FirePro 2450 vs RADEON E2400
FirePro 2450
Popular choices:
RADEON E2400
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar RADEON E2400
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON E2400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro 2450.
| Insight | FirePro 2450 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro 2450 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FirePro 2450 holds the technical lead. Priced at $10 (vs $100), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 880.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro 2450 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+880.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($10) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro 2450 and RADEON E2400
FirePro 2450
The FirePro 2450 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 16 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 51 points.
RADEON E2400
The RADEON E2400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1183 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 52 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro 2450 scores 51 and the RADEON E2400 reaches 52 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro 2450 is built on GCN 1.0 while the RADEON E2400 uses GCN 4.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 384 (FirePro 2450) vs 384 (RADEON E2400). Raw compute: 0.5491 TFLOPS (FirePro 2450) vs 0.9085 TFLOPS (RADEON E2400).
| Feature | FirePro 2450 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 51 | 52+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5491 TFLOPS | 0.9085 TFLOPS+65% |
| ROPs | 8 | 16+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro 2450 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (FirePro 2450) vs 512 KB (RADEON E2400) — the RADEON E2400 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro 2450 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro 2450 draws 150W versus the RADEON E2400's 50W — a 100% difference. The RADEON E2400 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro 2450) vs 350W (RADEON E2400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | FirePro 2450 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 50W-67% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | 170mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.3 | 1.0+233% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro 2450 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $10, while the RADEON E2400 launched at $100 and now averages $100. The FirePro 2450 costs 90% less ($90 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 5.1 (FirePro 2450) vs 0.5 (RADEON E2400) — the FirePro 2450 offers 920% better value. The RADEON E2400 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2013).
| Feature | FirePro 2450 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-90% | $100 |
| Performance per Dollar | 5.1+920% | 0.5 |
| Codename | Opal | Lexa |
| Release | October 16 2013 | April 20 2017 |
| Ranking | #879 | #773 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro 2450 and RADEON E2400
