Size, noise and heat
The size of the card varies a great deal from one manufacturer to another. It is sometimes the same length as the very large Radeon HD 5870, sometimes shorter. Get out your ruler and check if it'll fit into your casing.
In terms of noise and heat, we can't say as we didn't receive the stock model (see inset). Moreover, each manufacturer offers their own solution.
Overall, it does pretty well though this model does consume slightly more than the Radeon HD 5850. We scored it at 90 W at idle (office docs, internet) and 272 W in 3D load (values for whole configuration), while the HD 5850 draws 84 W in idle and 266 W in 3D load.
Without being bad, gaming performance is quite disappointing. The Radeon HD 5830 is thus closer to the HD 5770 than the HD 5850. In comparison to the NVIDIA offer, it's a long way behind the GeForce GTX 465 / 460 and on an equal footing with the GTX 275.
This card is therefore to be recommended for those who own mid-resolution screens (1680 x 1050) or those who are happy to deactivate certain graphics effects in the most demanding games.
Click on the image to see all our readings
and compare this model with other cards
Lets give you some numbers. In Fallout 3, at 1680 x 1050 with all filters activated, the HD 5830 gives an average of 63 fps. The Radeon HD 5770 is at 58 fps on average. In Race Driver GRID, the order is reversed with, in the same conditions, an average of 90 fps on the 5830 and 104 fps on the 5770. Lastly, in BattleForge (DX11), the advantage is clearly in favour of the 5830 with 31 fps on average against 23 fps for the 5770.
In the end, the Radeon HD 5830 doesn't seem the great deal we were hoping for. Too close to the Radeon HD 5770 in terms of performance, it is too closely priced to the Radeon HD 5850. Something wrong here! Be careful then, if you're looking at buying this model, and make sure you check out the pricing of the 5770 (down the range) and 5850 (up the range) first. On the NVIDIA side, the two GeForce GTX 460s have the advantage over the 5830, whether in terms of performance or pricing.
- Good 3D performance for mid-definition screens
- Low energy consumption
- Low heat levels
- DirectX 11 compatibility
- No stereoscopic 3D
The name of this card is misleading. It's in fact closer to the mid than high-end. Nevertheless though its performance levels mean it is best reserved for mid-resolution screens, it does retain certain advantages: DX11 compatibility and reduced heat and energy consumption. Make sure you check out pricing before you buy - this card is not always advantageously priced.