Ben's Bargains Serving Fresh Deals 24/7

Adding $23 to get the 1Gb (listed below) is probably for most everyone looking at a 5670 not a good value... but this for $82 is a move in the right direction.

http://techgage.com/article/atis_radeon_hd_5670_-_directx_11_for_100/1
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1187/1/
http://www.elitebastards.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1173%3Ahis-radeon-hd-5670-iceq-512mb-asus-eah5670-1gb-video-card-review&catid=13%3Ahardware-reviews&Itemid=27

I see the local rodeo cowboy is still trolling Bens for attention.
You are pathetic.
The 5670 is a dog and you dont need to go very far to find that out. Slower than a 4850 or even a 4770 so eye fidelity isnt going to help you unless you are really into 2d applications.
Wake up you retard and quit spamming us with your bullshit.

Is it normal to link to products you think AREN'T as good a choice? Very strange.

5670 isn't a bad card, this is just a brief moment when last-gen parts have some limited availability till they sell out. For some people moving backwards a generation isn't feasible because their OEM system lacks space for larger cards, needs more ventilation, beefier PSU, suddenly the simple ~ $85 purchase goes over $125.

While I don't like ATI drivers much, I like the fan on this card a bit. Looks like it can be easily removed, relubed from the top when the bearing starts running dry, and the 'sink itself wouldn't be hard to strap an alternate fan to if the need or desire arose. This card seems reasonable for a secondary rather than primary gaming system, especially one where you put your old monitor after upgrading to something larger on your primary system.

#2 - Thank you for taking an interest in what is posted here. What's up with you... she123 "Simpleton Wuss of all Trolls", your dog kicked you harder than usual?

That's acceptable advise for those with true gamer aspirations, although could you suggest a top notch (faster) card that could be run from a standard 300W PSU that's included in many OEM system today?

I suppose you could get a GT240 for about $20 less, if you work a $20 rebate, but paying less in this instance just provides you less. Actually at 1680x... performance to watt, a GT240 is 22% less efficient against ATI's previous generation part 4670, which had 55Nm chip design and used DDR3 (less efficient) memory rather than the GT240 GDDR5 or the 5670.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GT_240/1.html

Good to hear from you!

Dave_c -- good catch you're top notch in such debates and discussing counter my mom's basement.

Well I'm surprised the W1zzard didn't confirm or disprove that as it's fairly glaring omission in the data. He pretty spot on all the time and something that obvious I'd think it would've been challenged in the following forum. But you're right it strange, while I look at it this way a little drop off of all GT240 frame-rates at 1680x and say it draws more power in the peak and max could move the numbers. However, now that I recheck the power draw that's not the case because at peak / max of the MSI GT240 push less watts.

Here's what's stranger the Sonic GT240 he tests 3 days later with same drivers it draws much more power than the MSI (22/34W increase above the MSI peak/max or 25/67%). Now it seems skewed the other way uses more power though still provides the same 13% improvement the MSI did at 1680x. Though it's now only 3% less Per-Watt than the 4670 that still working watts of 49/65W peak/max. Yep, Really strange check it out!

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Palit/GeForce_GT_240_Sonic/28.html

The one thing W1zzard does that I have a issue with is the performance summary he'll lump all B-M (games and synthetic). Then why would you run 3dmark 03 /05 and 06 would 06 trump the other older tests? It's here nor there, but shows you really need to look at the individual gaming and synthetic result to understand what that really means.

Hmm. It's a bit more thought than I'd want to put into it. Either way it's splitting hairs, in a year the difference will seem trivial. HTPC cards can be had that consume less power than either, while both are merely adequate for limited gaming on a budget.

For the price of a couple lunches it'd be worth jumping to the next higher price category, I don't really buy into the performance per watt value, rather whether the system case/PSU is a limitation, or not (budget aside). Cards in this "performance per watt" category actually consume as much power as high end cards from not so many years ago. Overclock either and they could easily push 90W, far more power than when people first started using exotic heatsinks for CPUs.