In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the AMD Radeon HD 2400 Pro are marginally better than the AMD Radeon X1050.

The HD 2400 has a 125 MHz higher core clock speed and the same number of Texture Mapping Units as the Radeon X1050. This results in the HD 2400 providing 0.5 GTexel/s better texturing performance. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since the HD 2400 supports up to DirectX 10.

The HD 2400 has a 125 MHz higher core clock speed than the Radeon X1050 and the same number of Render Output Units. This results in the HD 2400 providing 0.5 GPixel/s better pixeling performance. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.

The HD 2400 was released less than a year after the Radeon X1050, and so they are likely to have similar driver support for optimizing performance when running the latest games.

Both GPUs exhibit very poor performance, so rather than upgrading from one to the other you should consider looking at more powerful GPUs. Neither of these will be able to run the latest games in any playable way.

The HD 2400 has 128 MB more video memory than the Radeon X1050, so is likely to be slightly better at displaying game textures at higher resolutions. This is supported by the fact that the HD 2400 also has superior memory performance overall.

The HD 2400 has 1.1 GB/sec greater memory bandwidth than the Radeon X1050, which means that the memory performance of the HD 2400 is marginally better than the Radeon X1050.

The Radeon X1050 has 4 Shader Processing Units and the Radeon HD 2400 Pro has 40. However, the actual shader performance of the Radeon X1050 is 1 and the actual shader performance of the HD 2400 is 21. The HD 2400 having 20 better shader performance and an altogether better performance when taking into account other relevant data means that the HD 2400 delivers a marginally smoother and more efficient experience when processing graphical data than the Radeon X1050.

The HD 2400 transistor size technology is 45 nm (nanometers) smaller than the Radeon X1050. This means that the HD 2400 is expected to run much cooler and achieve higher clock frequencies than the Radeon X1050. While they exhibit similar graphical performance, the HD 2400 should consume less power than the Radeon X1050.

The Radeon X1050 requires 24 Watts to run and the Radeon HD 2400 Pro requires 20 Watts. We would recommend a PSU with at least 300 Watts for the Radeon X1050 and a PSU with at least 300 Watts for the HD 2400. The Radeon X1050 requires 4 Watts more than the HD 2400 to run. The difference is not significant enough for the Radeon X1050 to have a noticeably larger impact on your yearly electricity bills than the HD 2400.