I don't understand why people are flipping a **** over the Intel IGP.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Sarngate, Feb 23, 2011.

  1. Sarngate macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    #1
    Sure, it's weaker than the 320m in the current 13'' model, but why is that such a big deal ? OS X has poor game support anyway and the Intel IGP will handle everything else you throw at it perfectly well. By using the IGP battery life will be greatly improved, which is far more important in a 13'' laptop than it's gaming ability, to me anyway.

    In some benchmarks the 3000 is actually superior to the 320m, so it's not as if the 320m kills it or anything.
     
  2. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #2
    Majority of people that will be upgrading will likely be coming from 9400M anyway so they will be seeing an improvement.
     
  3. mgartner0622 macrumors 65816

    mgartner0622

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    #3
    Many of the people have only read about it as well, never actually physically used one.
    Just wait till we have real input when it drops onto the market.
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    It's the fact that it isn't as good as its predecessor. People expect things to be better every update. 320M is an IGP as well though.
     
  5. Sarngate thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    #5
    In a way i would say it IS better, just not on every front. It has worse performance but the i5 without a separate GPU will have significantly lower power draw than the current setup and offer similar performance.

    Somebody needs to come up with a name for on-die GPU solutions :p
     
  6. C01E macrumors member

    C01E

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #6
    People are mad at two things (IMHO.) A: they are freaking out because the last intel IGP they used was back in the early days of them, When they were NOT good, Or even decent for that matter, They used to suck (work at BBY, Saw the carnage first hand!) B: People want their cheap macbook to play games and render HD like the big boy macbook pro's and mac pro's can do. (You see the same issue with imac's and people getting all bent outta shape about their GFX card sucking too...)

    Its not so much intel, Its just that its low end is what I think is annoying all the users who don't wanna pony up the $$$ for the higher end models.

    Don't buy low end hardware and expect it to do high end stuff.
     
  7. chiodo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    #7
    The intel IGP is kind of dissapointing. How old is the 320m? I would think as time passes the replacement GPU would be better than a processor that is a year old? Hopefully the intel IGP is only for the lower end models.
     
  8. Tapiwa macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    #8
    The HD 3000 seems very limited: according to the benchmarks you speak of, it only outperforms the 320m on low details, which means that it's basically the CPU picking up the slack.
    And surprise surprise, those benchmarks are done with a powerful desktop quadcore CPU...

    So, it doesn't look too good...
    However I agree with mgartner0622, let's wait for actual input of how it performs in the MBP...
     
  9. macmac88 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    #9
  10. C01E macrumors member

    C01E

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    #10
    But being the macbook is geared at mobile work related tasks, The gfx should be more then fine for that. (and with the better battery life, more then a fair trade for some nvidia option (let us not forget the 8 series fiasco, This is normal for nvidia, nvidia drivers were the cause of 62% of BSOD's in vista the first year, etc. Nvidia is not the shining star of gfx manufacturers they are made out to be.))
     
  11. LoganT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    #11
    Isn't the 320M essentially just a tweaked 9400M?
     
  12. vincenz macrumors 601

    vincenz

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #12
    The first is made by Nvidia. The second is made by Intel..
     
  13. mtc44 macrumors newbie

    mtc44

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    #13
    Question

    I like to play 1080p MKV videos on my tv. I'm coming from a PC desktop. Will the IGP be able to handle that task?
     
  14. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #14
    Uhh, no. Both the 320m and 9400m are from NVIDIA.
     
  15. vectus macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    #15
  16. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #16
    Not really. 320M supports DX 10.1, is made using 40nm and has 50% more pipelines. Sure you could say that all GPUs are just their tweaked predecessors.
     
  17. mtc44 macrumors newbie

    mtc44

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
  18. vincenz macrumors 601

    vincenz

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #18
    Woops, I misread/mistook 9400m as the new 3000.
     
  19. Skyldig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    #19
    Yea. Everyone knew that Intel IGP was coming with this update. With nVidia out of the picture and no possibility of a discrete GPU, there simply was no other option, unless Apple stayed with the C2D.

    Move on... Now the 1280x800, that is unforgivable.
     
  20. MultiBat, Feb 23, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011

    MultiBat macrumors member

    MultiBat

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Location:
    Sweden
    #20
    I agree with the OP.
    Apple had to make some choices.
    With 320m (or other nvidia chips) out of the question due to the fact that SB was to be used, what should they have done?

    It seems they decided against ripping the ODD out. What then?
    Tossing out battery to fit an ATI GPU? I don't think so.

    I hope this rumor is true, because I would love to have an i5 in my MBP.
     
  21. aiqw9182 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #21
    It's still very possible that there will be an upgrade option like the April 2010 15" MBP's. $100 for 1440x900, $150 for matte option with higher res display.
     
  22. tigress666, Feb 23, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2011

    tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #22
    You ever stop to think that some of those people it has nothing to do with money and more to do with they don't want a *bigger* laptop but they still want the capability? I'm sick of people assuming that the people who want 13" only want it cause it's cheaper. Some of us actually prefer the size. The way I look at it is when I'm at home, it's plugged into a 21" anyways (far better than a 17" screen in the first place), and when I'm travelling, I'd rather have it be smaller and easily portable and I'll willingly sacrifice screen space for that.

    I don't care if they make it more expensive (even though I can't afford it right now). I'd still like there to be an option for a just as capable 13" (at least if it is offered I can try to save up for it).

    As for what the new one will supposedly be, I agree with people it seems Apple had to make a choice as the C2D's really are not an option since they are out of production and they decided to sacrifice the graphics card over the ODD or the battery (I agree definitely with not sacrificing the battery. I personally like having an ODD but if it got the computer a much better graphics card I might agree it was a good sacrifice of it).

    That being said, I think for me I'm not upset I didn't wait a year (I did seriously think about it last year). Personally, I'd rather the computer have better graphics capability (as I do want it to be able to do some moderate gaming, that was a big pet peeve I had with my previous MB honestly. It couldn't even do games that came out at the time very well). And the speed would be nice but I prefer my computer be able to do more, even if it is slower at loading up. Really I think the things I wanted seen improved on my MB were more solved by more RAM and a better graphics card. So I'm not too upset that I didn't wait *shrug* (That is if the graphics card on the new MB is worse than the one in the 2010. I will admit I wouldn't have minded having an i5 chip but if it is a trade between having a better processor and having a better graphics card, I think the one I got was a better fit for me).

    But I also don't understand why people are so pissed off about the new one. I think they did pretty well with the options they had. What did people want? They put an i5 chip in it (which is far better from what I hear than the i3 chip which some people say isn't that much better than the c2duo. So a much better upgrade there than what people were even expecting in the 13"). They can't stay with the c2duo's, they are discontinued. And apparently they're stuck with intel graphics for the i5 chips. Sure, they could have removed the ODD, but I can't imagine them not doing that is that huge of a disappointment to people. And I think it would be really stupid to sacrifice (too much) battery life, those who purchase the 13" are either doing it for money/portability or both. And it's not too portable if the battery doesn't last long ;).
     
  23. ElCidRo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    #23
    Actually the new intel IGP will be about 50% weaker than its 1-year old predecessor :)
    If instead of the C2D you would get a intel pentium II 400 MHz you would be ok? :D
     
  24. Skyldig macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    #24
    Yes, but I'm afraid my fingers will fall off if I keep them crossed for the next 24h...
     
  25. sivosam macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    #25
    Does anyone know how well it plays 1080p on external 27" display?
     

Share This Page