*facepalm*
1. Renaming has nothing to do with performance
2. It is clearly a totally different chip architecture
3. It is moderately faster than the 5450, it was aimed more at replacing the 5550.
(03-26-2012, 05:45 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]*facepalm*
1. Renaming has nothing to do with performance
2. It is clearly a totally different chip architecture
3. It is moderately faster than the 5450, it was aimed more at replacing the 5550.
guy...
why do you recommend the 6450
THAT THING IS PURE CRAPSHIT
he should just save 20-30bucks more and buy the higher one...
thats why iam saying its just a rename...
or do you think that his mind can comprehend some benchmarks and values?
he already said that he looked into some reviews and doesn't find any differences...
not everybody is a computer geek...
I'm not recommending it, I'm correcting your obvious mistake.
Quote:not everybody is a computer geek...
This is not a good excuse for saying something that is blatantly wrong.
Hey, they're both terrible, where I live cost the same (£25-£27), and neither has a place in the world, unless you expect lag and see it as normal. The newer one is better, end of story.
Saying they're the same because they behave similarly isn't a good idea. If you set something so it runs at 50FPS with a 6970, it may run a 1FPS with a 5450 and 2FPS with a 6450. Compared with full speed this doesn't seem a significant increase, but compared to each other, the difference is significant.
Instead of getting that turd of a card, get something decent for just a tiny bit more money, like a dirt cheap HD5570.
Thanks for telling me that an newer video card only increases 1+ fps, im not interesting in buying for dolphin speed, right now my ati is burned or something because plays screwed in some games, or it shutdown i will upgrade my motherboard too
Quote:Thanks for telling me that an newer video card only increases 1+ fps
I'm saying it will only give you one more fps if you're running something like battlefield on ultra. On something more within its grasp it will have more of an affect. Also it would give you 2FPS vs 1FPS. That's a difference of 200%. Finally the numbers were estimates, not actual values spat out by benchmarks, as who'd bother benchmarking battlefield 3 on ultra on a £25 card. It's clearly going to be unplayable.