[Review] 2400Pro i 8400GS vs. 7300GT i X1600Pro

Stevie_Ray · Aug 24, 2007

Evo zgodne usporedbe najjeftinijih kartica:

http://www.digital-daily.com/video/hd2400pro_vs_8400gs/

So, what have today's tests shown? The low-end novelties which offer a memory bus of merely 64-bit are demonstrating performance on par with 128-bit analogs of the previous generation. In terms of continuity of FPS level, the best performer is the NVIDIA product, while HD2400Pro sometimes demonstrated deep gaps. On the other hand, HD2400Pro is much cheaper, and at the absolute performance of about 10 FPS the scatter in tens of percents will not make your gameplay comfortable. Hence, if you already have a low-end video card, perhaps it doesn't make sense hastily replace it with a novelty that supports DirectX 10 - you are unlikely to win in terms of performance. If you are about to buy an inexpensive video card with support for the most recent "trendy" features, then 8400GS andHD2400Pro would prove to be quite a choice of dignity. The advantage of 8400GS is in a bit higher performance on average, whereas HD2400Pro stands out with its modest power consumption and offers an integrated video decoder (including HD standards), which makes it an ideal candidates for the digital home media center. NVIDIA video cards also offer hardware decoding of HD content, although not in the extent as AMD products are. Support for the PureVideo HD by NVIDIA is currently declared for Windows Vista only.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

[Review] 2400Pro i 8400GS vs. 7300GT i X1600Pro

Stevie_Ray Veteran foruma

Log in or Sign up

Useful Searches

[Review] 2400Pro i 8400GS vs. 7300GT i X1600Pro

Stevie_Ray Veteran foruma