| Article Index |
|---|
| Cheap Cards - GeForce 8400 vs. Radeon 2400 Series Comparison |
| Page 2 - Performance |
| Page 3 - 3DMark06 |
| Page 5 - Prey |
| Page 6 - Lost Planet (DirectX 10) |
| Page 7 - Conclusion |
| All Pages |
Today we have a
look at some of the new range of cut-price video cards from nVidia and ATI, namely the Radeon HD 2400Pro, 2400XT and the GeForce 8400GS, all of which will set you back around AU$100 or less, we see which performs the
best.
The budget graphics card market is huge, and while there will always be a demand from those who want the latest and greatest for the top end of the market, the lower end of the market is controlled by those who just want a basic PC or Home Theatre PC but still want something better than the standard on-board video, which will generally gives very poor 3D performance. The addition of a 3D video card, even a basic one like the ones we’re looking at today can give a massive boost to the computer’s abilities for 3D performance and even video playback, especially in HD.
The cards we’re looking at today are the ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro and 2400XT, both from XpertVision, and the nVidia GeForce 8400GS from Inno3D. All three cards are DirectX 10 compatible and all three have a standard VGA (D-Sub) output and a DVI output and all are connected via the PCI-Express x16 interface. The basic specs of the cards are as follows:
GeForce 8400GS:
- Cost: Approx - AU$80.00
- Memory: 256MB GDDR2
- Memory Frequency: 800 MHz
- Memory Bus: 64-Bit
- Core Frequency: 450 MHz
- Stream Processors: 16
Radeon HD 2400 Pro:
- Cost: Approx – AU$75.00
- Memory: 256MB DDR2
- Memory Frequency: 800 MHz
- Memory Bus: 64-Bit
- Core Frequency: 600 MHz
- Stream Processors: 40
Radeon HD 2400 XT:
- Cost: Approx - AU$100.00
- Memory: 256MB GDDR3
- Memory Frequency: 1.5 GHz
- Memory Bus: 64-Bit
- Core Frequency: 700 MHz
- Stream Processors: 40
By all accounts, both the Radeon cards have the GeForce 8400GS seriously outgunned with significantly faster core speeds and better/faster memory configurations, the Radeon cards also have ATI’s HyperMemory system which allows the cards to use system memory to supplement what it already has onboard, up to a size of 1GB, 256MB is included as standard with the Radeon HD 2400s, which for most instances is still more than enough. nVidia’s version of this technology – TurboCache – is not present on any of the GeForce 8 Series of cards.
The ATI Radeon HD 2400 series of cards also supports ATI’s Crossfire (Multi-GPU) technology, even though the particular cards we have today are devoid of the crossfire bridge connector. There is no support for nVidia’s SLI technology in the GeForce 8400 range. All the cards we’re looking at today support HDTV and have the ability to support HDCP, and although it is an option on all of them it is still a welcome inclusion if you’re going to be using these cards in a Home Theatre environment.
Performance:
The main focus of our review today will be the performance of the 3 cards in benchmark (3DMark06) and gaming situations (Quake4, Prey, Lost Planet) to see which one gives you the best bang for your buck.
The Test Bench Setup:
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 CPU
- ASUS P5N32-E SLI, nForce680i Motherboard
- Corsair TWIN2X 2GB PC2-8500 Memory Kit (2 x 1GB)
- Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 250GB SATA-II Hard Drive
- Antec Basiq 500W ATX Power Supply
- Windows XP Pro SP2 for DirectX 9 Tests
- Windows Vista Premium for DirectX 10 Tests
As most current games and applications still run on DirectX 9, these will be the majority of our tests (3DMark06, Quake4, Prey), these will be run under Windows XP SP2. However as all the cards are DirectX10 compatible we will test their DX10 performance under Windows Vista using the Lost Planet Demo’s built in performance benchmark.
The Results:
Our first cab off the rank is 3DMark06:
We can see in the graph above that the Radeon HD 2400XT is clearly in front in the 3DMark06 benchmark, and on closer analysis of the results we found the 2400XT and 8400GS very close on all the tests except for the High Dynamic Range (HDR)/Shader Model 3.0 (SM3.0) graphics tests, where the 2400XT was well ahead of the 8400GS, around 9fps compared to 5fps. Considering the difference in specs between the two cards, I was surprised the 8400GS did so well, and was actually considerably faster than the 2400Pro. It goes to show that clock speeds aren’t the be all and end all of processing power. Next we delve into the games with Quake 4!
{mospagebreak title=Page 4 - Quake 4}
Quake 4:
The Quake 4 tests were run at various resolutions in both normal mode and with 8x Anti-Aliasing enabled to really stress the cards capabilities.
The ‘normal’ tests show the GeForce 8400GS out in front in the low resolution test, but falling behind when the resolutions start to rise. This is likely due to the 8400’s lack of stream processors when compared to the 2400s, causing it to struggle with larger resolutions.
The 8x Anti-Aliasing test results displayed above show the 8400GS suffering a massive drop in performance compared to the normal test, down between (approx) 66-86% depending on the resolution, while both the 2400 cards only dropped around 50% across the board. Something is really choking the performance of the 8400GS in the higher resolution and Anti-Aliasing tests, and as the 8400 only has 40% of the stream processors as the 2400 cards, it’s the most likely culprit.
The next test: Prey.
Our next test is the game Prey, we have run it on the same range of resolutions as the Quake 4 tests, unfortunately 8xAA is not available with this game, so we used 4xAA instead, let see if we get a similar result to the Quake 4 tests.
Under the normal test, we see the 8400GS lagging behind the 2400XT already, and barely able to stay ahead of the 2400Pro.
The 4xAA test is a similar result to the normal test, with the 8400GS actually falling behind the 2400Pro in the higher resolution test, again demonstrating a series lack of power compared the Radeons in the higher resolutions.
Next Test: Lost Planet – DirectX 10
The DirectX 10 version of the Lost Planet demo is our next test to demonstrate the cards capabilities under DirectX 10, as all our previous tests have been for DirectX 9 applications.
There are two segments of the Lost Planet Demo benchmark, ‘Snow’ which is outside with a long view distance and lots of weather effects, explosions and close up character renderings, then there’s ‘Cave’ which is in a contained area filled with lots (and lots) of consistently slow moving characters.
.
The results above are quite surprising with the GeForce 8400GS blitzing the other two cards in the low resolution test, and staying even with the 2400XT in the higher resolutions. The 2400Pro also performs well, only slightly behind the other two cards in the higher resolutions. Considering the speed difference between the nVidia card and the ATI cards, it shows that the 8400GS is far more efficient under DirectX 10 than the others. This may simply be a driver issue for the ATI cards, or a flaw in their design, it’s really too early to tell. We will keep an eye out over the next few months to see if later drivers will make a difference to the Radeon 2400XT’s performance.
Conclusion:
Aside from the tests done in low resolutions where it performed well, the 8400GS from nVidia has shown itself to be somewhat lacking in performance compared to the 2400XT from ATI, with something really choking its performance in the higher resolutions. Despite this, it performed well when you consider it is well behind the 2400XT in terms of core and memory speed, and as the 8400GS is about 20% cheaper than the 2400XT it makes it hard to pick a winner in terms of best “Bang for your Buck” performance.
If you’re running your games and other 3D programs in relatively high resolutions or with Anti-Aliasing then the 2400XT would be the card for you, however due to the 8400GS’s low price and still respectable performance, especially under DirectX 10, it shouldn’t be dismissed.
On performance alone, I would buy the 2400XT without a doubt, but those buying these cards will obviously want the best value, and as the 8400GS will save you around $20 for only a minor performance drop in certain areas, so it’s a very hard choice, and I have to say the 8400GS probably gives the best value from the three.
The 2400Pro just doesn’t cut it when you consider it’s the same price as the 8400GS with less performance, the choice between those two is obvious.
Despite which one I’d choose, it’s great to know there are such competent performers out there for well under AU$100, it means that a low-end or budget PC doesn’t have to lack some semblance of 3D performance.
These products can be purchased online at www.techbuy.com.au (Radeon 2400, GeForce 8400GS)
