Select any two GPUs for comparison
VS

Gaming Performance Comparison

Recommended System Requirements
Game Radeon X1050 Radeon HD 2400 Pro
Cyberpunk 2077 7640% 7286%
Assassins Creed: Valhalla 6979% 6655%
Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War 6749% 6436%
Hitman 3 9968% 9508%
Grand Theft Auto VI 10790% 10292%
FIFA 21 3804% 3625%
Far Cry 6 11099% 10586%
Genshin Impact 7640% 7286%
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands 10996% 10488%
Watch Dogs Legion 7366% 7024%

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.

Game FPS Benchmarks On Ultra

GPU Architecture

Core Speed400 MHzvs525 MHz
Boost Clock-vs-
ArchitectureRV370RV610
OC Potential Fair vs Good
Driver Support - vs -
Release Date07 Dec 2006vs28 Jun 2007
GPU LinkGD LinkGD Link
Approved
Comparison

GPU Memory

Memory128 MBvs256 MB
Memory Speed333 MHzvs400 MHz
Memory Bus64 Bitvs64 Bit
Memory TypeDDR2vsDDR2
Memory Bandwidth5.3GB/secvs6.4GB/sec
L2 Cache - vs -
Delta Color Compression no vs no
Memory Performance 0% green tick vs green tick 0%
Comparison

GPU Display

Shader Processing Units4vs40
Actual Shader Performance0%vs1%
Technology110nmvs65nm
Texture Mapping Units4vs4
Texture Rate1.6 GTexel/svs2.1 GTexel/s
Render Output Units4vs4
Pixel Rate1.6 GPixel/svs2.1 GPixel/s
Comparison

GPU Outputs

Max Digital Resolution (WxH)2560x1600vs2560x1600
VGA Connections1vs1
DVI Connections1vs1
HDMI Connections0vs0
DisplayPort Connections-vs-
Comparison

GPU Power Requirements

Max Power24 Wattsvs20 Watts
Recommended PSU300 Watts & 18 Ampsvs300 Watts & 18 Amps

GPU Features

DirectX9vs10
Shader Model2.0vs4.0
Open GL2.0vs3.1
Open CL-vs-
Notebook GPUnono
SLI/Crossfirenovsyes
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Comparison

GPU Supporting Hardware

Recommended Processor-Intel Pentium D 940 3.2 GHz
Recommended RAM-2 GB
Maximum Recommended Gaming Resolution-800x600

Gaming Performance Value

Performance Value

GPU Mini Review

Mini ReviewRadeon X1050 is an entry-level GFX based on the 110nm variant of the R300 architecture.
It's based on the RV370 Core and offers 4 Pixel Shaders, 4 TMUs and 4 ROPs, on a 64-bit of standard DDR2. The central unit runs at 400MHz and the memory clock operates at up to 333MHz. Expect a TDP of up to 24 Watt.
Radeon X1050 is not related to the rest of the X1000 Series GPUs due to being based on the R300 architecture and not on the R500. Its performance is relatively limited - even for DirectX 9 based games. As it's not based on a Shader-Unified architecture, both DirectX 10 & 11 games aren't supported.
Radeon HD 2400 Pro is an entry-level GPU based on the 65nm variant of the second unified shader architecture, R600.
It's based on the RV610 Core and offers 40 Shader Processing Units, 4 TMUs and 4 ROPs a 64-bit memory interface of standard DDR2. The central unit runs at 525MHz and the memory clock runs at up to 400MHz. It's therefore a higher clocked Radeon HD 2350 Pro and should only be somewhat faster.
Today's games only playable at unattractive resolutions and using low (most likely) or medium (maybe) presets. Its performance, is however, quite superior to the integrated Radeon HD 2100. DirectX 11 games aren't supported.
Recommended CPU
-
Possible GPU Upgrades
-
GPU Variants
-