NVIDIA's 8400GS trounces ATI's HD 2400

[prolim123]

While the HD 2400 or 8400GS are neither the flashiest, or the fastest, of the recent new-generation video cards from ATI and NVIDIA, they are nonetheless very important offerings from both companies trying to bring consumers into the DirectX 10 fold. With Windows Vista, and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray technology slowly being embraced by the PC using masses, there will be no shortage of competition for the lower-end video card market.

Initial benchmarks have been reported, and it seems that the preliminary results favor the 8400GS over the HD 2400. Although the 8400GS is clocked higher, at 450/400, than the competiting HD 2400, which is clocked at 520/500, the 8400GS has a respectable lead in the synthetic benchmarking program 3DMark06. The HD 2400 is reported to reach a score of somewhere around the neighbourhood of 1250 3DMarks, whereas the 8400GS comes closer to 1600 3DMarks. A possible reason for the subpar performance of the HD 2400 could be that it has 4 texture mapping units, whereas the 8400GS has twice that many, with 8 texture mapping units on the 8400GS. the image below willl make you believe it is not true. if you dont believe me, at least believe nvidia.

 

[Rustyy117]

LOL I love how that chart makes it look as if the 8400GS is over twice as fast at the HD2400 when infact its only 368 3DMark06 points faster.

 

[prolim123]

i know but the difference is still noticeable. i played house of the dead 2 on my friends ati 2400 and it suckz, there is a black box surrounding the blood

 

[Mousemonkey]

While the HD 2400 or 8400GS are neither the flashiest, or the fastest, of the recent new-generation video cards from ATI and NVIDIA, they are nonetheless very important offerings from both companies trying to bring consumers into the DirectX 10 fold. With Windows Vista, and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray technology slowly being embraced by the PC using masses, there will be no shortage of competition for the lower-end video card market.

Initial benchmarks have been reported, and it seems that the preliminary results favor the 8400GS over the HD 2400. Although the 8400GS is clocked higher, at 450/400, than the competiting HD 2400, which is clocked at 520/500, the 8400GS has a respectable lead in the synthetic benchmarking program 3DMark06. The HD 2400 is reported to reach a score of somewhere around the neighbourhood of 1250 3DMarks, whereas the 8400GS comes closer to 1600 3DMarks. A possible reason for the subpar performance of the HD 2400 could be that it has 4 texture mapping units, whereas the 8400GS has twice that many, with 8 texture mapping units on the 8400GS. the image below willl make you believe it is not true. if you dont believe me, at least believe nvidia.

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2007/06/04/50113.jpg

 

[Rustyy117]

i know but the difference is still noticeable. i played house of the dead 2 on my friends ati 2400 and it suckz, there is a black box surrounding the blood

Hmmm... if it suckz so bad on your friends HD2400, maybe you should just play on your uber 1337 8400GS which is obviously loads better cuz nVidia made a chart and their not biased towards their own products at all.... :lol:

Fun times

@Mouse, love the image haha!

 

[Mousemonkey]

 

[notty22]

Dell shipped a ton of c2d 530's with the hd 2400.
It takes effort to get it to play a high bit rate movie. But being 20% faster is not much to talk about, is the opening paragraph a quote from a ancient review ?

 

[dalta centauri]

Thought this thread had been necro'd. Oh how I lol'd though.
I had an 8600gt, loved it till it ended up dying on me

 

[Guest]

While the HD 2400 or 8400GS are neither the flashiest, or the fastest, of the recent new-generation video cards from ATI and NVIDIA, they are nonetheless very important offerings from both companies trying to bring consumers into the DirectX 10 fold. With Windows Vista, and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray technology slowly being embraced by the PC using masses, there will be no shortage of competition for the lower-end video card market.

Initial benchmarks have been reported, and it seems that the preliminary results favor the 8400GS over the HD 2400. Although the 8400GS is clocked higher, at 450/400, than the competiting HD 2400, which is clocked at 520/500, the 8400GS has a respectable lead in the synthetic benchmarking program 3DMark06. The HD 2400 is reported to reach a score of somewhere around the neighbourhood of 1250 3DMarks, whereas the 8400GS comes closer to 1600 3DMarks. A possible reason for the subpar performance of the HD 2400 could be that it has 4 texture mapping units, whereas the 8400GS has twice that many, with 8 texture mapping units on the 8400GS. the image below willl make you believe it is not true. if you dont believe me, at least believe nvidia.

http://www.3dnews.ru/_imgdata/img/2007/06/04/50113.jpg

As you stated above, "Although the 8400GS is clocked higher, at 450/400, than the competiting HD 2400, which is clocked at 520/500" You cant compare clock speeds of totaly diffrent cards with diffrent architectures. There not even the same brand -.-

 

[wh3resmycar]

wtf!?

 

[dalta centauri]

^+1

For me it was the last Nvidia card I owned as well, because I switched to the 5770.

 

[dalta centauri]

Well, when I had the 8600gt my computer was also running windows xp, 4gb of DDR2 ram, and a dual core Athlon at 2.1GHz. It still ran great though, of course the computer was originally a prebuilt so the 800MHz was brought down...considerably and there was no option to overclock.

I would love to try out a fuzion mobo at some point, would there be a benefit from using a radeon 5770 and a 460 together in that case?

 

[yannifb]

WTF? Am i in a parallel universe or are the 8400 and 2400 still really old?

 

[notty22]

I googled the first complete sentence:
http://forums.vr-zone.com/news-around-the-web/159937-its-official-nvidias-8400gs-trounces-atis-hd-2400-a.html

 

[Mousemonkey]

so.
what's your point.?

It looks like someone got butt raped four years ago and liked it so much they've come over to this forum for another shafting! :lol:

 

[jyjjy]

I like how even back then the first sentence of the first reply was "So what?"

 

[eyefinity]

Looks more like a spambot, probably one of Nvidia's. They had to go back that far to find the last time they beat ATI in a benchmark.

 

[plznote]

It looks like someone got butt raped four years ago and liked it so much they've come over to this forum for another shafting! :lol:

Cmon MM language!
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/283384-33-read-first
I'll hvae to ban you.
TSK,TSK
:lol:

 

[jyjjy]

Looks more like a spambot, probably one of Nvidia's. They had to go back that far to find the last time they beat ATI in a benchmark.

Sadly it isn't a bot. There's another thread where they were preaching against the evils of overclocking.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Looks more like a spambot, probably one of Nvidia's. They had to go back that far to find the last time they beat ATI in a benchmark.

Nah, you've only got to look back to the 4xx benchmarks for that one!

 

[eyefinity]

Nah, you've only got to look back to the 4xx benchmarks for that one!

I meant real gaming benchmarks not breakfast frying ones. :lol:

 

[Mousemonkey]

I meant real gaming benchmarks not breakfast frying ones. :lol:

That's what I meant as well, considering that it was proved that even the GTX480 could not generate enough heat to even half cook an egg.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Just in case eyefinity needs reminding.
[flash=640,390]http://www.youtube.com/v/ASu3Xw6JM1w?version=3[/flash]

 

[Timop]

Popcorn please.

 

[Mousemonkey]

Popcorn please.

I doubt it gets hot enough to cook that either.