Latest News Posts

Social
Latest Forum Posts

ATI Radeon HD 5570 – Sub-$100 HTPC & Gaming Solution
Bookmark and Share

ati_radeon_hd_5570_020910.jpg
Print
by Rob Williams on February 9, 2010 in AMD-Based GPU

AMD’s clear goal at the moment is to finish rounding-off its HD 5000-series line-up in advance of NVIDIA’s Fermi launch, and so far, it’s doing a good job. It’s continuing its success in this goal with the release of the $80 Radeon HD 5570, a card that’s designed to offer stellar media capabilities along with reasonable gaming performance.

World in Conflict: Soviet Assault

I admit that I’m not a huge fan of RTS titles, but World in Conflict intrigued me from the get go. After all, so many war-based games continue to follow the same story-lines we already know, and WiC was different. It counteracts the fall of the political and economic situation in the Soviet Union in the late 80’s, and instead provides a storyline that follows it as if the USSR had succeeded by proceeding with war in order to remain in power.

Many RTS games, with their advanced AI, tend to favor the CPU in order to deliver smooth gameplay, but WiC favors both the CPU and GPU, and the graphics prove it. Throughout the game’s missions, you’ll see gorgeous vistas and explore areas from deserts and snow-packed lands, to fields and cities. Overall, it’s a real visual treat for the eyes – especially since you’re able to zoom to the ground and see the action up-close.

Manual Run-through: The level we use for testing is the 7th campaign of the game, called Insurgents. Our saved game plants us towards the beginning of the mission with two squads of five, and two snipers. The run consists of bringing our men to action, and hovering the camera around throughout the duration. The entire run lasts between three and four minutes.

You wouldn’t notice it simply by looking, but World in Conflict is one hardcore game, and aside from Crysis Warhead, it’s the only game that managed to bring us ot the sub-20’s.

Graphics Card
Best Playable
Min FPS
Avg. FPS
NVIDIA GTX 295 1792MB (Reference)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 8xAA, 16xAF
40
55.819
ATI HD 5870 1GB (Reference)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA, 16xAF
35
47.195
ATI HD 5850 1GB (ASUS)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 4xAA, 16xAF
29
40.581
NVIDIA GTX 285 1GB (EVGA)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
34
49.514
NVIDIA GTX 275 896MB (Reference)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
36
46.186
NVIDIA GTX 260 896MB (XFX)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
23
39.365
ATI HD 5770 1GB (Reference)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
28
37.389
NVIDIA GTX 250 1GB (EVGA)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 4xAF
24
32.453
ATI HD 5750 1GB (Sapphire)
2560×1600 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 4xAF
23
31.769
NVIDIA GT 240 512MB (ASUS)
1920×1080 – Max Detail, 0xAA
22
33.788
ATI HD 5670 512MB (Reference)
1920×1080 – Max Detail, 0xAA, 16xAF
21
31.872
ATI HD 5570 1GB (Sapphire)

1920×1080 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
51
79.790
NVIDIA GT 220 1GB (ASUS)
1280×1024 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
41
52.089
ATI HD 5450 512MB (Reference)
1280×1024 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
19
23.620
NVIDIA 210 512MB (ASUS)
1280×1024 – Medium Detail, 0xAA
30
40.354
Intel HD Graphics (Clarkdale)
1280×1024 – Low Detail, 0xAA
30
39.449

This game is hardcore as mentioned, and simply adjusting a couple of options doesn’t help out too much. Disabling anti-aliasing is a given, but even that doesn’t make the stark difference you’d expect. To see a very playable setting here, we took a shortcut and chose the “Medium” detail setting, which boosted our performance almost fourfold, but still delivered a good-looking game.