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.

Littleodie914 said:
Instead of challenging each other, why don't we just look at the numbers? :confused:

Intel HD Graphics 3000

NVIDIA GeForce 320M

Type - HD3000 - 320M

3DMark03 - 11406.5 - 10494
3DMark05 - 8695.8 - 7168.3
3DMark06 - 5053 - 4346.5

SC2 (Med. Avg.) - 21fps - 26fps
DIRT 2 (Med. Avg.) - 29fps - 28fps
Left 4 Dead (High Avg.) - 65fps - 47fps

There are many more tests in the links, but it seems that in benchmarks the HD3000 seems to win, but in real-world tests it's very hit-or-miss.
Click to expand...

This was pertaining to the 2600 in comparison to the 3000. The 320M had nothing to do with it.

ATI 2600 - Intel 3000

3D Mark 06 | 3133 - 5053
 
aiqw9182 said:
Stop posting false information in multiple threads. That list compares 3D Mark 05 scores. Compare the 3D Mark 06 scores and judge for yourself.
Click to expand...

Not false, partially outdated perhaps, but certainly for gaming this new GPU is less than desirable. What needs to stop is al the Apple apologists trying to justify how using weak GPUs in expensive computers is ok.

We all know benchmarks are somewhat artificial and manufacturers have been know to write drivers to improve their ranking. We will certainly see more in the way of game based benchmarks once these MBPs are released. However, no one can really say we're going to get great performance on Med-High setting with the Intel GPU.

Every announcement is somewhat frustrating and annoying and I should know better than to even care. I use the Mac for work and that's it. Entertainment on my Windows laptop and as much as I'd like to see an Apple laptop that combines style and high performance, I know better.

Oh Well.

Cheers,
 
panzer06 said:
Not false, partially outdated perhaps, but certainly for gaming this new GPU is less than desirable. What needs to stop is al the Apple apologists trying to justify how using weak GPUs in expensive computers is ok.

We all know benchmarks are somewhat artificial and manufacturers have been know to write drivers to improve their ranking. We will certainly see more in the way of game based benchmarks once these MBPs are released. However, no one can really say we're going to get great performance on Med-High setting with the Intel GPU.

Every announcement is somewhat frustrating and annoying and I should know better than to even care. I use the Mac for work and that's it. Entertainment on my Windows laptop and as much as I'd like to see an Apple laptop that combines style and high performance, I know better.

Oh Well.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

I was doing nothing but correcting your false information.
 
All I gotta say is if it turns out the graphics card is definitely superior to the 320, I won't say I'm not going to be a little jealous. I like everything else about the new MBP. Including the new port which will make it a lot more forward facing than my 2010.

Ah well, if I have my way and get a better job I'll probably replace this in 3 years anyways (I'm not bad enough to must have the new tech each year but I am betting by three years I'll want something newer).
 
One thing no one has seemed to mention:

Intel has been historically VERY bad at writing Mac OS X drivers. Compare performance in Windows and OS X on the same Intel GPUs and you'll see what I mean.

Hopefully they got really good at writing OS X drivers in the past few years, or we're going to be seriously screwed.

Note that Nvidia also had serious driver problems until recently, and so did ATI to a lesser extent. OS X graphics drivers have only matured relatively recently, since we got a large influx of gamers due to Valve bringing their games to Mac.
 
zorinlynx said:
One thing no one has seemed to mention:

Intel has been historically VERY bad at writing Mac OS X drivers. Compare performance in Windows and OS X on the same Intel GPUs and you'll see what I mean.
Click to expand...

Very important point. The benchmarks posted in this thread are meaningless for this reason. We'll have to wait for MBP benchmarks to appear before judging.
 
Fast processor paired with mediocre 3D puts this in no-mans land. Power savings - great, but the previous MBP wasn't exactly lacking in battery life (or CPU power for everyday tasks, for that matter). The only real benefit of this setup + Thunderbolt is for video editing, and the hard drive is a bottleneck for that.
 
One of the reasons to be against Intel IGP is the drivers, OS X and Linux have under-performing drivers in comparison of Windows. A good example is the MacBooks with the GMA 950 were left out in the dust for Spore on the Mac while on Windows the GMA 950 was supported. Source engine games run poorly on Intel IGP based MacBooks, yet if you BootCamp them they'll perform very well. (my friend had a X3100 based MacBook and was amazed my Thinkpad T61 could run DoD:Source, Halflife E1 & E2 at near max settings at a playable frame rate)

On a MacBook "Pro" we expect our creative software will benefit from a good IGP, Adobe offloads certain tasks to CUDA(nVidia) and Stream(ATI). With an less than perfect IGP, the faster processor just balances out the weaker graphics performance.

With all that said, if a MB/MBP owner with a 9400M upgraded to the 2011 MBP they'll never notice the difference as it is a big upgrade... those of us with 2010 MBPs wouldn't be that impressed. (personally I dual boot Linux and Intel IGP drivers are horrible so I'll have to wait for another 13" MBP which uses either nVidia or ATI IGP)
 
id like to see the real benchmarks. benchmarks running on a mac on osx with osx drivers. intel has let me down graphics wise for over 15 years and counting. what people think makes this year any different makes no sense to me. investing in intel graphics is like pissing into the wind.
 
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...

True, but Apple's choices are to cross the Sandy Bridge with Intel IGP, or stick with aging Core 2 Duos that are in dwindling supply since they are out of production. Apple waited as long as it could until the Intel IGP got "fast enough."

The Core i5 is a nice surprise. I was expecting a Core i3 for the next 13" MacBook Pro. It gives us a decent chance at a nice upgrade to the MacBook Air for the Rev E version (along with, potentially, Thunderbolt/Light Peak).

Hard core gamers will be disappointed, but how many of them bought the 13" Pro anyway? They'll step up to the 15". The 13" ought to be nice, particularly with an SSD upgrade.
 
I don't really understand it either.

Sandy Bridge is consistently faster than a Core 2 Duo coupled with the 320M or at least equivalent in performance.
 
jamesryanbell said:
EVERYONE knew this was coming. Why is anyone surprised? There was no other choice.
Click to expand...

Truly. I'm pleasantly surprised that they used the i5 rather than the i3 a lot of people assumed they would use in the 13". And from what I understand there is a big difference between the i5 and the i3. But not so big a difference between the i3 and the c2d.
 
As far as I know, no one really knows yet how the HD 3000 will perform with the i5 2410M processor. The mobile processors were just released recently, and there are not many benchmarks out there.

Add to that that the power of the CPU at the moment can't be seen as a factor here. If you look at notebookcheck.net (http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html) under 3dMark06, you will see that the IGP performs significantly better with the 2500K (Score: 5853) than the 2600K (Score: 4988), even though the 2500K is an i5 with lower graphic clock (850-1100 MHz) compared to the i7 2600K (850-1350 MHz).

I'm not saying that the HD 3000 is good or bad, just that we really don't know for sure yet. What I'm saying is, wait till we get the first benchmarks of the actual HD 3000 IGP with the i5 2410M. Only then will we really know how well it performs.

Oh, and if anyone has found some benchmarks of the IGP in i5 2410M, please post it.
 
intels sandybridge + integrated GPU = cheaper parts = lower graphics performance than dedicated GPU = lower power consumption = longer battery life = bigger profit margin for apple who will maintain a price point on their products rather than pass on any saving they get by reducing the manufacturing costs,

im not too fussed over the MBP intergrated stuff, as im happy on my 8600m GT which is still greater than the 9400 and on par with the 320m for all the gaming i have done (only problems so far have been Crysis and Far cry 2 under bootcamp fall into the 19fps range on medium settings when there is a lot going on) [also i prefer the old keyboard and case design, front loading drive FTW on a notebook]

the thing that scares me, is that they are going to refresh the iMacs shortly, and right now im not in a position to buy (id be looking at the high end 21.5 inch) , if they drop discrete graphics in the iMac (which i think is a 75% chance of happening), then my next desktops going to have to be a PC again.

Intel have a lousy track record on graphics, and more recently, shipped know bad hardware, i think waiting till they have a couple of generations of these GPU/CPUs out and the teething troubles are over with is a good idea.
 
low resolution is because they want the intel 3000 to perform well on the 13". If they made it 1440 x 900 it would be harder to power the screen, which would make the intel 3000 to seem inferior to the 320
 
Nightarchaon said:
the thing that scares me, is that they are going to refresh the iMacs shortly, and right now im not in a position to buy (id be looking at the high end 21.5 inch) , if they drop discrete graphics in the iMac (which i think is a 75% chance of happening), then my next desktops going to have to be a PC again.

Intel have a lousy track record on graphics, and more recently, shipped know bad hardware, i think waiting till they have a couple of generations of these GPU/CPUs out and the teething troubles are over with is a good idea.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but there is absolutely ZERO chance of the next iMacs having Intel's IGP as the only GPU. :rolleyes:

Apple is not limited on space in the iMacs and all have had discrete graphics in the past. Going from a 320M to an Intel 3000 is acceptable because they are low on space and they are close enough in performance. Going from a 4670 to an Intel 3000 is not because Apple has enough space in the iMac. The current Clarkdale chips in the iMac actually have Intel's IGP but they are disabled.
 
Nightarchaon said:
the thing that scares me, is that they are going to refresh the iMacs shortly, and right now im not in a position to buy (id be looking at the high end 21.5 inch) , if they drop discrete graphics in the iMac (which i think is a 75% chance of happening), then my next desktops going to have to be a PC again.
Click to expand...

No, discrete graphics will not be dropped. Why do you think that?
 
The only way this could possibly work is if this is actually the new MacBook and the MacBook Pro has better graphics. If Apple feels like s#$&ing on their computers like this, I'm getting an Alienware PC. They can't seriously give the MacBook Air better graphics at a lower price... they just can't.
 
ChronoIMG said:
+1 Boy that 12" PBG4 was horrible. Probably my biggest Apple purchase mistake ever. Go5200fx... trash.
Click to expand...

Well, I can remember people gave away their first born back in the day to at least have the 5200er to see the Dashboard Widgets wobble. ;)
 
mattk3650 said:
The only way this could possibly work is if this is actually the new MacBook and the MacBook Pro has better graphics. If Apple feels like s#$&ing on their computers like this, I'm getting an Alienware PC. They can't seriously give the MacBook Air better graphics at a lower price... they just can't.
Click to expand...

Better graphics but a much slower CPU. The Core 2 Duo running at 1.4GHz will seem laughably slow in comparison to the Core i5 in the base MacBook Pro. So too, will the 1/86 and 2.13GHz Core 2 Duos in the pricier 13" MacBook Air, though there the trade-off is a bit closer.
 
I have two questions about this intel HD3000

1) HD playback? My older PC couldn't play HD smoothly.

2) play minecraft?
 
Nightarchaon said:
the thing that scares me, is that they are going to refresh the iMacs shortly, and right now im not in a position to buy (id be looking at the high end 21.5 inch) , if they drop discrete graphics in the iMac (which i think is a 75% chance of happening), then my next desktops going to have to be a PC again.
Click to expand...

There is a squoosh more space in a 21" iMac than a 17" MBP. Plus thickness and weight aren't limiting factors. So throw another vote for Apple keeping the discrete graphics.
 
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