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

Discussion in 'iMac' started by urbanskywalker, Aug 10, 2007.

  1. urbanskywalker macrumors 6502

    Apr 30, 2007
    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.
  2. slughead macrumors 68040


    Apr 28, 2004
    I think they're very close, but the X1600 is better.
  3. MezicanGangxtah macrumors regular

    Jul 21, 2007
    i havent tried the card myself but considering its a next generation card from ati and according to this
    its has higher bandwidth, pixel fillrate ,and all the works upgraded and ive herd from friends that there gma 950 card on the minis can handle the task preform so this card will definetly and easily be able to handle ur needs
  4. powerbook911 macrumors 68040


    Mar 15, 2005
    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.
  5. ansalmo macrumors regular

    May 23, 2005
    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....

Share This Page