Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Does the Intel HD 3000 really suck?

A

ana.la

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jan 2, 2011
22
0
i've been following macrumors for the past couples months waiting for the MBP update and you guys only have bad things to say about intel graphics hd 3000.

i need to buy the 13'. i need the portability and i'm pretty sure the leaked specs will meet my needs as i will be doing nothing more than web, office, itunes and some photoshop just for fun.
but, sometimes i like to play a few games. i'm not a heavy gamer, just the sims 3, civilization, maybe mass effect with boot camp and a few others.i don't need to play it at max, but i would like the game to run smoothly. will the intel hd 3000 be enough?

and also, do you guys really think the white macbook will be discontinued? because i don't think i need the MBP, since firewire/light peak (thunderbolt?) will do nothing for me and although i think the aluminium is pretty, i don't mind getting the plastic one. and i really don't think i would feel the difference with my daily needs, am i wrong?
 
The question to keep in mind is has anyone who ragged on the intel actually used one?

All I gotta say... Take it with a grain of salt... The new intels are likely to out perform any of the low end nvidia offerings in previous models. (Example: My alienware M11x has an intel gfx and nvidia 335m... The 335 is there for gaming, But fun enough, I can run left for dead and wow off of the intel crap gfx without much issue.

People do not give the intel cards enough credit for day to day tasks thanks to the GMA line they put out a few years back... Now those cards sucked bigtime!

Edit: I doubt the good ole white plastic macbook will go away. Its the great equalizer for apple (Their way into the mid to low end budget PC market that every other PC they make is priced out of.) I expect apple to drop the price on them as the years go on and slowly bring it down to somewhere around the $799 point where it will stay forever! (WARNING: RANDOM GUESS!)
 
It's better than the 9400M but a little worse than the 320M. It should be fine for what you want to do.
 
I agree with C01E. The GMAs pissed people off so much that they are tainted. As far as your "light duty gaming", the HD3000 should be adequate. If it meets your requirements, then you are fine.
 
Tailpike1153 said:
I agree with C01E. The GMAs pissed people off so much that they are tainted. As far as your "light duty gaming", the HD3000 should be adequate. If it meets your requirements, then you are fine.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I bet you would be able to run any 2D related game fine, And perhaps some 3D games. A good example is in WoW you could probably run the game on low to mid settings without too much hassle as long as you avoid cities like the plague! (Too much stuff on screen, Can bring a high end card to its knees so I don't expect too much from the intel card.)
 
I'm guessing StarCraft II is a little more demanding in terms of graphics, so would it still be running okay on the new graphics? If I think about it, it would probably run better on low settings and worse on medium settings in comparison with the 2010 MBP?
 
Extra battery life should outweigh gaming performance for everyone who really needs this computer.
 
sivosam said:
Does anyone know how well it plays 1080p on external 27" display?
Click to expand...

Should run great so long as Apple provides hardware acceleration API's(which they are pretty much guaranteed to) for the new Intel IGP.


4everZero said:
I'm guessing StarCraft II is a little more demanding in terms of graphics, so would it still be running okay on the new graphics? If I think about it, it would probably run better on low settings and worse on medium settings in comparison with the 2010 MBP?
Click to expand...
It will run fine.
 
aiqw9182 said:
Should run great so long as Apple provides hardware acceleration API's(which they are pretty much guaranteed to) for the new Intel IGP.



It will run fine.
Click to expand...

SC2 runs ok on an old ATI 2600 GPU on Med-High. I doubt that Intel GPU will do more than Low-Med.

Cheers,
 
aiqw9182 said:
The 2600 performs worse than these new Intel graphics.
Click to expand...

Notebookcheck has the 4 year old ATI HD2600 just above the new Intel 3000HD

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html

» Mobility FireGL V5700
» Mobility Radeon HD 5145
» Mobility Radeon HD 545v
» Mobility Radeon HD 4570
» Radeon HD 6450M *
» GeForce 410M *
» Mobility Radeon HD 5450 *
» Quadro FX 570M
» GeForce 8600M GT
» Mobility Radeon HD 2600
» HD Graphics 3000
» GeForce 310M
» Quadro FX 380M
» GeForce G210M
» GeForce 315M
» NVS 3100M
» GeForce Go 7600 GT
» GeForce 9500M G
» GeForce 8600M GS

Not a fan of these low end chip-based GPUs but Apple (and Sony) obsession with thin mean lower end GPUs. No thanks.

Cheers,
 
No laptop bearing the suffix name PRO should be having integrated graphics. Point blanc.
 
The i5 in the new 13" mbp should HUGELY OUTWEIGHT the benefits of the Nvidia 320 being slightly better than the HD 3000.
 
sivosam said:
Does anyone know how well it plays 1080p on external 27" display?
Click to expand...

Even the 9400M on my mid-2009 MBP is just fine for 1080p. The system is fast enough to even do that without GPU decoding though video player choice becomes more important then for some reason.

HD 3k should be ok for anything but 3D games. Since Macbook Pros aren't really meant to be serious gaming machines I don't think it's a big issue if they're slightly slower than the 320M if it means better battery life.
 
panzer06 said:
Notebookcheck has the 4 year old ATI HD2600 just above the new Intel 3000HD

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html


Not a fan of these low end chip-based GPUs but Apple (and Sony) obsession with thin mean lower end GPUs. No thanks.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

That list compares 3D Mark 05 scores. If you compare the more recent 3D Mark 06 scores the Intel IGP handily beats the 2600. Anytime you are trying to compare GPU's you use the latest benchmark possible.
 
jjahshik32 said:
IMHO, the 13" mbp would be the last thing I would consider for gaming purposes nvidia 320m or not.
Click to expand...

As a main gaming machine, of course. But it would be nice to be able to run Civ V on medium on the road without the game becoming a slideshow.
 
I'm also about to update my old MBP to the new 13"!
Just to say:
I have the 2009 MBP with the Nvidia 9400m graphics, and I tried out WoW. I could play it on full settings, just turn off shadows, then I could walk everywere with no problems, and if they say the new Intel HD graphics are better than the 9400m graphics, I definatly think that you can do some light gaming on the new 13" models.
 
ok, i'm still a little confused, but you guys helped me a lot. i can't buy the 15', it will have to be 13'. and it will be my first mac, i kinda don't wanna get disappointed.

my current laptop has C2D and a ati radeon hd 2400. the sims 3 runs great, also mass effect 1. ME 2 has some problems. do you guys think the new 13' with i5 and intel 3000 will be better or worse?
 
ana.la said:
ok, i'm still a little confused, but you guys helped me a lot. i can't buy the 15', it will have to be 13'. and it will be my first mac, i kinda don't wanna get disappointed.

my current laptop has C2D and a ati radeon hd 2400. the sims 3 runs great, also mass effect 1. ME 2 has some problems. do you guys think the new 13' with i5 and intel 3000 will be better or worse?
Click to expand...

The Intel 3000 outperforms an ATI 2400 so it will be better all around.
 
jjahshik32 said:
The i5 in the new 13" mbp should HUGELY OUTWEIGHT the benefits of the Nvidia 320 being slightly better than the HD 3000.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Macbook Pro are not gaming laptops. More power for doing work than power for gaming is much more important.

I'd rather have an i5 Sandy Bridge with Intel H3000 than a C2D with 320m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back