Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:10 AM   #1
AppleMacFinder
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exclamation Intel Graphics HD3000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 320M/330M GT - Real Benchmarks and Comparison



All the benchmarks were taken from www.notebookcheck.net.
The results are quite reliable, I have used this source for years.

According to benchmarks, HD3000 is BETTER than 320M !

Also, remember that 320M has 256MB of shared memory,
while HD3000 has 384MB - 1.5x more memory for game textures!

But it is worse than 330M GT, if don't count the Cinebench.

Hope this information will help you to make a right choice.
AppleMacFinder is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:12 AM   #2
Chwisch87
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
The Theoretical output is technically faster, but you have to one figure that game code has been designed with gpu's like the 320/330m in mine and that Intel obviously is gonna have to work on drivers.
__________________
15" Macbook Pro - iPhone 4 32GB - iPad 2 16GB
Chwisch87 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:15 AM   #3
melterx12
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
by your logic the HD 3000 should be even faster than what those benchmarks show, since Nvidia's drivers are probably much better than intel's.
melterx12 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:16 AM   #4
mgartner0622
macrumors 65816
 
mgartner0622's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Colorado, USA
Send a message via Skype™ to mgartner0622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chwisch87 View Post
The Theoretical output is technically faster, but you have to one figure that game code has been designed with gpu's like the 320/330m in mine and that Intel obviously is gonna have to work on drivers.
Yeah, Intel's last couple of cards were pretty terrible when they first came out, although driver improvements slightly made them better.
Hopefully we see some Apple Driver Updates for these new Intel Cards. You never know.
__________________
15" Late '11 2.5GHz MacBook Pro, Mac Mini Server 2.6GHz , Thunderbolt Display x2, iPod Classic 120GB, iPhone 4S 64GB, Lenovo ThinkPad X240
mgartner0622 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:17 AM   #5
Beaverman3001
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
A lot of these tests give the grade based on cpu and gpu, so it isn't a great direct comparison for just video performance. That and the 320m will naturally have more mature drivers.
Beaverman3001 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:21 AM   #6
dagamer34
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaverman3001 View Post
A lot of these tests give the grade based on cpu and gpu, so it isn't a great direct comparison for just video performance. That and the 320m will naturally have more mature drivers.
It's not like you can separate the Intel HD GPU from the same die the processors are on. If you have a Mac with a 320m, it has a Core 2 Duo. If you have a Mac with a Intel HD 3000, it has a Core i3/i5/i7.

Comparing video performance only would be useful if it were a desktop GPU that could be removed. It's not.

And more mature nVidia drivers should favor the 320M to be faster, not slower.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display | Mac mini | iPad Air with LTE | iPhone 6 Plus
dagamer34 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:21 AM   #7
FriarNurgle
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chwisch87 View Post
The Theoretical output is technically faster, but you have to one figure that game code has been designed with gpu's like the 320/330m in mine and that Intel obviously is gonna have to work on drivers.
So the HD3000 could potentially get better.

I've been town between the old (refurbs) and the new 13" MBP. The price difference just isn't that great even between the old higher model and base new model. So the potential of increase in performance in the newer model has me leaning towards a new one... but then I see the benchmarks for the new 15" models and start questioning myself and looking for change in the couch cushions.
FriarNurgle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:24 AM   #8
Evil Spoonman
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Adelaide, SA
Send a message via AIM to Evil Spoonman
notebookcheck is a good source. I expect the 320M to be similar to the HD3000, and I expect the GT 330M to be similar to the 6490M.
__________________
15" Retina MacBook Pro ( i7-3820QM, 16GB, 512GB )
TJ08-E, Asus Maximus VI Gene, GTX 780 Ti, i7-4770K, Corsair 16GB, SanDisk 512GB, SeasSonic X-750 V3
Evil Spoonman is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:24 AM   #9
Beaverman3001
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
It's not like you can separate the Intel HD GPU from the same die the processors are on. If you have a Mac with a 320m, it has a Core 2 Duo. If you have a Mac with a Intel HD 3000, it has a Core i3/i5/i7.

Comparing video performance only would be useful if it were a desktop GPU that could be removed. It's not.

And more mature nVidia drivers should favor the 320M to be faster, not slower.
Yes and no. The cpu performance won't always directly dictate FPS in a game, but it will dictate a higher score in those benchmarks. A better comparison would honestly be some side by side videos of games running on both systems.
Beaverman3001 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:28 AM   #10
AppleMacFinder
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Last gen

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgartner0622 View Post
Yeah, Intel's last couple of cards were pretty terrible when they first came out, although driver improvements slightly made them better.
Hopefully we see some Apple Driver Updates for these new Intel Cards. You never know.
Yes, all the previous generations of Intel Graphics sucked badly.
But the last one is acceptable, thanks to the architecture improvements.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:29 AM   #11
AppleMacFinder
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaverman3001 View Post
Yes and no. The cpu performance won't always directly dictate FPS in a game, but it will dictate a higher score in those benchmarks. A better comparison would honestly be some side by side videos of games running on both systems.
Look at the right side of a table - there are FPS benchmarks.
AppleMacFinder is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:31 AM   #12
henrikrox
macrumors 65816
 
henrikrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
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)

Epic fail. In the links you show you see the Intel 3000 being very slow in games like black ops. The intel 3000 hd can't play anything on medium settings.

Stop saying this is real benchmarks. You are just posting from a site.

And what you didn't think about Is that in the link you posted the intel igp is running along side a high end quad core mobile sandy bridge CPU. What do you think happens when you don't have that CPU and replace with a mid end i5 dual core which you find in the 13.

Learn to read the facts
__________________
15,4" rMBP, 2.7Ghz, 16GB RAM, Geforce GT650M, 512GB SSD.
henrikrox is offline   -4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:31 AM   #13
dagamer34
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beaverman3001 View Post
Yes and no. The cpu performance won't always directly dictate FPS in a game, but it will dictate a higher score in those benchmarks. A better comparison would honestly be some side by side videos of games running on both systems.
I was looking at the game benchmarks which showed more FPS. That's the desirable end result of any CPU/GPU changes.
__________________
15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display | Mac mini | iPad Air with LTE | iPhone 6 Plus
dagamer34 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:33 AM   #14
henrikrox
macrumors 65816
 
henrikrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Spoonman
notebookcheck is a good source. I expect the 320M to be similar to the HD3000, and I expect the GT 330M to be similar to the 6490M.
You can't just look at numbers and expect something that is fail 101.

No the intel 3000 hd is not as good as the 320m. Already been many 3d mark tests to prove that.

Not he and 6470 is not as good as the gt330m.

You can't just expect new stuff to be better
__________________
15,4" rMBP, 2.7Ghz, 16GB RAM, Geforce GT650M, 512GB SSD.
henrikrox is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:35 AM   #15
AppleMacFinder
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrikrox View Post
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)

Epic fail. In the links you show you see the Intel 3000 being very slow in games like black ops. The intel 3000 hd can't play anything on medium settings.

Stop saying this is real benchmarks. You are just posting from a site.

And what you didn't think about Is that in the link you posted the intel igp is running along side a high end quad core mobile sandy bridge CPU. What do you think happens when you don't have that CPU and replace with a mid end i5 dual core which you find in the 13.

Learn to read the facts
And where are the links?

Last edited by AppleMacFinder; Feb 25, 2011 at 08:41 AM.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:37 AM   #16
Beaverman3001
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleMacFinder View Post
Look at the right side of a table - there are FPS benchmarks.
For 2 games, one which is old. This is a pretty narrow picture, and doesn't list the specific settings used. There are tons of game companies who use different game engines and what not. If you only play those 2 games you are set I guess?
Beaverman3001 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 08:49 AM   #17
Evil Spoonman
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Adelaide, SA
Send a message via AIM to Evil Spoonman
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrikrox View Post
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)



You can't just look at numbers and expect something that is fail 101.

No the intel 3000 hd is not as good as the 320m. Already been many 3d mark tests to prove that.

Not he and 6470 is not as good as the gt330m.

You can't just expect new stuff to be better
Nice job totally assuming I'm retarded. Fortunately I don't just expect new stuff to be better, nor did I say it would be.

The question is harder than that. The HD 3000 is much further integrated than any previous IGP. It is power gated and monitored by SB's management subsystem. The fast L3 is shared with the GPU along the ring bus, as is the ability to turbo based on current TDP. Memory access is also faster due to the DMI bus, and you get more of it. Even if the HD 3000 has lower raw processing power, it has a lots of things working in its favour. Most of the problems we are seeing with it right now in games and at higher graphics settings are driver issues. These will obviously be cleaned up slowly as the drivers mature, and games begin to be tested against the new hardware. The potential for the HD 3000 to be as fast or faster than the 320M is definitely there on paper and in practice.

As for the GT 330M vs the 6490M, there are a lot more knowns in that arena. The memory bandwidth is identical, and the 6490M is faster in raw flops. The TDP of both chips are quite similar. Whether or not that materializes into performing in a very similar way to the GT 330M will depend on drivers as well. How Apple's implementation of Nvidia's drivers compare to AMD's. Overall I expect the new chip to be a bit slower, but not tremendously so.


By and large I feel like we got a side-grade in both sectors. I doubt any of the new base model stuff is going to be charging ahead, nor lagging behind too greatly. We have to remember that in the case of the HD 3000 this is Rev A hardware, it is new.
__________________
15" Retina MacBook Pro ( i7-3820QM, 16GB, 512GB )
TJ08-E, Asus Maximus VI Gene, GTX 780 Ti, i7-4770K, Corsair 16GB, SanDisk 512GB, SeasSonic X-750 V3
Evil Spoonman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:07 AM   #18
Littleodie914
macrumors 68000
 
Littleodie914's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rochester, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrikrox View Post
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.
Littleodie914 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:14 AM   #19
henrikrox
macrumors 65816
 
henrikrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Littleodie914
Quote:
Originally Posted by henrikrox
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 1280800

2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 = 4629
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m = 4754
Left 4 Dead 1280800 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.
__________________
15,4" rMBP, 2.7Ghz, 16GB RAM, Geforce GT650M, 512GB SSD.

Last edited by henrikrox; Feb 25, 2011 at 09:16 AM.
henrikrox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:18 AM   #20
henrikrox
macrumors 65816
 
henrikrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
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)

http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/

Here's the link. 12 fps less fps on average less compares to core 2 suo with a 320m. Even with a much faster CPU.

Can we stop staying the intel gpu is as good
__________________
15,4" rMBP, 2.7Ghz, 16GB RAM, Geforce GT650M, 512GB SSD.

Last edited by henrikrox; Feb 25, 2011 at 09:19 AM.
henrikrox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:19 AM   #21
AppleMacFinder
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Benchmarks

My table is based on 314 benchmarks.
It is far more accurate than a couple of results.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:20 AM   #22
henrikrox
macrumors 65816
 
henrikrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
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)

Like synthetic benchmarks means something.
__________________
15,4" rMBP, 2.7Ghz, 16GB RAM, Geforce GT650M, 512GB SSD.
henrikrox is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:23 AM   #23
AppleMacFinder
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
There are benchmarks for two games:
Doom and Crysis, measured in FPS - it's not synthetic.
HD3000 performed faster.
AppleMacFinder is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:27 AM   #24
henrikrox
macrumors 65816
 
henrikrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
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)

There are for black ops aswel. There are for left for dead aswel.

Core 2 duo with a 320m scored 50% higher fps then a intel 300 hd


3dmark 06 1280800

2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 = 4629
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m = 4754


It's all in the link I posted love hearing about all the people who bought the new 13 defending the intel 300"hd. But thy will be disappointed
__________________
15,4" rMBP, 2.7Ghz, 16GB RAM, Geforce GT650M, 512GB SSD.

Last edited by henrikrox; Feb 25, 2011 at 09:30 AM.
henrikrox is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2011, 09:30 AM   #25
AppleMacFinder
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
AppleMacFinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Black Ops and Left for Dead benchmarks based on a couple of results.
Doom 3 and Crysis benchmarks based on more than three hundred.

P.S. I do not have a 13" 2011. Nor I am going to buy one.
AppleMacFinder is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Notebooks > MacBook Pro

Tags
benchmarks, geforce, graphics, intel, nvidia

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel HD Graphics 5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT 256 MB patstewart MacBook Air 13 Aug 23, 2014 05:58 AM
Intel hd 4000 vs nvidia 320m? dHk MacBook Pro 41 Jan 26, 2014 10:18 AM
How does Intel HD 5000 compare to NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M? Works4Me MacBook Air 0 Jul 12, 2013 02:14 PM
Performance Comparison: Intel Haswell vs NVIDIA GeForce 700M WWDC2013 MacBook Pro 12 Jun 10, 2013 05:09 AM
where can I find NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M 512MB GDDR3 edvin MacBook Pro 4 Mar 15, 2013 07:54 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps