Graphics cards in new iMacs

interairproxima

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 10, 2007
28
0
I thought I heard somewhere that somehow the Radeon HD 2400 XT in the base iMac with 128 MB of VRAM was better than the Radeon 2600 Pro with 256 MB VRAM in the others...
Is this true in any way?
Thanks:D
 

clevin

macrumors G3
Aug 6, 2006
9,097
1
no, even with same amount of VRAM, 2400XT is ~30% slower than 2600 pro (of course, in 3D intense work, they are both more than good enough for everyday use)
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2600_and_2400_Performance/?page=3

from wiki
Radeon HD 2600

Mainstream products with 120 stream processors, GDDR4 support and AVIVO HD with UVD, an 128-bit memory ring bus width [23] and 4-phase digital PWM. Neither the GDDR3 nor GDDR4 reference PCIe designs require additional power connectors, however AGP XT variants will require additional power through either molex or 6pin power connectors.[24] Official claims are that the Radeon HD 2600 series consumes as little as 45 W of power[citation needed].
Radeon HD 2400

Low-end products with 40 stream processors with AVIVO HD and UVD, not implemented with a ring bus memory interface, and a 64-bit memory bus width [23]. The official PCB design implements only a passive cooling heatsink instead of a fan, and official claims of power consumption are as little as 35 W. The RV610 core used in Radeon HD 2400 series has 16 KB unified vertex/texture cache from dedicated vertex cache and L1/L2 texture cache.
 

JimMc1984

macrumors newbie
Aug 8, 2007
6
0
Does anyone know if the 2400 is better or worse than the 1600 found in previous iMacs? I cannot find any benchmarks to compare the two. Common sense would suggest that the 2400 is better, but then again, common sense is not always right.

I assume (hopefully correctly) that the 2600 is unquestionably superior to the 1600.
 

clevin

macrumors G3
Aug 6, 2006
9,097
1
Does anyone know if the 2400 is better or worse than the 1600 found in previous iMacs? I cannot find any benchmarks to compare the two. Common sense would suggest that the 2400 is better, but then again, common sense is not always right.

I assume (hopefully correctly) that the 2600 is unquestionably superior to the 1600.
different generation of graphic cards are hard to compare, not only they are different in clock, tech, etc, newer cards also support newer standard (such as HD2x00 supports DX 10.0). so generally, newer generation of cards should be more future-proof.

but purely speaking of speed, 2600 better than 1600 (in most cases), and 2400 is not as good as 1600.

only number i can find is here:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/review/2007/07/16/ATI-Radeon-HD-2600-XT-2600-Pro-and-2400-XT/p7
My final guess is new entry level iMac's HD 2400XT has more features than previous iMac with X1600, but slightly slower (~10%).

Let me know if you can find more comparison and benchmarks.
 

chewietobbacca

macrumors 6502
Jun 18, 2007
428
0
Don't use the 2400 if you want to game. The 2400 was almost entirely designed for HTPC's with their passive heat dissipation and UVD capabilities but no gaming ones.

In fact, I really wouldnt' even recommend the 2600 if you want to game heavily. Light gaming should be okay, and ATI is actually good about drivers *cough*nvidia*cough* so hopefully apple follows suit.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
There's two things I'm wanting to know. Firstly, it appears that all the games so far used to benchmark these cards are based on DirectX, not OpenGL, at least from the ones I can find. If anyone knows of any OpenGL benchmarks can you please post a link?

Secondly, the benchmarks posted show the DDR2 version of the 2600 Pro, which had a 600MHz bus speed. Does the DDR3 version of the card being used by Apple have the same 800MHz bus speed as the 2600XT, and if so can we expect it to be significantly faster than the DDR2 version?