Radeon HD 2400 XT 128MB vs Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB

Archmagination

macrumors regular
Original poster
Dec 15, 2004
159
0
I was wondering how much better the Radeon HD 2400 XT is compared to the Radeon 9800 Pro?

In 2 months I will finally have enough money to buy my first mac since the Powermac G4 days and the only thing I am slightly worried about is the video card.. my Radeon 9800 Pro is 5 years old, but it specs seem to be about equal to the Radeon HD 2400 XT. About the only differences I see are the XT has 2 to 2.5 times faster clock speed and a higher bus rate. To counter balance that though the Pro has more 'pipes' allowing it process more than the XT can.
 

cluthz

macrumors 68040
Jun 15, 2004
3,118
3
Norway
I was wondering how much better the Radeon HD 2400 XT is compared to the Radeon 9800 Pro?

In 2 months I will finally have enough money to buy my first mac since the Powermac G4 days and the only thing I am slightly worried about is the video card.. my Radeon 9800 Pro is 5 years old, but it specs seem to be about equal to the Radeon HD 2400 XT. About the only differences I see are the XT has 2 to 2.5 times faster clock speed and a higher bus rate. To counter balance that though the Pro has more 'pipes' allowing it process more than the XT can.
the 2400xt is weak, but the hardware in the iMac would probably be much better than your old machine.
Its Santa Rosa based, just see the CPU crunch becnh posted with the "old" 2.33GHz 17-incher vs the 2.2GHz SR PB and it is actually beating it in most tasks. (link http://barefeats.com/rosa02.html)

I would guess that your machine with 9800 is pretty old with slow bus, ram and cps and thus the iMac will outperform it quite a bit
 

urbanskywalker

macrumors 6502
Apr 30, 2007
255
0
So how different is the 2400 to the previous XT1600 in the last imac? Secondly how different is the 2400 XT to the 2600XT?

Cheers
 

Jimmdean

macrumors 6502
Mar 21, 2007
407
139
64-bit memory interface and less pipelines. Oh wait that's the HD2400XT.

Enjoy the hardware h.264 decoding though.
It's not all about memory interface and pipelines. Other things have changed since the 9800 was king of the hill...
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
So, 4 years development yields nothing? I dunno dood, Im still waiting on those benchmarks not your own idea of reasoning.
The HD2400XT is the top the bottom of the latest ATi cards. The 9800 Pro was top the line back in its day.

It's not all about memory interface and pipelines. Other things have changed since the 9800 was king of the hill...
And what defines a video card then?
 

Grenadier

macrumors regular
Nov 12, 2006
106
0
It's not all about memory interface and pipelines. Other things have changed since the 9800 was king of the hill...
Care to name them ?


I find it amusing that many people defend the X2000 series when they know very little about how much it sucks.
Just because a card has high numbers than a previous model doesnt mean its better. Case in point.
The 9800 is a brilliant card, and it has aged well. It can even play some of todays semi-new games.
 

Jimmdean

macrumors 6502
Mar 21, 2007
407
139
It's extremely difficult to find the HD2400XT pitted against the Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm even looking for the X700 Pro as well.
3DMark03 is just about the only common benchmark. the 2400 beats it at 1024x768, but they reverse as resolution goes up. To that point, the newer the game is, the better it will play on the 2400. higher resolutions will not be possible on the 2400, but it's not like the 2600 PRO will be any better.

I'm sure we all wanted at least the option for something better, but we all knew beforehand that it was never going to be any better than the 8600M-GT and even that card is pathetic compared to what is available for PCs...

Both these card are going to be good for light gaming at lower resolutions. If you need more than that an iMac just isn't for you...
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
3DMark03 is just about the only common benchmark. the 2400 beats it at 1024x768, but they reverse as resolution goes up. To that point, the newer the game is, the better it will play on the 2400. higher resolutions will not be possible on the 2400, but it's not like the 2600 PRO will be any better.

I'm sure we all wanted at least the option for something better, but we all knew beforehand that it was never going to be any better than the 8600M-GT and even that card is pathetic compared to what is available for PCs...

Both these card are going to be good for light gaming at lower resolutions. If you need more than that an iMac just isn't for you...
I'll agree with you entirely there.
 

dingdongbubble

macrumors 6502a
Jun 1, 2007
538
0
What is HD decoding on the Atis? My PC (Core Duo 2Ghz, Gefoce 7400) cant run a HD AVCHD clip :mad:

Anything to do with the GPU not having the decoder?

What decoders do the ATIs have? Is decoding like when I try to play a clip?
 

Jimmdean

macrumors 6502
Mar 21, 2007
407
139
What is HD decoding on the Atis? My PC (Core Duo 2Ghz, Gefoce 7400) cant run a HD AVCHD clip :mad:

Anything to do with the GPU not having the decoder?

What decoders do the ATIs have? Is decoding like when I try to play a clip?
Correct - that card did not have a hardware decoder. Both the gpus in the new iMacs have hardware decoders - we'll just have to wait for some benchies to see how much it helps...
 

slughead

macrumors 68040
Apr 28, 2004
3,105
234
Finally some benchmarks. Wow this shows a substantial performance upgrade over the 7600 GT.
It all depends on the tests

As was explained before, the old iMacs used X1600's (mid and low range) and 7600GT (high end). The new imacs use the 2400XT (low range) and the 2600 PRO (mid and high range).

Let's look at this website: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/465/1

7600GT Vs 2600 Pro Vs 2400 XT Vs X1600 XT

3d mark 2003 - 7600GT > X1600 > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/465/5

3d mark 2006 - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > X1600 > 2400 XT

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7532


For the following, the X1600 was untested for some reason:

Quake 4 (high) - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7531

fear (high) - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7527

BF2142 (high) - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7519

So for the tests conducted on this website, The 7600GT wins at everything tested.

The X1600 even beat the 2600 Pro at one of the tests! The 2400XT lost at everything.

I should note, however, that the 2600 XT does VERY well and even beats the 7600GT in many tests, so if Apple would've paid ~$15/iMac more to go from the 2600 Pro to the 2600 XT, iMac users would've had a much better machine.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,081
287
Indianapolis
It all depends on the tests

As was explained before, the old iMacs used X1600's (mid and low range) and 7600GT (high end). The new imacs use the 2400XT (low range) and the 2600 PRO (mid and high range).

Let's look at this website: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/465/1

7600GT Vs 2600 Pro Vs 2400 XT Vs X1600 XT

3d mark 2003 - 7600GT > X1600 > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/465/5

3d mark 2006 - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > X1600 > 2400 XT

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7532


For the following, the X1600 was untested for some reason:

Quake 4 (high) - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7531

fear (high) - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7527

BF2142 (high) - 7600GT > 2600 Pro > 2400 XT
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/imageview.php?image=7519

So for the tests conducted on this website, The 7600GT wins at everything tested.

The X1600 even beat the 2600 Pro at one of the tests! The 2400XT lost at everything.

I should note, however, that the 2600 XT does VERY well and even beats the 7600GT in many tests, so if Apple would've paid ~$15/iMac more to go from the 2600 Pro to the 2600 XT, iMac users would've had a much better machine.
Props for the effort in finding those links. The HD2600XT would have had several of my friends as switchers too. :(
 

Jimmdean

macrumors 6502
Mar 21, 2007
407
139
^^^^^^^^^^

Note: this is a regular desktop x1600 - not really indicative of the ones in the previous iMacs and MBPs...

Boot-Campers proved a long time ago they were under-clocked...