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

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

S

Sarngate

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 15, 2010
220
61
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.
 
A

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
Majority of people that will be upgrading will likely be coming from 9400M anyway so they will be seeing an improvement.
 
mgartner0622

mgartner0622

macrumors 65816
Jun 6, 2010
1,018
0
Colorado, USA
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.
 
Hellhammer

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
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.
 
S

Sarngate

macrumors regular
Original poster
May 15, 2010
220
61
Hellhammer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
C01E

C01E

macrumors member
Jan 25, 2009
60
0
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.
 
C

chiodo

macrumors newbie
Feb 23, 2011
24
0
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.
 
T

Tapiwa

macrumors member
Jan 3, 2011
93
0
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...
 
C01E

C01E

macrumors member
Jan 25, 2009
60
0
macmac88 said:
According to those benchmarks that you saw, it was using a quad core Sandy Bridge. The MBP 13" will not be getting that, so the performance of the IGP will be worse than 320m.

and supposedly it will perform like a 310m

http://www.9to5mac.com/53376/low-en...ll-likely-lag-behind-last-previous-generation
Click to expand...

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.))
 
mtc44

mtc44

macrumors newbie
Feb 23, 2011
4
1
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?
 
S

Skyldig

macrumors regular
Feb 1, 2008
152
0
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.
 
MultiBat

MultiBat

macrumors member
Jan 12, 2011
90
0
Sweden
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.
 
Last edited:
A

aiqw9182

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,089
0
Skyldig said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
T

tigress666

macrumors 68040
Apr 14, 2010
3,288
17
Washington State
C01E said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 ;).
 
Last edited:
E

ElCidRo

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2010
302
158
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
 
S

Skyldig

macrumors regular
Feb 1, 2008
152
0
aiqw9182 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm afraid my fingers will fall off if I keep them crossed for the next 24h...
 
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