How bad is ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics ?

powerbook911

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 15, 2005
3,735
158
I'm having a hard time deciding between the $1199 iMac and the $1499.

I know the advantages of the $1499, but $300 seems like a big jump.

So my question is: just how bad is the ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics ?

Is it a lot worst compared to the 2600 Pro in the more expensive model? Any idea? Thanks for your help.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
The 64-bit memory interface is going to be your biggest issue. Don't expect much performance beyond a X1300/7300 series if that.
 

Jimmery

macrumors member
Jul 25, 2005
86
0
Canada
The 64-bit memory interface is going to be your biggest issue. Don't expect much performance beyond a X1300/7300 series if that.
For those of us not doing ANY gaming or video editing, is there going to be any noticeable difference between the two video cards?
 

Jimmery

macrumors member
Jul 25, 2005
86
0
Canada
You can add image editing as well now.

No there won't be a difference if you're doing CPU bound tasks.
Well, how about editing 1 MB JPEG photos in iPhoto, just to touch up shots from a digital camera? This sounds pretty innocuous to me.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
Well, how about editing 1 MB JPEG photos in iPhoto, just to touch up shots from a digital camera? This sounds pretty innocuous to me.
Once you start to throw in Core Image and anything else that involves the GPU you're going to notice faster performance on the HD2600 Pro.

You're a step up over the GMA950 due to the dedicated memory and hardware shaders but not by much.
 

powerbook911

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 15, 2005
3,735
158
How is this ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics compared to what I have in my iMac now?

I have a Radeon X1600 . Would the 2400 XT be a step down? Thanks.
 

Jimmery

macrumors member
Jul 25, 2005
86
0
Canada
Once you start to throw in Core Image and anything else that involves the GPU you're going to notice faster performance on the HD2600 Pro.

You're a step up over the GMA950 due to the dedicated memory and hardware shaders but not by much.
Okay, so I guess the only thing going for the 2400XT (over previous video cards in Apple computers) is the on-board chip to encode and decode H.264. Anything else?
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
Okay, so I guess the only thing going for the 2400XT (over previous video cards in Apple computers) is the on-board chip to encode and decode H.264. Anything else?
The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

How is this ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics compared to what I have in my iMac now?

I have a Radeon X1600 . Would the 2400 XT be a step down? Thanks.
It would be a step down.
 

powerbook911

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Mar 15, 2005
3,735
158
The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

It would be a step down.

Thanks. Wow. I guess it would be better for me not to upgrade macs then. Maybe the h264 stuff would be good for me. I'm not sure. I encode h264 all day, but sounds like the card is only for decoding. Thanks for clarifying.

I guess I'll either not get a new one, or get the $1500 model.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,532
31
Singapore
The h.264 decoding is about it. The 2400 series is in essence a video card designed to be passively cooled for HTPC options. It doesn't have any sort of gaming or 3D capabilities worth mentioning otherwise.

It would be a step down.
wat would the 2600 be like for encoding?? i do a lot of mpeg and h264 encoding.
 

Wild-Bill

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2007
2,540
607
bleep
Very, VERY Bad..

Being an entry level graphics card, I have to say this card wasn't too impressive for gaming. I would not recommend this card to any gamer because the benchmarks clearly show that this card isn't meant for hardcore gaming. It seems like this card would be a great choice for a family or home theater computer because it does have HDMI support and can handle graphics, to some extent
Using resolutions up to 1024x768 made most of the games playable, though don't forget that I also had to lower the in-game image quality settings here and there. Older games like Battlefield 2 were very enjoyable, though with gems like "TES: Oblivion" you surely stress this video card. For the newest games, you might want to stick to 800x600, as anything higher will be a slide-show on the HD 2400 XT.
But the whole point of discrete graphics is to offer vastly superior performance to the integrated graphics solutions we're always warning people to avoid. While these cards are certainly faster than the "motherboard-down" graphics out there these days, they're still abysmal performers in nearly any game from the last year or two. They're touted at DX10 capable, and while this is technically true, you can forget about running any game in DX10 mode at anything approaching a playable frame rate.
Pulled from various hardware sites. I think that about sums it up. Great choice Apple :rolleyes:


Oh, and here's one about the HD 2600xt"

There is simply nothing compelling about the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT that would make me want to buy it, or recommend to anybody else to buy it. The unpleasant truth is: ATI has failed their fans. This was the last best hope for the besieged Radeon HD 2000 series, and it is a supremely disappointing product.
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,532
31
Singapore
are we able to blame it on bad drivers??? i would hope that we can, and updates of the driver will make for better gaming.
 

Wild-Bill

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2007
2,540
607
bleep
No. Even if we could, who's drivers you think have priority over at ATI? ;)

ATI screwed the pooch with the entire 2000 series. The only thing those cards are good for is HD playback: taking the load off the CPU. But then again that's in Windows. Not sure how they implemented their UVD feature set in the Mac variants.
 

iW00t

macrumors 68040
Nov 7, 2006
3,302
0
Defenders of Apple Guild
are we able to blame it on bad drivers??? i would hope that we can, and updates of the driver will make for better gaming.
Are you willing to bet the cost of your iMac on that?

Who is to say that Apple would even release updated drivers? nVidia/ATi obviously doesn't do it for Mac users, and if Apple doesn't too...
 

DoFoT9

macrumors P6
Jun 11, 2007
17,532
31
Singapore
No. Even if we could, who's drivers you think have priority over at ATI? ;)

ATI screwed the pooch with the entire 2000 series. The only thing those cards are good for is HD playback: taking the load off the CPU. But then again that's in Windows. Not sure how they implemented their UVD feature set in the Mac variants.
Are you willing to bet the cost of your iMac on that?

Who is to say that Apple would even release updated drivers? nVidia/ATi obviously doesn't do it for Mac users, and if Apple doesn't too...
im really not an expert on this, as you can tell. but how could a company produce a product that sucks!? and how could apple use it??? i know heat it a major issue because its the imac, and its thin and all. surely they know that the gpu isnt all that good except for HD and BR playback. unless ofcourse taht apple has done something crazy and written their own drivers. which i highly doubt.
gah i dont have a clue. im just so worked up that i was soo looking foreward to having a decent gpu in it, ive been waiting 9months to buy one. and now i find out that its fairly comparable to my mbp CD........pfft
 

stuff99

macrumors 6502
May 11, 2007
390
0
time to get a ps3 guys! i got mine already...and it doubles as an apple tv and it will soon have pvr functions

not to mention the blu ray oh and it plays some games too with some awesome ones coming out next year