Gigabyte HD 2400XT 256MB GDDR3 £23.72 delivered@Ebuyer.com - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
This is NOT a graphics card for games and will NOT play Crysis on full detail.
But if you want a card to upgrade from on-board graphics or for playing HD content then this is great value. This will out perform a stock 2600pro and 3450pro in most tasks.
Infact I would say I dont think there is a card under £25 that will out perform this. I'm sure I'll be proved wrong but we will see!



General Interface Type PCI Express x16
Processor / Memory Graphics Processor / Vendor ATI Radeon HD 2400XT
Processor / Memory Video Memory Installed 256 MB
Processor / Memory Technology GDDR3 SDRAM 64-bit
Processor / Memory Features Avivo Technology, fanless heatsink, GIGABYTE Screen-Cooling
Video Output API Supported OpenGL 2.0, DirectX 10
Video Output Max Monitors Supported 2
Video Output TV Interface HDTV out
Video Output Digital Video Standard Digital Visual Interface (DVI)
Video Output HDCP compatible Yes
Expansion / Connectivity Interfaces 1 x DVI-I (dual link) - 29 pin combined DVI æ#130;¦ 1 x VGA - 15 pin HD D-Sub (HD-15) æ#130;¦ 1 x HDTV output
Expansion / Connectivity Compatible Slots 1 x PCI Express x16
More From Ebuyer:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
GAVINLEWISHUKD Avatar
8y, 1m agoFound 8 years, 1 month ago
Options

All Comments

(33) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
wouldnt get your hopes up with this i posted one a while back similar for same purpose and got freezing but good luck
#2
ALERT! Graphics card post on Hot Deals! ALERT!

"s'rubbish - mine cost £250 LOL!"

"does not have HDMI - voted cold and I hate you for posting lol pmsl"

"like Vista, this gfx card sucks - dude for £25 I could buy extra warlocks for my D&D"
#3
It may not be a card for Crysis in full, but I've got a low profile, passive 2400 pro running in my Dell, and it runs Spore at 1200 with everything turned on at a perfectly good speed. I'd say, rather than "not one for gamers", more "not one for online competitive FPS gamers" :)

Majik
#4
how much better is this than a Radeon X1300 Pro that I got with my Dell system would you say?
#5
ATi Fanboys : http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/131

nVidia Fanboys : http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/132

Watch out, the "Larrabee Boys" are coming... :p
#6
Cheaper here @ £20.79:
http://www.ballicom.co.uk/audio-visual/video-cards/gigabyte-gv-rx24t256hp--graphics-adapter--radeon-hd-2400xt--256-mb.p308534.html
but delivery isn't shown, so unlikely to be cheaper overall, however they do web order & collect for anyone local to Coventry.
I live close, but have never been there, (they have been there some time) so can't advise on what sort of company they are.

I have found this item at MUCH lower prices elsewhere, but it seems to be discontinued now, so out of stock in those places - maybe a case of buy it now or it will soon be gone?
#7
Cold for me.

256MB is a joke. 1gb is the minimum you need now.

The 2400 XT is rubbish for any kind of 3D gaming. It's not much better than the onboard you get in cheap PCs from rubbish brands like Dell.

Oh and it's ATI LOLz.

Save your money and buy something half-decent.
#8
joeybutterface
Cold for me.

256MB is a joke. 1gb is the minimum you need now.

The 2400 XT is rubbish for any kind of 3D gaming. It's not much better than the onboard you get in cheap PCs from rubbish brands like Dell.

Oh and it's ATI LOLz.

Save your money and buy something half-decent.


:whistling:

It's far better than onboard graphics, has hardware decoding for HD and would work very well in a media centre. As for being from "ATI LOLz" - well I guess you missed the boat on who has the fastest card out right now (HD4870X2) and how ATI pretty much devastated nVidia's pricing for the 2xx series of late.

Aside from all that, yeah, you're bang on love.

Speaking as a GTX280 owner :thumbsup:
(who also has a 2400XT and 8600GTS in other systems)
#9
joeybutterface
Cold for me.

256MB is a joke. 1gb is the minimum you need now.

The 2400 XT is rubbish for any kind of 3D gaming. It's not much better than the onboard you get in cheap PCs from rubbish brands like Dell.

Oh and it's ATI LOLz.

Save your money and buy something half-decent.


Firstly, the increased memory size is relevant only to those playing extremely high resolutions (2500+)

Secondly, for the price this is a very playable graphics card, capable of handling most modern games, with decent settings at a good resolution

So if you are looking for a cheap upgrade for your onboard graphics / old card then this is a good deal
#10
dangel
:whistling:

It's far better than onboard graphics, has hardware decoding for HD and would work very well in a media centre. As for being from "ATI LOLz" - well I guess you missed the boat on who has the fastest card out right now (HD4870X2) and how ATI pretty much devastated nVidia's pricing for the 2xx series of late.

Aside from all that, yeah, you're bang on love.

Speaking as a GTX280 owner :thumbsup:
(who also has a 2400XT and 8600GTS in other systems)


The only folk ATI has devasted are those poor gamers who have been crying about FPS performance versus current gen. Nvidia's. Believe me, it's not even close.

This card is useless for gaming. It would probably struggle to handle Solitare in Windows XP without lag.

It also has a tendency to overheat and lock up in Vista. It's no good for Aero effects.

If you want to cheap out on a 256mb card get one of the Nvidia's. It'll cost a bit more but you'll get noticably better performance than this line of rubbish that you'd struggle to sell for even a fiver at a car boot sale.

Otherwise stick with onboard.

This is £23 for a reason. It's the usual junk from ATI. And I expect to see their current gen. 1gb cards at this price point before christmas. ;)
#11
joeybutterface
The only folk ATI has devasted are those poor gamers who have been crying about FPS performance versus current gen. Nvidia's. Believe me, it's not even close.

This card is useless for gaming. It would probably struggle to handle Solitare in Windows XP without lag.

It also has a tendency to overheat and lock up in Vista. It's no good for Aero effects.

If you want to cheap out on a 256mb card get one of the Nvidia's. It'll cost a bit more but you'll get noticably better performance than this line of rubbish that you'd struggle to sell for even a fiver at a car boot sale.

Otherwise stick with onboard.

This is £23 for a reason. It's the usual junk from ATI. And I expect to see their current gen. 1gb cards at this price point before christmas. ;)

Go away you - [COLOR="Red"][SIZE="7"]troll[/SIZE][/COLOR]
both Nvidia and ATI make good cards. Depending on budget.

This card whilst not being the best in the world can handle and decode HD videos taking the work off the cpu meaning that a computer with a poor CPU can still watch high quality videos.

Ontop of that whilst not being the fastest gfx card in the world its a hell of alot faster than any onboard card available at the moment, and for a price of £23 delivered it is a bargain.
#12
Is this passively cooled? Kinda looks like it from the picture.

I need something (pref with HDMI) for my mythtv HTPC thats cheap.
#13
Boxrick

Ontop of that whilst not being the fastest gfx card in the world its a hell of alot faster than any onboard card available at the moment, and for a price of £23 delivered it is a bargain.


Once again it's not a hell of alot faster than onboard. It's ATI. ATI is about the same as onboard. So if you're using onboard from Intel don't bother with this.
#14
about nvidia and ati war, and about both making good video cards:

it is known you get more FPS per £ from ATI not Nvidia
it is known Nvidia uses more Watts per FPS than ATI
it is known both do good cards, and from season to season each one has the best card on the market

i simply prefer ATI because it has more stable drivers, doesnt overheat like **** and their top of the range costs less than nvidia's

at the moment i have an 8800GTX, yeah nvidia. it used to do 101C under load. i had to buy 60£ worth of extra cooling to fix it. way to go!
#15
joeybutterface
Once again it's not a hell of alot faster than onboard. It's ATI. ATI is about the same as onboard. So if you're using onboard from Intel don't bother with this.


lol genious, ati has the most powerful gfx card at the moment! :thumbsup:
#16
joeybutterface
Once again it's not a hell of alot faster than onboard. It's ATI. ATI is about the same as onboard. So if you're using onboard from Intel don't bother with this.


I very much doubt that.

I bought a Dell vostro C2D E4600 2Gb with onboard gfx dec last year (on the basis of hot deal on this site so TVM :)) that onboard sucked big time and bought even the optimistic Vista speed test down to 3.8. Even slinging in an Ati x1650pro bought that Vista speed test up to 4.8 so I can't see this being any worse for very little outlay :shrug:
#17
and again geniuses compare apples with forks.
both ati and nvidia do good cards, both did **** cards in the past. you cannot base your opinion only on one experience.
for the trolls out there, check out this chart. it is a little old and has some gfx cards missing, but you get the general idea:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Sum-of-FPS-Benchmarks-Totals,795.html


PS: ATI HD 4870X2 should be somewhere on top, but they haven't benchmarked it yet
#18
and about crysis on full detail: it is not worth it.
it has good graphics, but the story and gameplay is total ****. one of the most repetitive games ever. same with assasin's creed.
last game i trully enjoyed was Half Life 2. waiting for gta4 pc.....




what i really like on **** gfx cards is that the seller always seems to forget to add GPU and memory frequency to their descriptions
#19
There's no base in reality to any "benchmark" that suggests ATI beats the NVIDIA equivalent in the lab. I do this for a living. I know that NVIDIA is the only name that matters when it comes to gaming and serious multimedia demands.

ATI is good for low budgets I agree. But today there's plenty of choice from NVIDIA that offers good options for working class people with a small budget.

I apologise for coming across as a cheerleader somewhat. But these posts anger me trying to convince people that paying £24 for junk is a bargain. It's not. Save the money and buy something better next month.
#20
very true, the above card is ****. if i was on a budget i would rather buy an used card on ebay .
for under 30£ you can get an 8600 or X1900. great performance for the price

and about nvidia vs ati, for someone who does benchmaring for living, do you think ATi would survive if it didnt pull out cards better than nvidia a from time to time? i remember when i bought my X1950XTX it was the best on the market. for 2 months
#21
joeybutterface
Once again it's not a hell of alot faster than onboard. It's ATI. ATI is about the same as onboard. So if you're using onboard from Intel don't bother with this.


Well as the most used on-board graphics chip is the X3100 and your saying this is no faster then you are just mad!

I set the challange in the opening post find me a faster/better card for £25? Over a full set of benchmarks(upto 1650x1050) you'll be looking at a 8600GT and you that will cost you twice the price.
But as I said prove me wrong!
#22
Hi, all i hope i can ask a simple question without copping some of the agro and testosterone thats flying about on this thread :P

Ive just ordered the card that was on the site a couple of days ago and i was wondering which of the 2 cards is better??

Im on back order, so cancelling it isnt a problem if need be.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/257541/play-value-geforce-8400gs-256mb-gra/

Thanks in advance

Tim
#23
taffytim205
Hi, all i hope i can ask a simple question without copping some of the agro and testosterone thats flying about on this thread :P

Ive just ordered the card that was on the site a couple of days ago and i was wondering which of the 2 cards is better??

Im on back order, so cancelling it isnt a problem if need be.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/257541/play-value-geforce-8400gs-256mb-gra/

Thanks in advance

Tim


This card is the better card about 25% faster uses less power and runs cooler. You can also overclock it with ATi's catalyst control centre if you so wish to. But as its passive it you wont be able to massively overclock it. I have a 8400gs and a 2400xt and would take the ATi everyday. The 2400xt is much better with HD content too.
#24
GAVINLEWISHUKD
This card is the better card about 25% faster uses less power and runs cooler. You can also overclock it with ATi's catalyst control centre if you so wish to. But as its passive it you wont be able to massively overclock it. I have a 8400gs and a 2400xt and would take the ATi everyday. The 2400xt is much better with HD content too.


Many thanks,

Ill get the other card cancelled.
#25
joeybutterface
There's no base in reality to any "benchmark" that suggests ATI beats the NVIDIA equivalent in the lab. I do this for a living. I know that NVIDIA is the only name that matters when it comes to gaming and serious multimedia demands.

ATI is good for low budgets I agree. But today there's plenty of choice from NVIDIA that offers good options for working class people with a small budget.

I apologise for coming across as a cheerleader somewhat. But these posts anger me trying to convince people that paying £24 for junk is a bargain. It's not. Save the money and buy something better next month.


Mate, you are talking utter ****.

Complete fanboyism at it's worst.

Both manufacturers make good cards, and this certainly isn't a bad one. X1650 will offer better performance around the same price, but this will handle HD output better, and such is great for media machines. It will also handle all but the most hardcore of games on med settings at lower resolutions (1024x768).

I have no allegiance to either manufacturer. I buy whatever gives the best bang for buck at any given time.

X1800XT, followed by a 8800GT, and now with a 4850. All performed great at the time and for their cost, so stop trying to imply that one is better than another.

And thinking nvdia are better because they spend marketing dollars on advertising in games is just being a good little consumer.

Voted hot
#26
taffytim205
Ive just ordered the card that was on the site a couple of days ago and i was wondering which of the 2 cards is better??


Technically the 2400XT is better, but as there are much faster cards you may not notice the difference much. There's going to be a lot of situations where both are good enough and some where neither are good enough but very few where the 8400GS isn't good enough, but the 2400XT is.
#27
joeybutterface
There's no base in reality to any "benchmark" that suggests ATI beats the NVIDIA equivalent in the lab. I do this for a living. I know that NVIDIA is the only name that matters when it comes to gaming and serious multimedia demands.

ATI is good for low budgets I agree. But today there's plenty of choice from NVIDIA that offers good options for working class people with a small budget.

I apologise for coming across as a cheerleader somewhat. But these posts anger me trying to convince people that paying £24 for junk is a bargain. It's not. Save the money and buy something better next month.


Do you live in a cave or something; ahve you not seen how the 4850 and 4870 are dominating the market at the moment!? only the GTX260 is showing any kind of high end price vs performance! and in the top level gaming sector, 4870x2 beats the GTX280

didnt nvidia have issues with chips being recalled due to overheating recently...dont seem like the same company you claim 'is the only name that matters when it comes to gaming and serious multimedia demands'
#28
(Sigh) Fanboy threads....

Anyone want to change the subject to Mac vs Vista? Or PS3 vs Xbox360?
#29
joeybutterface
There's no base in reality to any "benchmark" that suggests ATI beats the NVIDIA equivalent in the lab. I do this for a living. I know that NVIDIA is the only name that matters when it comes to gaming and serious multimedia demands.

ATI is good for low budgets I agree. But today there's plenty of choice from NVIDIA that offers good options for working class people with a small budget.

I apologise for coming across as a cheerleader somewhat. But these posts anger me trying to convince people that paying £24 for junk is a bargain. It's not. Save the money and buy something better next month.

I find it amazing you "do this for a living" and have never heard of the 4850, which kicks the 9800GTX's ass?
#30
Wow, what a load of unhelpful fanboy dross from a new user.

At this level, this is a nice passive card to move off of integrated graphics. Just the ting for a media centre or for a casual gamer or for someone who wants a bit more performance on thier budget/low-end machine with a PCI slot. 256mb memory is adequate - the memory size affects mostly what textures you can efficiently use. 512mb is nice for better textures, 1gb is overkill (currently).
#31
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]As mentioned in the previous comments (amongst the constant drone of fanboys and trolls:whistling:) this card is capable of HD video playback? will this card be capable of playing back say 1080p?:w00t:

Thanks in advance!:thumbsup:[/FONT]
#32
Now expired, sadly.
#33
CeeBee;3735870
Now expired, sadly.
If you were specifically looking for one, this HD 2600 Pro for £20 could make a comeback.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!