Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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 ?
- Thread starter powerbook911
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I also have waited since MacWorld for the iMac speed bump and better video card. The 2.8 GHz was a nice jump, but the video card....Oh sigh. I might have to wait for the Pro series and video displays to be updated now.
From the product page:
"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance..."
...ALMOST as good as the first gen Intel iMac!
"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance..."
...ALMOST as good as the first gen Intel iMac!
I also have waited since MacWorld for the iMac speed bump and better video card. The 2.8 GHz was a nice jump, but the video card....Oh sigh. I might have to wait for the Pro series and video displays to be updated now.
Me too. Im starting to feel really bitter.
Overall, the update was nice - 2.8GHz for the win !
However, when I saw that the best GPU they offered was the 2600 Pro, it felt like a punch to the stomach.
Damn it Apple, is it too much to ask for a video card which will not roll over and die at any opportunity ?
A 8600GTS would be so, SO much better.
WHY, APPLE, WHY ?!
(Ps: Ive been waiting since WWDC '05. Seriously)
From the product page:
"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance..."
...ALMOST as good as the first gen Intel iMac!
I dont know whether to laugh or cry
Its called Apple spin, notice they never throw up any benches in the graphics section at Apple while bragging how new,powerful and fast the two cards are. Also Jobs has a long history of lies when talking about Macs. Trust nothing from this used car salesman.From the product page:
"An ATI Radeon HD graphics processor powers each iMac, offering great gaming performance..."
...ALMOST as good as the first gen Intel iMac!
I must admit if the 8600GT or better was attached to imac I would have bought one but this ati stuff just sucks. $1500 computer with a $89 video. At least the Apple mutual admiration society didnt go for integrated graphics. Its a big dissapointment after a year. So the old 24" PodMac has better graphics. Who would have thought.
What a joke!
So there we have it. Great looking machine, decent processors and as usual for Apple, lousy graphics. They've been doing it for years!
So as of now, the best 'stock' graphics card option is in the Macbook Pro. I really thought that Apple would favour Nvidia for the iMac and we'd get the 8600 (as in the Macbook Pro).
Yes, the new iMac is thin and we need to consider heat, but it's a lot bigger than a laptop. So there's no excuse.
Very strange choice Apple!
So there we have it. Great looking machine, decent processors and as usual for Apple, lousy graphics. They've been doing it for years!
So as of now, the best 'stock' graphics card option is in the Macbook Pro. I really thought that Apple would favour Nvidia for the iMac and we'd get the 8600 (as in the Macbook Pro).
Yes, the new iMac is thin and we need to consider heat, but it's a lot bigger than a laptop. So there's no excuse.
Very strange choice Apple!
i have kinda changed my viewpoint. after talking to my much esteemed and well-informed pc friend. he has assured me that better drivers for the 2600 will be coming out. he said performance will increase greatly.
i believe him...
i believe him...
I hoped so myself, but come on, do you really think it will happen ?
Its possible, no doubt, but the cards have been out some time now - and they continue to suck.
They said the same about Quad-SLi (2x 7950GTXs in SLi) - sure, it sucked, but wait for drivers. The drivers never came.
Does it only do decoding or can any Apple software packages make use of the hardware encoding?
That would fit in with all the hype about encoding movies with iMovie '08.
hhmm good point. i really hope that it will happen. just wondering, all the benchmarks that i have seen have been terrible, that would be because it is running under dx10??? if u were to run a dx9 game it would run like my mbp on speed??? or would it still be like 25-30fps?
Actually, according to benchmarks, the card sucks under BOTH DX9 and DX10.
Think of 25-30fps on semi-new games like BF2142.
Then think of terrible frame rates on new games like Supreme Commander.
Actually, according to benchmarks, the card sucks under BOTH DX9 and DX10.
Think of 25-30fps on semi-new games like BF2142.
Then think of terrible frame rates on new games like Supreme Commander.
think of crying, thats what im thinking of doing... why apple why!?!?!<>?!
Ok, let's all take a step back for a moment. First, I'll chime in some agreement on the fact that the 2400/2600 both suck compared to the options we COULD have got. It also sucks next to the CTO options (and even the standard, really) on the old 24". BUT, comparing it unfavorably to the old x1600 in the iMac may be a bit premature.
Now, it's not going to perform above and beyond the old x1600 by any means, I concede that. But saying it's a STEP DOWN from the x1600 is a bit premature. First, looking at the benchmarks the x1600 (non-XT) isn't all that impressive. Also, Apple underclocked those cards and we don't know what the clocking on the 2400/2600 in the iMac will be.
Anyways, I don't think it's all doom and gloom. It's certainly not impressive at all, but I think they will remain adequate for the average user. Where Apple really let us down is not offering a BTO higher end card. Hopefully this redesign uses MXM cards across the board so we will see more frequent GPU updates and offerings.
I'm also really curious to see if Apple has a trick up their sleeve in Leopard for hardware assisted video encoding. We know the x2000 series has "UVD" which is massively assisted GPU video DECODING, but I wonder if there's something to the idea of Macs having a "built in h.264 hardware encoder". If this card was capable of doing hardware assisted h264 encodes with some special Leopard only drivers/libraries, it would be HUGE.
Real time high quality h264 encoding being done in the background while you use the CPUs to edit and manipulate video for example... start cutting, splicing, compositing, adding text and other effects, etc in iMovie/FCP and the GPU starts rendering the video in high quality h264 as you work so that by the time you finish the export is done. Or being able to encode two or more streams at once with minimal impact on overall system responsiveness. Record TV from a tuner device to iPod/AppleTV ready files in real time. It positions the iMac as the center of your media world, if nto your gaming world. That wouldn't be a bad move (aside from pissing off gamers).
Encoding
the ATI HD series including 2400 and 2600 are capable of hardware assisted H.264 encoding using their catalyst control center on PCs. http://ati.amd.com/technology/Avivo/technology.html
the ATI HD series including 2400 and 2600 are capable of hardware assisted H.264 encoding using their catalyst control center on PCs. http://ati.amd.com/technology/Avivo/technology.html
You'd actually need software that takes advantage of the hardware decoder. I know that ATi supplies encoding software as well. From the benchmarks that I've seen it's not any faster using the GPU as well then it is just using the CPU.
I just ordered the base model forgoing the up-sell on the higher spec 20". I almost went with the higher model just because of the doom and gloom over the video card. Then I remembered i really don't play games and I doubt I'll see any difference in real life. Also there is always the gnashing of teeth over so I can't wait.
AH, well there it is then. I wont' be surprised to see this built into whatever version of QT Leopard ships with, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's already some support for it in iMovie '08 although it could be limited or inactive at this point.
Once I had the right keywords from you (AVIVO) I did a quick search. On an X1800XT a 5-minute chapter from DVD was encoded with early AVIVO software and where software encoders running on an Athlon X2 4800+ were roughly realtime (4min 45sec or so) for DiVX and WMV9 the GPU assisted version did similar codecs, resolutions, and bittrates in about 25sec. That's 10x realtime.
Now, the biggest problem with hardware encoders is always the software that goes with them. If Apple does run with this and build it into QT I would only expect them to do it really well, like they do most of their software.
How great would it be to encode a full two hour DVD into a high res, high qulaity h264 file for an AppleTV in 20 minutes or less? I remember when CDs took more than that to convert to MP3...
can someone confirm or deny that the offerings are the worst video cards available between ati and nvidia's most recent line of video cards?
The best value midrange video cards from ATi is the HD2600XT at ~$100 and for nVidia the 8600GT at around ~$115.
The HD2400XT is a low end card designed mostly for the HTPC as it can be passively cooled and has good h.264 decoding.
ATI/AMD still has 2 cards below the HD2400XT, the 2300 series and the 2400 PRO. If you don't game, both the 2400 and 2600 series are great for their feature set alone.
In terms of performance, the 2400XT will be small bump above the 7300GT, just as it was a small bump above the x1600. The 2600 PRO is another good bump, but not a revolutionary one... I have an x1950XT in my Windows machine, so they're both pretty crappy to me for gaming purposes.
In terms of performance, the 2400XT will be small bump above the 7300GT, just as it was a small bump above the x1600. The 2600 PRO is another good bump, but not a revolutionary one... I have an x1950XT in my Windows machine, so they're both pretty crappy to me for gaming purposes.
The fact that we are debating if the video card is better then my laptop's 6 month old video card is quite telling. The fact that the iMac's video card has been called "a step above the GMA950"* is quite telling too. This card SUCKS.
Now don't get me wrong, the GMA950 would be more then enough for all of my needs right now, and the x1600 in my MBP is overkill for me until SC2 comes out. However..
This is a brand new, $1200 machine, and it shouldn't have something that can be compared to the previous generation of integrated video cards!
*Stated by some random member on these boards
Whoever said it was "a step above the GMA950" was an idiot. I once gamed on a Geforce 6200 for 6 months (BF2/CoD2) - that cards kills integrated graphics. Like I said, the 2400XT is a bump above the 7300, which was a bump above the x1600.
Anybody who says the 2400xt is "a step above the GMA950" is an idiot or just very prone to hyperbole. Just to get some clarity on how many steps there are between the 950 and the 2400xt...
GMA950<Intel x3000<x2300<x2400 pro<x2400 xt and that's just the current line of ATI cards. You could fit the x1000 series ATI cards and NVidia cards int here somewhere as well, with each step up being somewhat significant.
Here's another, non-gaming-centric, way to look at the GMA950 vs x2400xt... the 950 doesn't even support realtime effects in Motion (FC/FCP/iMovie HD all use some form of that technology). The x2400xt does 10x realtime h264 encodes.
EDIT: Laugh... seems Jimmdean and I are on the same page.
You have to ask yourself: Am I a dedicated gamer or not?
If you do most of your work with photos, graphics, music, movies and office applications --- then all of the debate about which card has better 3D acceleration or DX10 support or etc etc. is essentially meaningless.
If the application doesn't support hardware 3D GPU acceleration then card X vs card Y FPS benchmarks mean nothing.
So if the 3D gaming experience does not make or break your computer decision, then simply tune out all of the video card debate and be happy. The iMac comes with a decent 2D solution with hardware video acceleration available.
If you do most of your work with photos, graphics, music, movies and office applications --- then all of the debate about which card has better 3D acceleration or DX10 support or etc etc. is essentially meaningless.
If the application doesn't support hardware 3D GPU acceleration then card X vs card Y FPS benchmarks mean nothing.
So if the 3D gaming experience does not make or break your computer decision, then simply tune out all of the video card debate and be happy. The iMac comes with a decent 2D solution with hardware video acceleration available.