HELP! HD 2600 Pro vs 9400M

[nullx86]

Ok guys, need some advice. I am getting a refurb iMac since its all I can afford, but the 9400M ones keep coing and going, so are the models with the ATI 2600 Pro any better? I know its a dedicated card, but its older. It matches with an 8600 GT/8800 GT, but compared to the 9400M, how does it compare? Also, the iMac model with the 2600 Pro maxes out at 4GB memory, where the 9400M model maxes at 8GB. Does this matter really or will I be ok if I get one thats limited like that? I need to know asap since my check just came and I need a computer soon, mines dying on me. Thanks!

 

[chaosbunny]

Hm, tough choice. While the 2600 HD is faster than the 9400M it doesn't support Snow Leopards Open CL. I say it depends on your uses. If you want to play any games like WoW or something I say get the 2600 Hd model, for more or less everything else the 9400M model is probably the better choice, if only for its 8gb ram ability.

 

[nullx86]

Hm, tough choice. While the 2600 HD is faster than the 9400M it doesn't support Snow Leopards Open CL. I say it depends on your uses. If you want to play any games like WoW or something I say get the 2600 Hd model, for more or less everything else the 9400M model is probably the better choice, if only for its 8gb ram ability.

Most I play uses the source engine (CS:S, HL2DM) and if need be i can play those on my Hell but nonetheless. So the 2600 Pro is faster than the 9400M and better for more graphical aimed stuff? I know that it only supports 4GB but there have been some models to support more than 4gb, would this be one?


EDIT: just checked the refurb site, and the show Pro on the main page, but on the iMacs listed as ones with the 2600 Pro, it shows them with the 2600 XT. Any difference betweent he two?

 

[Hellhammer]

Most I play uses the source engine (CS:S, HL2DM) and if need be i can play those on my Hell but nonetheless. So the 2600 Pro is faster than the 9400M and better for more graphical aimed stuff? I know that it only supports 4GB but there have been some models to support more than 4gb, would this be one?

It does support 6GB unofficially. I would get the one with 2600 HD because it's a lot better than 9400M in gaming. Moreover, we have no benchmarks about OpenCL and IMO it's designed for Mac Pro and other high-end Macs with good dedicated GPU and there are not many apps that support OpenCL yet plus there are only few which really needs extra power

 

[chaosbunny]

Most I play uses the source engine (CS:S, HL2DM) and if need be i can play those on my Hell but nonetheless. So the 2600 Pro is faster than the 9400M and better for more graphical aimed stuff? I know that it only supports 4GB but there have been some models to support more than 4gb, would this be one?

Well my 2007 2600 HD iMac doesn't support more than 4gb ram, and I'm afraid I don't know if the 2008 models do. I guess for your games the 9400M is just fine. Without any Open CL apps out there it's hard to say what the real world benefits are, but maybe the 9400M is a little bit more future proof.

There are pros and cons to both, I'd say just pick up the best refurb deal you can find.

 

[nullx86]

It does support 6GB unofficially. I would get the one with 2600 HD because it's a lot better than 9400M in gaming. Moreover, we have no benchmarks about OpenCL and IMO it's designed for Mac Pro and other high-end Macs with good dedicated GPU and there are not many apps that support OpenCL yet plus there are only few which really needs extra power

So i can do the 4GB+2GB and it would work? good to know. what about 8GB? OpenCL I could care less about until its actually doing something that interests/concerns me (how many apps are actually using it at this moment? not many).

What about the XT/Pro page difference? That matter?

 

[nullx86]

Well my 2007 2600 HD iMac doesn't support more than 4gb ram, and I'm afraid I don't know if the 2008 models do. I guess for your games the 9400M is just fine. Without any Open CL apps out there it's hard to say what the real world benefits are, but maybe the 9400M is a little bit more future proof.

There are pros and cons to both, I'd say just pick up the best refurb deal you can find.

2008/2009 iMac models have DDR3 which support up to 8GB, but the 9400M is integrated, and I havent gone integrated since my dell.

 

[Hellhammer]

So i can do the 4GB+2GB and it would work? good to know. what about 8GB? OpenCL I could care less about until its actually doing something that interests/concerns me (how many apps are actually using it at this moment? not many).

What about the XT/Pro page difference? That matter?

Nah, 8GB doesn't work but 6GB should be fine. Yup, IMO OpenCL is useless NOW but within few years when it has been adopted to more apps, it'll be very useful but still, I can only see a real benefit of it if you have a Mac Pro and you need extra power

 

[nullx86]

Nah, 8GB doesn't work but 6GB should be fine. Yup, IMO OpenCL is useless NOW but within few years when it has been adopted to more apps, it'll be very useful but still, I can only see a real benefit of it if you have a Mac Pro and you need extra power

meh, not looking at a pro, so that rules that out. Any difference between the XT and Pro? one page says pro, other says XT

 

[Hellhammer]

meh, not looking at a pro, so that rules that out. Any difference between the XT and Pro? one page says pro, other says XT

There have been ATI 2400 XT and 2600 PRO. 2400 XT isn't that great for gaming or other GPU sufficient stuff while 2600 is. There is no 2600 PRO in real life, Apple just added PRO to normal 2600 and if I remember correctly, it's under clocked version of real 2600

 

[nullx86]

There have been ATI 2400 XT and 2600 PRO. 2400 XT isn't that great for gaming or other GPU sufficient stuff while 2600 is. There is no 2600 PRO in real life, Apple just added PRO to normal 2600 and if I remember correctly, it's under clocked version of real 2600

Idk, Im just wondering what this one is supposed to be, cause on the listing here it says its a 2600 XT, but here it says its a 2600 Pro. And there were both models, (2400 XT, 2400 Pro, 2600 XT, 2600 Pro). Wikipedia confirms it.

Also, this page, confimrs that the pro is the underpowered one, so hopefully that iMac has the 2600 XT.

 

[AAPLaday]

As far as im aware the 2600 xt was never used in the iMacs, it was the 2400 xt and the 2600 pro. Id say that its a typo on Apples product page, i think they meant to put 2600 pro

 

[nullx86]

As far as im aware the 2600 xt was never used in the iMacs, it was the 2400 xt and the 2600 pro. Id say that its a typo on Apples product page, i think they meant to put 2600 pro

Gotcha, thats what I am thinking. 2400 XT wasnt used on the Alum iMacs, so its gotta be the 2600 Pro

 

[Hellhammer]

Gotcha, thats what I am thinking. 2400 XT wasnt used on the Alum iMacs, so its gotta be the 2600 Pro

Actually 2400 XT was used in all aluminum iMacs before latest update... Though it was only used in low-end

 

[Freyqq]

Most I play uses the source engine (CS:S, HL2DM) and if need be i can play those on my Hell but nonetheless. So the 2600 Pro is faster than the 9400M and better for more graphical aimed stuff? I know that it only supports 4GB but there have been some models to support more than 4gb, would this be one?


EDIT: just checked the refurb site, and the show Pro on the main page, but on the iMacs listed as ones with the 2600 Pro, it shows them with the 2600 XT. Any difference betweent he two?

those games have been out for a while. You should be able to play them on the 9400M, but not at highest settings.

 

[Bengt77]

Before I got my MacBook, I owned a 2007 aluminium iMac with an ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro. At least, that's what Apple made everybody believe they put in their machines. In fact, such a card never existed. Well, as a desktop card it did, but there's a mobile card in the iMacs. There was a lot of confusion back when the first aluminium iMacs were introduced about what card was actually in there. To cut a long story short, it turned out it was an underclocked mobile HD 2600 XT. The good thing about that is that the mobile XT card is a whole lot faster than the desktop Pro version. So Apple advertised their computers with lower specs than they actually had. Weird, but very nice if you owned one.

So I'd say get whichever you like. For gaming, there's no doubt the ATI card is the better choice. For intensive computing, though, the integrated NVIDIA GPU might be the better option in the long run.

 

[nullx86]

Actually 2400 XT was used in all aluminum iMacs before latest update... Though it was only used in low-end

Eh, true, I missed that one. that was short lived though.

those games have been out for a while. You should be able to play them on the 9400M, but not at highest settings.

Yeah, well i want them on high or medium. I can play CS:S on my GeForce Go 128MB on my native res (1680x1050) with settings all on medium, with shaders on low. Note: the GeForce Go is overclocked..

So 2600 Pro it is I guess.

Before I got my MacBook, I owned a 2007 aluminium iMac with an ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro. At least, that's what Apple made everybody believe they put in their machines. In fact, such a card never existed. Well, as a desktop card it did, but there's a mobile card in the iMacs. There was a lot of confusion back when the first aluminium iMacs were introduced about what card was actually in there. To cut a long story short, it turned out it was an underclocked mobile HD 2600 XT. The good thing about that is that the mobile XT card is a whole lot faster than the desktop Pro version. So Apple advertised their computers with lower specs than they actually had. Weird, but very nice if you owned one.

So I'd say get whichever you like. For gaming, there's no doubt the ATI card is the better choice. For intensive computing, though, the integrated NVIDIA GPU might be the better option in the long run.

Ati never released a Mobile 2600 Pro. The one on the iMac is simply soldered to the board. Check the wiki links. So which is in the iMac? its the model before the nvidia 9400M, so it should be a 2600 XT. In the ATI line, XT is better than Pro, so i guess we'll see? I'm gonna call apple and see if I cant get some info, though I dont expect much.

 

[Bengt77]

Ati never released a Mobile 2600 Pro. The one on the iMac is simply soldered to the board. Check the wiki links. So which is in the iMac? its the model before the nvidia 9400M, so it should be a 2600 XT.

Erm... yeah, that's what I wrote.

 

[MiBerb]

2600 PRO vs 2600 XT

There have been ATI 2400 XT and 2600 PRO. 2400 XT isn't that great for gaming or other GPU sufficient stuff while 2600 is. There is no 2600 PRO in real life, Apple just added PRO to normal 2600 and if I remember correctly, it's under clocked version of real 2600

The original iMac (early 2008)came with the 2600 PRO but, like in my case, when Apple had to replace my graphic card, they put in a 2600 XT already used in Mac Pro (at that time)

 

[nullx86]

The original iMac (early 2008)came with the 2600 PRO but, like in my case, when Apple had to replace my graphic card, they put in a 2600 XT already used in Mac Pro (at that time)

I thought that Apple had soldered the graphics chip on the logic board?! So both the CPU and GPU are removable on the 2007/2008 models? If so, I know what I'm doing

 

[eXan]

So much confusion in this thread...

iMacs came with 2400 XT and 2600 Pro before 2009 revision. Both "cards" are mobile and soldered into the logic board.

Radeon 2400 XT is just slightly slower than GeForce 9400m, but at least 2x slower than 2600 Pro.

Don't bother with OpenCL, I doubt anything useful for the average user will come out of it anytime soon.

Bottom line: get the iMac with Radeon 2600 Pro.

 

[nullx86]

So much confusion in this thread...

iMacs came with 2400 XT and 2600 Pro before 2009 revision. Both "cards" are mobile and soldered into the logic board.

Radeon 2400 XT is just slightly slower than GeForce 9400m, but at least 2x slower than 2600 Pro.

Don't bother with OpenCL, I doubt anything useful for the average user will come out of it anytime soon.

Bottom line: get the iMac with Radeon 2600 Pro.

Actually the 2600 XT is "supposed" to be faster than the 2600 Pro, according to wikipedia. But what im so curious about is why it says Pro on one page, then XT on the other? So if it says Pro on one page, XT on the actual listing, and ships with Pro, do i get a refund/false advertisement/listing?

Ok, went digging, and got links.

iMac Early 2008
iMac 2007

They are pretty much the same thing, same specs so far. 20" models have option of 2400 XT and 2600 Pro, 24" has 2600 Pro, none of them have a 2600 XT so that answers my question.

 

[Freyqq]

Actually the 2600 XT is "supposed" to be faster than the 2600 Pro, according to wikipedia. But what im so curious about is why it says Pro on one page, then XT on the other? So if it says Pro on one page, XT on the actual listing, and ships with Pro, do i get a refund/false advertisement/listing?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

that page has benchmarks of every mobile gpu in order of power

as you can see, the 2600xt gets about twice the benchmark score compared to the 9400m in 3dmark06..a popular windows gaming benchmark. Assuming the 2600 pro is relatively similar..which it should be..after all a 2600 pro is likely just an underclocked 2600xt..you should be getting far better framerates with the 2600 compared to the 9400m in bootcamp (windows).

In osx, i doubt you'll notice a difference between the two if you're not gaming. Someone here pointed out that you get openCL if you choose the 9400m, so that's the other side of the issue. If I understand opencl correctly, though, you could run those programs just that you won't get GPU acceleration.

 

[nullx86]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

that page has benchmarks of every mobile gpu in order of power

as you can see, the 2600xt gets about twice the benchmark score compared to the 9400m in 3dmark06..a popular windows gaming benchmark. Assuming the 2600 pro is relatively similar..which it should be..after all a 2600 pro is likely just an underclocked 2600xt..you should be getting far better framerates with the 2600 compared to the 9400m in bootcamp (windows).

In osx, i doubt you'll notice a difference between the two if you're not gaming. Someone here pointed out that you get openCL if you choose the 9400m, so that's the other side of the issue. If I understand opencl correctly, though, you could run those programs just that you won't get GPU acceleration.

Thanks for the link, that clears up any questions I had. @600 Pro wasnt listed, but looking at what 2600 XT was, and knowing that rgw Pro is underclocked, it means I just go bootcamp and use ATI tool to bump up the graphics to what the XT would be if I need to game. Thanks for your helps guys!

/thread

 

[eXan]

Actually the 2600 XT is "supposed" to be faster than the 2600 Pro, according to wikipedia. But what im so curious about is why it says Pro on one page, then XT on the other? So if it says Pro on one page, XT on the actual listing, and ships with Pro, do i get a refund/false advertisement/listing?

Ok, went digging, and got links.

iMac Early 2008
iMac 2007

They are pretty much the same thing, same specs so far. 20" models have option of 2400 XT and 2600 Pro, 24" has 2600 Pro, none of them have a 2600 XT so that answers my question.

I never mentioned 2600 XT..... because it has never been in an iMac.