ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO vs GeForce 8700M GT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 8700M GT with Radeon HD 2400 PRO, including specs and performance data.

8700M GT
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 29 Watt
0.30
+11.1%

8700M GT outperforms ATI HD 2400 PRO by a moderate 11% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking13681387
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.791.03
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameG84RV610
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 June 2007 (18 years ago)28 June 2007 (18 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores3240
Core clock speed625 MHz525 MHz
Number of transistors289 million180 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)29 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate10.002.100
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS0.042 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs164

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-HEPCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount512 MB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s6.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_0)10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

8700M GT 0.30
+11.1%
ATI HD 2400 PRO 0.27

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

8700M GT 124
+8.8%
ATI HD 2400 PRO 114

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
God of War 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
God of War 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Valorant 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
God of War 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
God of War 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 0.27
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 256 MB
Chip lithography 80 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 29 Watt 20 Watt

8700M GT has a 11.1% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

ATI HD 2400 PRO, on the other hand, has a 23.1% more advanced lithography process, and 45% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 8700M GT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2400 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 8700M GT is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 2400 PRO is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT
GeForce 8700M GT
ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
Radeon HD 2400 PRO

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.6 22 votes

Rate GeForce 8700M GT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 70 votes

Rate Radeon HD 2400 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 8700M GT or Radeon HD 2400 PRO, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.