given a choice between buying a "fglrx-only" AMD card and an NVIDIA card, the NVIDIA card would win!
          Well this is your point of view. Some plp could argue that.

          My point is that you cannot write a review for a large audience, mixed from ati fans, nvidia fans and neutral people, and on page 3,4 before writing conclussions or personal reviewer conclussions, write things like for 60$ is better to choose GT220 is out of the context.

          You should remain as neutral as possible, then write personal conclussion but trying to be neutral too. Saying that 5450 is a bad card because on 3d unigine demos performs bad is pointless, this is not a gamers card. Saying don't expect too much of OSS is pointless too, OSS 2D works beatifully. Comparing against GT220 is not fair too.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
            I don't like the subjective comments of the review. You are being pro nvidia.
            You must be kidding, Michael always looked more pro-ATI than pro-NVIDIA.

            4) They are not released xvba, so it is not buggy, simply it is not released.
            Huh? It's the same driver used by "other" people where they sold the benefits of that thing. Treating customers like perpetual beta testers is not fair and counter productive. So, it's released as is. Using another term is non sense. The fact you don't have headers or specs is a non problem, since you don't have the headers or specs of other parts of the driver either, though this is released too, isn't it?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gbeauche View Post
              You must be kidding, Michael always looked more pro-ATI than pro-NVIDIA.
              Hmmmm... did you read this review?

              Comment


              • #8
                Conversely...

                Originally posted by Jimbo View Post
                Hmmmm... did you read this review?
                Have you ever tried using fglrx ?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gbeauche View Post
                  You must be kidding, Michael always looked more pro-ATI than pro-NVIDIA.
                  It seems every other day people switch from calling me pro-NVIDIA or pro-ATI
                  Michael Larabel
                  http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    This seems to be aimed at the HTPC market. Would be nice to see some video playback numbers.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      As you can only "use" vaapi via vlc expect the mplayer numbers pointless as they do not show a correct picture. vlc needs much higher cpu especially when you switch from xv to opengl (together with amdcccle set to quality), the cpu usage is very high then. It would be certainly more efficiant to use other players which is not possible. Then xv would work as expected it would be a major step forward, but that was never the case since the dedicated overlay parts got removed from the chip. But who is really expecting xv to work with fglrx? A cheap ati hd 5 card is completely useless, even onboard ati would be better - there you can already use oss drivers, but for the new ones you need to wait 6/12 month till it will be standard in the distributions.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        all I want tto know:
                        aniso settings?
                        aa settings?
                        mipmap settings?

                        if all off: why?

                        those are crucial information.

                        btw, who is watching 'high def' video on linux? Seriously, besides demos?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by energyman View Post
                          btw, who is watching 'high def' video on linux? Seriously, besides demos?
                          you're obviously kidding right?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            okay, let me rephrase it: who is watching legally obtained high def videos which legally licenced tools on linux besides demos?

                            just because you have some cracked blue ray player or something does not turn you into an audience that must be catered for.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael View Post
                              It seems every other day people switch from calling me pro-NVIDIA or pro-ATI
                              It doesn't matter which. The point is that there were lots of unnecessary subjective asides in the article. "Don't expect much from the Mesa/Gallium3D driver." Come on. It's still in that stage where it gets 3-5 big commits a day. It's called development. Your comment oozes with that "it's not faster than fglrx so it sucks" mentality.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X