Ati Radeon Hd 2400 Pro 512mb Agp Drivers For Mac

1. Ati Radeon Hd 2400 Pro 512mb Agp Drivers For Mac Download
2. Ati Radeon Hd 2400 Pro 512mb

ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro (AGP) drivers are tiny programs that enable your Graphics Card hardware to communicate with your operating system software. Maintaining updated ATI Radeon HD 2400 Pro (AGP) software prevents crashes and maximizes hardware and system performance.

I have searched the forums for a 2600 HD vs 9400M thread but I did not find one and if this has been covered in another thread under a different topic I apologize in advance since I could not find it. I am not a tech guru and I have a few questions: The 2600 HD is discrete and the 9400M is integrated, right? On the 9400M: 1GB Ram = 128MB VRam, 2 GB Ram = 256MB VRam, so does 4 GB Ram = 512MB VRam? I think the 9400M has 16 cores, how many cores does the 2600 HD have? Considering the upcoming OpenCL integration with the pending Snow Leopard release, which would be the better graphics chipset? I thought I heard someone say that the 9400M is not ready for OpenCL but that an engineer at nVidia had updated the driver and had it working. Is the 2600 HD OpenCL ready?

(Sorry for all the questions bundled together, but they are related) Many thanks in advance. Edit: The point to all of my questions is that I have a 20' 2.66 GHz C2D Aluminum iMac that replaced a 1.83 GHz C2D Mac Mini. I can't put my finger on it, but I like the Mini better than the iMac and am considering switching back if the graphics disparity is not too great. Well, I can point you to - macworld's review of the gaming capabilities of the unibody macbooks. Despite what apple claims with their graphs (new imac page), the 2.0 macbook (which is basically the exact same internals as the new mini) runs about even with the 2.4 Ghz imac with radeon 2400xt (low-end of the last generation). I think the macbook wins out in 4 of 7 tests and the imac in the other three.

Some of the imac's advantage may be the processor, but not much, as the 2.4 Ghz macbook only beats the 2.0 by a couple of fps in each test. Yes, you read that right - that was against the 2400xt, not the 2600. Now, look at. It's not the same set of tests, but it does compare a 2.4 Ghz imac with 2400xt to a 2.4 Ghz imac with radeon 2600 in a couple of graphic-related tasks.

The 2600 goes from 'a lot better' to 'twice as fast.' So if we put all of this together (and yes, I realize the difficultly of analysis across multiple sets of tests, but it's the best we have for now), we reach the conclusion that the nvidea 9400 is a noticable step down from the Radeon 2600 Pro. Take it for what it's worth. Yeah I confused myself. My point was.I'm on the hinge on which is better between the two I mentioned. I plan on either getting the first 24 inch model (new ones), or the 2.8 refurb from last time with the 2600 ati card. After much youtubing I've come to the conclusion that the 9400M runs every game that the 2600 could even better than the 2600.

And I've seen a ton of videos to make sure it was a trend. But then I look at the numbers above in benchmarks and whatnot and that doesn't seem to be the case. So can anyone explain that? And are the 4gb ddr3 ram or 2gb ddr2 ram a large factor in the choice?

I wanna be sure before dumping almost 2K. ^^^^ Goes back to discreet graphics versus integrated. Even earlier - I had a Compaq Laptop with GMA900 integrated graphics and my Thinkpad X31 with discreet ATI Radeon Pro graphics beat it out when playing back iTunes Videos. For the gamers out there - the gaming sites are your best bet, maybe even see if you can get away with a cheap Mac Mini for Mac stuff and a Wintel Gaming Rig for games (that's what I did, bought a recycled HP Workstation and now I can put whatever graphics card happens to come along). The Mini was $579 and the HP workstation was $150 plus about $200 worth of parts. My monitor has two (DVI and VGA) inputs. Yeah I confused myself.

My point was.I'm on the hinge on which is better between the two I mentioned. I plan on either getting the first 24 inch model (new ones), or the 2.8 refurb from last time with the 2600 ati card. After much youtubing I've come to the conclusion that the 9400M runs every game that the 2600 could even better than the 2600.

And I've seen a ton of videos to make sure it was a trend. But then I look at the numbers above in benchmarks and whatnot and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Ati Radeon Hd 2400 Pro 512mb Agp Drivers For Mac Download

So can anyone explain that? And are the 4gb ddr3 ram or 2gb ddr2 ram a large factor in the choice? I wanna be sure before dumping almost 2K. Click to expand.OK, here is how I rank those iMacs: 1: The new 2.66 one IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best) (best video + more RAM) 2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM!

(OK video + more RAM) (tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video) (tie): The old one exactly as you said. (better VIDEO but less RAM) But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) GEFORCE 8800GS (old iMac, thanks to Jack Flash) GT 130 (new iMac) GT 120 (new iMac) RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) = RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini). OK, here is how I rank those iMacs: 1: The new 2.66 one IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best) (best video + more RAM) 2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM! (OK video + more RAM) (tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video) (tie): The old one exactly as you said.

Ati Radeon Hd 2400 Pro 512mb

(better VIDEO but less RAM) But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) GT 130 (new iMac) GT 120 (new iMac) RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini). OK, here is how I rank those iMacs: 1: The new 2.66 one IF YOU UPGRADE TO GT 130 (better) OR RADEON HD 4850 (by far the best) (best video + more RAM) 2: The refurb exactly as you made it IF YOU GET MORE RAM! (OK video + more RAM) (tie): The new one exactly as you said. (more RAM but crap video) (tie): The old one exactly as you said. (better VIDEO but less RAM) But know this: RADEON HD 4850 (new iMac) 8800GS (old iMac) GT 130 (new iMac) GT 120 (new iMac) RADEON 2600 PRO (old iMac) GEFORCE 9400M (new iMac and Mini) RADEON 2400 XT (old iMac) INTEL GMA 950 (old Mini).