Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Littleodie914 said:
henrikrox said:
No the intel 3000 hd is not as good as the 320m. Already been many 3d mark tests to prove that.
Well the OP posted links to a site with actual benchmark results demonstrating that (in ALL 4 3DMark versions) the HD 3000 actually is faster. Until you can provide sources stating otherwise, it's your word against his actual proof.
3dmark 06 1280×800
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 = 4629
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m = 4754
Left 4 Dead 1280×800 Med Settings (click here to see details of settings)
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min/max/avg) = 38 / 90 / 63
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min/max/avg) = 53 / 92 / 75
Starcraft 2
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min/max/avg) = HOLD until 2/25 1pm
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min/max/avg) = HOLD until 2/25 1pm
Please understand this. The link provided is with a quad core high end CPU along with th intel 3000 hd. There has already been 3d mark
Posted by users here already
The 2010 mbp with a core 2 duo 2,4ghz and a 320m scored 4700 and the 2011 i5 mbp with intel igp scored 4600
Now you see how bad the gpu is? Because 3dmark also factor in CPU speed. And the i5 is clearly better then a core 2 duo.
Still it lost. Ill find a link to shut everyone up. Saying the 3000 hd is good.