ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT vs R9 280X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280X and Radeon HD 2400 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 280X
2013, $299
3 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
13.95
+4882%

R9 280X outperforms HD 2400 XT by a whopping 4882% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4041395
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.88no data
Power efficiency4.290.86
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameTahitiRV610
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (12 years ago)28 June 2007 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores204840
Core clock speedno data650 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,313 million180 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate128.02.600
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS0.052 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs1284
L1 Cache512 KBno data
L2 Cache768 KB32 KB

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB256 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data500 MHz
Memory bandwidth288 GB/s8 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1210.0 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan+N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R9 280X 13.95
+4882%
ATI HD 2400 XT 0.28

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.

R9 280X 5837
+4847%
Samples: 5384
ATI HD 2400 XT 118
Samples: 228

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD65
+6400%
1−2
−6400%
4K310−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.60no data
4K9.65no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 60−65
+6100%
1−2
−6100%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
+5700%
1−2
−5700%
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Fortnite 158
+5167%
3−4
−5167%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+5800%
1−2
−5800%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
Valorant 110−120
+5850%
2−3
−5850%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 60−65
+6100%
1−2
−6100%
Counter-Strike 2 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200
+6333%
3−4
−6333%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 0−1
Dota 2 90−95
+9000%
1−2
−9000%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
+5700%
1−2
−5700%
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Fortnite 60
+5900%
1−2
−5900%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+5800%
1−2
−5800%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 54
+5300%
1−2
−5300%
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48 0−1
Valorant 110−120
+5850%
2−3
−5850%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+6100%
1−2
−6100%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 0−1
Dota 2 137
+6750%
2−3
−6750%
Escape from Tarkov 55−60
+5700%
1−2
−5700%
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+5800%
1−2
−5800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 29 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20 0−1
Valorant 110−120
+5850%
2−3
−5850%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 48 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 100−110
+5200%
2−3
−5200%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 16−18 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+6550%
2−3
−6550%
Valorant 140−150
+7200%
2−3
−7200%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 27−30 0−1
Far Cry 5 30−35 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 30−35 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−11 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 0−1
Valorant 75−80
+7700%
1−2
−7700%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 68
+6700%
1−2
−6700%
Escape from Tarkov 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 24−27 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 14−16 0−1

This is how R9 280X and ATI HD 2400 XT compete in popular games:

  • R9 280X is 6400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.95 0.28
Recency 8 October 2013 28 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 25 Watt

R9 280X has a 4882.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 2400 XT, on the other hand, has 900% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2400 XT in performance tests.

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.


AMD Radeon R9 280X
Radeon R9 280X
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT
Radeon HD 2400 XT

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.


4.1 752 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 47 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 280X or Radeon HD 2400 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.