Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How bad is ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT graphics ?

powerbook911

powerbook911

macrumors 601
Original poster
Mar 15, 2005
4,008
393
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.
 
The 64-bit memory interface is going to be your biggest issue. Don't expect much performance beyond a X1300/7300 series if that.
 
Eidorian said:
The 64-bit memory interface is going to be your biggest issue. Don't expect much performance beyond a X1300/7300 series if that.
Click to expand...

For those of us not doing ANY gaming or video editing, is there going to be any noticeable difference between the two video cards?
 
Eidorian said:
You can add image editing as well now.

No there won't be a difference if you're doing CPU bound tasks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jimmery said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Eidorian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Jimmery said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

powerbook911 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It would be a step down.
 
Eidorian said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Eidorian said:
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.
Click to expand...

wat would the 2600 be like for encoding?? i do a lot of mpeg and h264 encoding.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
DoFoT9 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Wild-Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

iW00t said:
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...
Click to expand...

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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back