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?

aiqw9182 said:
The Intel 3000 outperforms an ATI 2400 so it will be better all around.
Click to expand...

Well, if he wants gaming, spending $1200 on laptop that has integrated GPU is really a bad idea. A MBA has even better graphics.

He should save up for the 15" if he wants to do gaming imo, despite not having the money atm. ( this is assuming he wants to play games with his Mac )
 
mark28 said:
Well, if he wants gaming, spending $1200 on laptop that has integrated GPU is really a bad idea. A MBA has even better graphics.

He should save up for the 15" if he wants to do gaming imo, despite not having the money atm.
Click to expand...

ia, but i don't want gaming. i want a mac. i want a laptop that is great for my daily needs. but i would be really happy if i could play a few games once in a while.

and i'm a she =)
 
ana.la said:
ia, but i don't want gaming. i want a mac. i want a laptop that is great for my daily needs. but i would be really happy if i could play a few games once in a while.

and i'm a she =)
Click to expand...

The 13" MBP is fine then. It can play a few games once in a while ofcourse :)
 
if it has just integrated graphics it should have more than just 13 hours of battery. like the lenovo with 30 hrs
 
.Max. said:
I think you'll notice the extra battery life more than the lower gaming performance :D
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no problem with the 10 hour battery it currently has. How about we do this magical formula:

Pull out that waste of space known as an optical drive :mad:

In its place, put a slightly larger battery, a dedicated GPU with Optimus or ATI switchable, and maybe an SSD boot drive and space for more RAM. :D

Now you get better battery life, better graphics, and a faster computer! THERE!
 
ana.la said:
ia, but i don't want gaming. i want a mac. i want a laptop that is great for my daily needs. but i would be really happy if i could play a few games once in a while.

and i'm a she =)
Click to expand...

If you aren't gaming, the Intel IGP will be just fine. It can handle browsing, OS X's graphics, and streaming of content. It's at least on par with the NVIDIA 9400m that was in the 13" MacBook Pro 2 years ago, and for basic tasks and light gaming is about par to the 320m that's in the current 13" Pro and MacBook Air. The 320M is faster for more intense gaming, but Intel won't license its use with its newer CPUs.

On the whole, the new systems will be a big upgrade for everyday tasks except gaming.
 
Is it powerful enough for video? I want to "watch" "movies" of people "doing it." In HighDef. Oh yeah.




And by "doing it" I mean acting. What did you think I was talking about?
 
aCondor said:
Is it powerful enough for video? I want to "watch" "movies" of people "doing it." In HighDef. Oh yeah.




And by "doing it" I mean acting. What did you think I was talking about?
Click to expand...

Lol. Nice.

And to answer your question. It definitely will be able to run high def video. I watch high def video on my MBP (see sig) and it doesn't even use the dedicated graphics, but the very low end Intel HD graphics.
 
KPOM said:
The 320M is faster for more intense gaming, but Intel won't license its use with its newer CPUs.
Click to expand...

If this is true definitely glad I got my 2010. A big fat raspberry to Intel for not supporting other video cards (is too bad, I am jealous of the i5 processor but I think for what I wanted which was some moderate gaming mine is better then). Why do they do this anyways? Just trying to force people to buy theirs or is there some other reason they won't allow it?
 
Before you judge a 13", I'd wait for Mac benchmarks. Usually someone posts their results with a few Mac native games here after a new product launch.

The problem is that many of these sites do PC benchmarks on these cards and they have more mature drivers most of the time.

On paper the HD 3000 could match up to a 320M, but the Intel OS X drivers could be total crap and it may perform badly.

Intel is not known for good GPU's or good drivers.
 
The intel igp scales so bad.

Put settings on medium. And the 320m leaps ahead. For gaming the intel igp, is crap.

Dont buy I'f you want half decent frame rates
 
Yes, the real problem here isn't that it is slow, it is that it is Intel.

Nvidia is going to be much more proactive with drivers and game support. Also, the nvidia chip runs CUDA apps reasonably well in windows if you want to do that sort of thing.

Still, the integrated graphics aren't terrible. It's just that Apples $1199 laptop is literally exactly the same on the inside as a $400 Toshiba. They basically went with the cheapest possible option on the 13" pro. Low res display and crappy video card.
 
I know I get osx a beautiful OS.
But with such a crap display res and gpu. It's hard to justify. Feels like apple is being more and more greedy. I mean how much money do they make per laptop

Just saw the other day a upcoming slim good looking samsunf 13 laptop with 1440x900 display with a dual core i5 sandy bridge, 6 hours battery life. And a gt535 which is awesome. For a 100 bucks less then the mbp 13 base.

All in a good design.

I dream

That one day. I can get those specs in a apple laptop.

But, I guess It won't happen
 
Let the benchmark do the talking, a lot of people who got the new 13 will be claiming hd3000 is better, people who got the old 320m will be claiming its better. People tend to like to rationalize their purchase :)

We probably wont have to wait for long. I just picked up a i7 13, dont plan on playing much games, will be mainly for work running eclipse, xcode and visual studio :). The huge boost in cpu is important to me. I have a ps3, xbox, and a 500 dollar AMD rig at home with amd 6 core cpu and 6850 1gb card for games.

Definitely looking forward to see some benchmarks, gaming performance is the composite of all the parts working together, not just the gpu.
 
Last edited:
mashsensor said:
Let the benchmark do the talking, a lot of people who got the new 13 will be claiming hd3000 is better, people who got the old 320m will be claiming its better. People tend to like to rationalize their purchase :)

We probably wont have to wait for long. I just picked up a i7 13, dont plan on playing much games, will be mainly for work running eclipse, xcode and visual studio :). The huge boost in cpu is important to me. I have a ps3, xbox, and a 500 dollar AMD rig at home with amd 6 core cpu and 6850 1gb card for games.

Definitely looking forward to see some benchmarks, gaming performance is the composite of all the parts working together, not just the gpu.
Click to expand...

your hdd is going to bottleneck your system hard, you wont even notice the difference between a core 2 duo and a sandy bridge cpu.

ANd no, the gpu, and cpu is all that matters when gaming, ram matters, maybe one tiny fraction. And the gpu matters almost everything, all the cpu does, is handle physcis etc.

good your glad with your laptop, its just proven in benchmarks that its worse for gaming then the 2010 model.

Even when the intel 3000hd is running along with a quad core sandy bridge it looses to a core 2 duo with a nvidia 320m
 
aiqw9182 said:
It's better than the 9400M but a little worse than the 320M. It should be fine for what you want to do.
Click to expand...

This is an accurate assessment. People reviewing the desktop sandy-bridge said it is a tad better than the 310m (and it was shown beating the HD5450 on one site, though that is the weakest HD5xxx card).
 
henrikrox said:
your hdd is going to bottleneck your system hard, you wont even notice the difference between a core 2 duo and a sandy bridge cpu.

ANd no, the gpu, and cpu is all that matters when gaming, ram matters, maybe one tiny fraction. And the gpu matters almost everything, all the cpu does, is handle physcis etc.

good your glad with your laptop, its just proven in benchmarks that its worse for gaming then the 2010 model.

Even when the intel 3000hd is running along with a quad core sandy bridge it looses to a core 2 duo with a nvidia 320m
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth. Your PC is only as quick as it's slowest component is general rule of thumb for every day tasks.

Having said that I've just picked up a new 13" i5 and it's certainly feels snappier than my 2010 13".

It's difficult to dispute though that the 2010 model is going to be the better option for games. Given that the Macbook isn't really for games and isn't marketed for games it's no big loss. I'm surprised so many on here are so upset at Apple replacing one weak integrated gpu for a weaker one given that clearly the MBP 13" is not a games machine.
 
HD3000 gaming performance is awful. This is not really debatable.

For those of you linking the Anand benchmarks to support the claim that the HD3000 is "on par" with the old 320M, please note that it is important to differentiate between CPU-heavy and GPU-heavy tasks when making this determination. Case in point:

34983.png


On low settings, the quad-core + HD3000 outpaces the old MBP13. This is because the shader utilization on low settings is so minimal that the GPU is not the performance bottleneck. Contrast this with medium settings, where shader usage increases considerably (at least in SCII; other games will be different):

34990.png


Is the 3-year old C2D is beating up on the new Sandy Bridge quad core? No. This situation is GPU-bottlenecked, and demonstrates the utter inadequacy of Intel's integrated graphics in running even mainstream games at decent image quality settings and playable framerates.

Remember that these are average framerates; ideally you want your *minimums* to be in the 30fps area to maintain smooth gameplay, which is why averages of 60+ fps are desirable.
 
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