13" MBP Intel HD 3000 GPU

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by SnowLeopard2008, Jun 22, 2011.

  1. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #1
    I just wanted to comment on the Intel HD 3000 graphics chipset that is used in the Sandy Bridge MacBook Pros. It's not that bad! Many people, especially those in the MBA section, were basically spelling out doomsday when Sandy Bridge MBAs are released. I know the chipset is slightly different, underpowered/underclocked, etc. for ULV Core iX processors, but it's honestly not that bad. I quickly forgot about the graphics when I use the computer. Everything was quick and very speedy.

    I even exported a couple of 720P videos in iMovie. I did not notice a slowdown at all. It performed much better than the 9400M in my previous 15" MBP and slightly faster than the 320M in the 13" MBP I was borrowing from someone. I haven't tested out gaming just yet but I don't game anyway since in my view, it's an absolute waste of time. I just wanted to tell the Intel graphics naysayers out there that the HD 3000 isn't as bad as people make it out to be. I think the turbo boost in the Core i5/i7 chips make up for the negligible difference in graphics performance for most tasks.
     
  2. hockey89 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    #2
    someone who doesn't game (and calling it a waste of time in the process) giving their opinion on a graphics card doesn't hold much weight.
    no offence to you.
     
  3. Oppressed macrumors 65816

    Oppressed

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #3
    Video exporting relies on the CPU over the GPU. You would see the difference in 3D programs and games.
     
  4. SnowLeopard2008 thread starter macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #4
    I know that. It struggles a little bit with some AutoDesk programs and Mathematica. But so did the 320M and 9600M GT. It's just that even people who don't game complain about the HD 3000 so much like it's the plague. It's honestly not that bad and it performs just as well as the 320M.
     
  5. klamse25 macrumors 6502a

    klamse25

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #5
    I happen to agree with you. It's not useless as everyone else put it out to be.

    It handles all the system animations very smoothly.
    I play a few games from Steam and compared to my 460 gtx on my desktop, it's pretty slow, but bearable.

    The IGP isn't useless for games though.
     
  6. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #6
    Its the stigma that's doing it, not the reality of the product. Intel integrated graphics has been rubbish ever since they began making them, its much like Hyundai's cars, every time they release one you expect it to be horrible even before you see it. But then they made a handful of truly good cars, and the whole world is still trying to get around that fact.

    This isn't going to take down any high end discrete Nvidia chip, but it will compete with the entry level chips very well.

    My basis for comparison is several Source games on a Core2Duo 2.2Ghz / Nvidia 8400M vs Intel i7 / HD3000.

    The Nvidia 8400M is based on the G84 chip which is also shared with the Nvidia 9400M and Nvidia 320M used in previous MBP 13" laptops (slight differences but for all intensive purposes, its the same chip).

    CounterStrike Source: Max settings, 50-60fps solidly @ 1280x800 on the HD3000, 30-60fps at max settings on the 8400M with occasional slowdowns to 10fps in smoke

    Other Source games: Medium settings 40-60fps solidly @ 1280x800 on the HD3000, 20-60fps with occasional slowdowns on the 8400M

    World Of Warcraft: Medium settings 40-60fps (occasional slowdowns to 25-30fps) @ 1280x800 on the HD3000, 15-60fps (occasional slowdowns to 5-15fps) on the 8400M.

    World Of Warcrft (In Orgrimmar crowded): HD3000 above 30fps always, often above 45fps Nvidia 8400M below 30fps always, sometimes much lower

    When you factor in the 1280x800 res of the 13" and the very overpowered CPU (which does mean that while it may not be helping 3D performance, it certainly won't be hindering it) the HD3000 is a nice solution, that does perform better than the previous 320M, in the order of 10-25% depending on situation.
     
  7. ReddDraggon macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Location:
    North Wales or Manchester
    #7
    I'm really into gaming and have a 13" 2011 MBP, and the HD3000 is fine.

    When I want to game I use my x58 i7 desktop with 2xHD5870 in CrossFireX or my Xbox 360. Once you've been spoiled by dual 5870s, 13" laptop gaming is a letdown whatever whatever the GPU. It's my opinion that if you bought the 13" MBP for gaming you bought the wrong system.
     
  8. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #8
    Seconded on that.

    I honestly do think that mated with a relatively low res screen like the 13 its a great match
     
  9. DWBurke811 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    Location:
    Boca Raton, FL
    #9
    dsio; the saying is for all intents and purposes, not "for all intensive purposes". Sorry, stuff like that is a pet peeve of mine.
     
  10. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #10
    My mother is an English teacher, no need to apologize, its an experience I'm quite accustomed to.
     
  11. thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    #11
    There is no such thing as a 8400M on a Macbook Pro. Not sure where you are getting all your numbers from .. There's a 9400M and the 320M. There 320M is approx 2X faster than the 9400M. Multiple reviews have pegged the HD3000 as approx same speed as the 320M in Mac OS, but significantly slower than the 320M in Windows Bootcamp.

    You will get the highest frame rates on most games in Windows Bootcamp on the 320M.
     
  12. silverf1re macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    #12
    So what leisure activities do you participate in so I can tell you how they are a waste of time.
     
  13. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #13
    Not basing the 8400M on a mac, I'm a Linux refugee that ended up here after the last quality laptop manufacturer (IBM) stopped making good laptops. The 320M might be a bit better than the 8400M, but it is from the same generation, and at the speeds I had it clocked to, its as close a comparison as I can make for the 320M.
     
  14. Cali3350 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #14
    Its from the same generation but it is a vastly more powerful chip.
    The 8400/9400 have 16 shader processors while the 320m has 32. Right there you have double the pixel processing power. It also has twice the ROPs.
     
  15. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #15
    That would tend to fit rather well with the numbers in my post.
     
  16. jonnysods macrumors 603

    jonnysods

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Location:
    There & Back Again
    #16
    I'm very pleased with my 13". It replaced a 2010 15" mbp with the 256mb 320m I think it was. I do notice the difference, the discrete card definitely helped in many areas but I'm very pleased with the 13". And I don't game on it - it's a little pointless for me.
     
  17. Blue Sun macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #17
    The 2010 15" has the GT 330m, a discrete card which is much more powerful than the integrated 320m found in the 2010 13".

    The HD 3000 is very capable when using Mac OSX, its performance suffers however when running games in Boot Camp.

    To me there is no contest between the 2010 13" and 2011 model, the new Sandy Bridge Core i5 and i7 smash the Core 2 Duo so much that it nullifies the slightly worse graphics chip.
    Of course I'd have to reassess if the primary purpose was gaming in Boot Camp, but who buys a 13" MBP primarily for gaming?
     
  18. ipodlover77 macrumors 65816

    ipodlover77

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    #18
    question, when you say suffer in boot camp, do you mean it achieves LESS frames than running it in mac osx or do u mean that it suffers in bootcamp when it goes against the 320m. I always thought that more fps were achieved in bootcamp. :confused:
     
  19. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #19
    Could well be that Apple forced the issue with respect to driver tuning before release, I know that right now the driver performance of HD3000 chips on Linux is considerably off compared to both Windows and OSX performance, while Nvidia's drivers are effectively identical between all three platforms.

    The other factor is that on Windows you're looking at DirectX 3D rather than OpenGL on Linux / OSX. If the Intel drivers have been better tuned for the later it could easily explain the difference.
     
  20. MastaK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    #20
    Does HD3000 have any problem running dual screen set up (laptop monitor + w/ 27" ACD) at all?

    I may upgrade my work computer to 13" pretty soon and I definitely need more desktop space.
     
  21. CptAwesome macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    #21
    Getting my MBP13 tomorrow... Excited about this integrated GPU as it will be a fair step up from my 9400M... Mind you i haven't had a single problem with that on my iMac... I don't game and only occasionally do CAD so im expecting a winner :)

    Luke
     
  22. dsio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2011
    Location:
    Australia
    #22
    I'm running a 1920x1200 Dell 24" off it with the mini-displayport -> DVI-D adapter and its smooth as.
     
  23. h00ligan macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    A hot desert
    #23
    right because gaming is all that matters when it comes to gpu :rolleyes:
     
  24. h00ligan macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2003
    Location:
    A hot desert
    #24
    It's also against the TOS of the site, fwiw.
     
  25. thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    #25
    In fact it has triple. The 320M has 48 processors. Theoretically it is up to 3X faster, but in real life it is "only" about 2x-2.5x faster.
     

Share This Page