Is the 2400XT video card at least as cape-able as the xt1600 in the last imac?

urbanskywalker

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 30, 2007
255
0
Does anyone now if the 2400XT video card is at least as cape-able as the xt1600 in the last imac? I don't play games but I do use photoshop and Final Cut pro. Both of these worked fine on my old 17" imac core duo. The main reason I ordered a new 20" 2ghz imac is for the larger screen.
 

powerbook911

macrumors 68040
Mar 15, 2005
3,735
158
Does anyone now if the 2400XT video card is at least as cape-able as the xt1600 in the last imac? I don't play games but I do use photoshop and Final Cut pro. Both of these worked fine on my old 17" imac core duo. The main reason I ordered a new 20" 2ghz imac is for the larger screen.
When I asked about this the other day, I was also told the x1600 would be a bit better, with the exception of HD H264 playback perhaps.

You are getting more CPU though in a C2D, plus your larger screen ,so you'll be happy I'm sure.
 

ansalmo

macrumors regular
May 23, 2005
140
1
I ran Xbench on my new base-model iMac, and the OpenGL score is half that of my old Mac Mini :confused:

Perhaps the 2400XT drivers haven't been fettled yet, or there's a problem with Xbench itself, but I was expecting the performance to be better than the old Intel 950GMA rubbish. Luckily I've no interest in gaming on this platform but I have other apps that use OpenGL, e.g. Starry Night, so this is rather disappointing.

I haven't checked the X1600 OpenGL scores at the Xbench site, but I've no doubt that they should outstrip the Intel onboard graphics. So the 2400XT's looking rather weak....