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

Graphics not that bad?

Duke15

Duke15

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 18, 2011
332
0
Canada
I just read the laptopmag.com review of the new MBA and it seems like the graphics didnt take that much of a hit, if any. From what i've read it scores 4fps better on Wow than the 2010 model, and the same fps as the 13" MBP. Now I'm no gamer, but seems like the iGPU should be fine than?

Am I wrong to listen to that review, is there something I'm missing about the graphics? Is Wow really easy on the GPU?

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptop/apple-macbook-air-13-2011.aspx?mode=benchmarks

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-air-13-2010.aspx?mode=benchmarks

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/laptops/apple-macbook-pro-13-inch-2011.aspx?mode=benchmarks
 
Yes, this is well known already.

HD 3000 performs about the same or slightly better in OS X, and about the same or slightly worse in Windows. Compared to Nvidia 320M.
 
shurcooL said:
Yes, this is well known already.

HD 3000 performs about the same or slightly better in OS X, and about the same or slightly worse in Windows. Compared to Nvidia 320M.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but prior to its release, a lot of ppl were saying they were gonig to suck, guess not
 
Looks like WoW is basically the same. The HD3000 is likely a downgrade from the NVidia integrated card, but the increased performance from the CPU apparently more than makes up for it, at least as far as the only game that matters for me. Will chug up the extra bucks for the longevity and increased capability of the 11".
 
The reason people believed this was because the only way to compare what the new MBA would be like before they were released was to compare them to other notebooks with the Intel 3000. Such as the Samsung Series 9. Which is still shockingly slow and horrible. Now Apple has thrown us a curve ball and the graphics seem to be equal to the 320m. Which in my opinion makes it EXTREMELY difficult to decide on getting one. If it were worse or better would make it simple decision but to make it the same throws me through a loop.
 
Oppressed said:
The reason people believed this was because the only way to compare what the new MBA would be like before they were released was to compare them to other notebooks with the Intel 3000. Such as the Samsung Series 9. Which is still shockingly slow and horrible. Now Apple has thrown us a curve ball and the graphics seem to be equal to the 320m. Which in my opinion makes it EXTREMELY difficult to decide on getting one. If it were worse or better would make it simple decision but to make it the same throws me through a loop.
Click to expand...

We still have to see more benchmarks but it looks good. Also the MBP had a drop in graphic performance so this is an interesting result.
 
Yep. :) The HD3000 is the first usable chip from Intel for graphics. It's slightly faster than the NVidia 320M but of course slower than current high end cards. It support SM5 though.

Benchmarks: HD3000 vs 320M
 
I only skimmed over the article so excuse me if I sound like a retard and missed some details in it. But saying it gets 28fps on max is a very misleading statement. We talking 28fps in crossroads, or 28fps in orgrimmar during peak times, or 28fps in 25 man firelands? There are so many variables and just listing a single fps number like that is completely useless and proves nothing.
 
True. But fact is: HD3000 is better than NVidia 320M. Plus you have the i5.

Ergo: CPU is faster, graphics is faster.
 
Xaron said:
True. But fact is: HD3000 is better than NVidia 320M. Plus you have the i5.

Ergo: CPU is faster, graphics is faster.
Click to expand...

Benchmarks =/= real life performance, especially when dealing with games which can operate completely different from one title to the next. Plus most (if not all?) benchmarks for the hd3000 are with regular versions of the CPU, not ULV. Will see in a few days, but I suspect the hd3000 is still going to be pretty bad in comparison to the 320m. I hope I'm wrong though.
 
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but why not wait for some "real world" reviews with people who are not making money to post reviews? Seriously, the numbers can be skewed all types of ways. There is a reason why Apple has completely omitted the graphics performance numbers from the MBA section of apple.com. Before now, Apple marketed the Nvidia GPU heavily. Now, there is no mention of graphics. They use CPU benchmarks with apps like iPhoto to say how it's somehow better even though it's not using a GPU at all.

Additionally, one game is not the basis for an argument for or against the new Intel HD 3000 IGP. It will take many games reviewed from many different users to determine the truth about the pros and cons of the new IGP. I suspect the truth will hurt more than it seems now... but maybe not as much as I had originally feared. I would be happy to saw the Intel IGP is better, if it truly is. I also suspect I will instantly notice when connected to a 27" ACD at full resolution, as when I worked with my friend's 13" MBP it was instantly obvious that the response lag was considerable. That is something I do not feel with Nvidia-based GPUs.

The result: it isn't out yet. Wait for some reviews of independent parties who are not making money with their posts. MacRumors.com is the best source. Just wait a few days and read the reviews posted here. Some people will be incredibly honest, and then there are fans who couldn't have it in their hearts to say a negative thing about Apple... it's easy to tell the difference.
 
I agree we should wait for real world reviews but I think its clear that they are as good as the 320s, but maybe not better
 
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