Intel Graphics HD3000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 320M/330M GT - Real Benchmarks and Comparison

[Evil Spoonman]

3dmark 06 1280×800
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 = 4629
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m = 4754

Left 4 Dead – 1280×800 Med Settings (click here to see details of settings)
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min/max/avg) = 38 / 90 / 63
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min/max/avg) = 53 / 92 / 75

Please understand this. The link provided is with a quad core high end CPU along with th intel 3000 hd. There has already been 3d mark
Posted by users here already

The 2010 mbp with a core 2 duo 2,4ghz and a 320m scored 4700 and the 2011 i5 mbp with intel igp scored 4600

Now you see how bad the gpu is? Because 3dmark also factor in CPU speed. And the i5 is clearly better then a core 2 duo.

Better? I guess I need to quote myself again...

... I expect the 320M to be similar to the HD3000, and I expect the GT 330M to be similar to the 6490M.

See this word I use? Similar. It is indeed fairly similar. You are trying to create a division where none exists. You are also trying to create a cut and dry comparison where none exists. Many of the issues we are going to run across comparing games are going to be driver and engine issues. At this point synthetic benchmarks might give us the best measure of actual performance. There IS going to be a teething period, drivers are going to need to mature. For all you know, Left 4 Dead's frame rate gap is purely the result of an incompatibility slowing things down. We can make general statements right now, but we can't make definitive measures just yet.

Here's the link. 12 fps less fps on average less compares to core 2 suo with a 320m. Even with a much faster CPU.

Can we stop staying the intel gpu is as good

We are not saying the Intel GPU is good, we are saying it is similar in performance to the 320M. They are both, in fact, pretty crappy.

 

[Littleodie914]

We are not saying the Intel GPU is good, we are saying it is similar in performance to the 320M. They are both, in fact, pretty crappy.

I think we can all agree on this, shake hands, and call it a day.

 

[mashsensor]

black ops and left for dead benchmarks based on a couple of results.
Doom 3 and crysis benchmarks based on more than three hundred.

p.s. I do not have a 13" 2011. Nor i am going to buy one.

:d

 

[mashsensor]

We are not saying the Intel GPU is good, we are saying it is similar in performance to the 320M. They are both, in fact, pretty crappy.

"The 2011 machine lost again to the older 2010, but not by much. I could not tell the difference in frame rate as I was playing."
http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/

 

[travishill]

I think we can all agree on this, shake hands, and call it a day.

Indeed! I've been saying that people won't notice much difference between the 2011 13" and the 2010 13", and that is the case. Certainly, a faster CPU helps with this. It's a good thing that there isn't a drastic difference since Apple had no choice but to ditch the 320m with the move to Sandy Bridge.

We can /all/ agree that integrated graphics still absolutely pale in comparison to a real GPU. I, myself, would prefer ditching the optical drive- and use the space for an SSD addition, and still leave room for GPU + dedicated VRAM!

 

[slipper]

And what you didn't think about Is that in the link you posted the intel igp is running along side a high end quad core mobile sandy bridge CPU. What do you think happens when you don't have that CPU and replace with a mid end i5 dual core which you find in the 13.

I tried looking for the actually benchmarks on that notebookcheck website and i couldn't find them. But if it is in fact true that the Intel 3000 GPU was on a machine using an Intel i7 then i would have to side with henrikrox and not the OP.

Either way according to the OPs benchmarks the Intel 3000 GPU looks very underwhelming considering the significant increase in performance of the CPU (2010 and 2011 MPB).

 

[elhungarian]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

Why not get a refurb previous gen 15"?

 

[RedBanana]

So pretty much zero speed increase graphics wise over the last gen MBP.

Looks like I'll be waiting for a 13" MBP with the "AMD Radeon HD 6490M" to come out, assuming there is one in the pipeline.

 

[zzz99]

I guess... Apple will never do it... Then the 15" will have no selling point other than 2" bigger and faster cpu.

So pretty much zero speed increase graphics wise over the last gen MBP.

Looks like I'll be waiting for a 13" MBP with the "AMD Radeon HD 6490M" to come out, assuming there is one in the pipeline.

Look like MBA will have the same situation as this mbp...

 

[ryanflucas]

If you are using your Mac for high end gaming, your doing it wrong.

The idea I see expressed in the Apple product line is:

-- Macbook Air/Macbook/Macbook Pro for portable use.
-- iMac for the computer you leave at home and use when you want the bigger screen, better resources.
-- Mac Pro for the designers.
-- iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch for gaming.

Sure it's a matter of preference, but I see high end gaming as a loosing battle on Mac. Gaming is meant to be casual games via Steam, with higher end gaming stopping at roughly what Civilization V, Half Life series utilizes. Beyond that you get a PS3 or Xbox 360 for those of you who want performance gaming. It's much more cost effective.

If you really desire performance gaming, perhaps Apple will introduce cloud based gaming in the future, similar to OnLive.

 

[vistadude]

So these benchmarks and fps tests show that the new macbook pro with new processor and new integrated graphics performs slightly better or slightly worse than an aging core 2 duo with nvidia integrated graphics -- meaning hardly an improvement at all?

 

[Chwisch87]

So the HD3000 could potentially get better.

I've been town between the old (refurbs) and the new 13" MBP. The price difference just isn't that great even between the old higher model and base new model. So the potential of increase in performance in the newer model has me leaning towards a new one... but then I see the benchmarks for the new 15" models and start questioning myself and looking for change in the couch cushions.

Yes could get better. Often times once traditional graphics cards have been on the market that get an update that generally can you anywhere from 5 to 30% better performance. Usually around 5% though.

Basically if you were running an nVidia card, if you have long sets of code the game will run better on an nVidia card, if you have shorter sets of code it will run better on an AMD card. Intel has basically taken whatever they learned form the failed (for now) Larrabee project and put it in the new HD3000 in the hopes of trying to counter AMD's new "fusion" chip. AMD will of course have the GPU advantage still but Intel is trying to catch up.

Intel found out the hard way with Larrabee the GPU's are an entirely different animal to manufacture compared to CPU's. They are learning but ... slowly.

The thing that really sucks is that the 13" macbook would have been killer if they could have just matched the 330mGT in the base model. I would say they should have just dropped the superdrive and put in a real GPU and a bigger battery.

 

[winterspan]

Drivers Drivers Drivers

In the past, besides just raw performance, the biggest problem with Intel graphics chips were the rotten drivers. Many games and applications would not even boot or crash on launch --- and many of the ones that did had weird visual artifacts. Now most of the information I've seen had to do with Windows XP/Windows 7 and DirectX, so perhaps the situation on OSX with OpenGL has been better.

And I don't know if the drivers for the Sandby Bridge IGPs are significantly better than the previous generations, but either way Id definitely wait for some in-depth reviews of app and game compatibility and performance before I'd buy a MBP 13. This is even more important if you plan on dual-booting Windows for gaming!

 

[adnoh]

I see gpu but what about CPU? They probably used the i7 version for the test.

These results don't feel right to me. Im not saying the intel is pure rubbish but the 320m is a good gpu and it should beat the 3000. Hence I think we are seeing CPU effects in here as well.

 

[fromcristobal]

Any benchmarks on Aperture's performance yet?

 

[Evil Spoonman]

These results don't feel right to me. Im not saying the intel is pure rubbish but the 320m is a good gpu and it should beat the 3000. Hence I think we are seeing CPU effects in here as well.

Where on earth did you get this idea?

 

[Shambles]

So, for a bit of light gaming, Black Ops and WaW, don't really mind if the resolution isn't too high.. Would the cheapest 2011 MBP be okay?

 

[gijsmans]

I ordered the new MacBook yesterday and was a bit worried about the graphics. Truth is in a real world I play games on the Xbox 360 on a Panasonic HD Beamer. Works for me

Today, the i5 and intel 3000 graphics is the best combo on the entry level mac market. No matter what other cards are available.

 

[holmesf]

All the benchmarks were taken from www.notebookcheck.net.
The results are quite reliable, I have used this source for years.

According to benchmarks, HD3000 is BETTER than 320M !

Also, remember that 320M has 256MB of shared memory,
while HD3000 has 384MB - 1.5x more memory for game textures!

But it is worse than 330M GT, if don't count the Cinebench.

Hope this information will help you to make a right choice.

The Intel HD 3000 is a miserable GPU. I got the chance to try it hands on in the new Macbook Pro this morning, and most OpenGL apps would not even launch with the integrated GPU enabled. OpenGL apps would simply hang while launching or show a black screen. OpenCL applications also failed to launch, with similar hanging results and no errors reported to the console.

The Intel HD 3000 also doesn't have OpenCL GPU support, which the 320M and 330M did. The 320M and 330M even went so far as to have OpenCL Image support, which allowed zero copy sharing of OpenGL textures.

In summary, the 320M and 330M could run aything you threw at them: whether that's games, OpenCL applications, or CUDA. The Intel HD 3000 can't even successfully open most applications.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

The Intel HD 3000 is a miserable GPU. I got the chance to try it hands on in the new Macbook Pro this morning, and most OpenGL apps would not even launch with the integrated GPU enabled. OpenGL apps would simply hang while launching or show a black screen. OpenCL applications also failed to launch, with similar hanging results and no errors reported to the console.

The Intel HD 3000 also doesn't have OpenCL GPU support, which the 320M and 330M did. The 320M and 330M even went so far as to have OpenCL Image support, which allowed zero copy sharing of OpenGL textures.

In summary, the 320M and 330M could run aything you threw at them: whether that's games, OpenCL applications, or CUDA. The Intel HD 3000 can't even successfully open most applications.

That's not been my experience at all. I've been playing with it here and there over the last few days. Most things seem to work fine. Starcraft 2 has something to be desired. OpenCL doesn't seem to be supported, but it just compiles code for the CPU instead so that isn't a huge deal. The real loss here is CUDA, although I'm not fully sure if that especially matters on the 13", as Premier's MPE is one of the only CUDA using applications for OS X. It even seems to handle normal size image OpenGL drawing in Photoshop without stuttering. I didn't have any programs hang or fail to launch. Everything from Cinema 4D to Portal ran just fine, even when I opened and did some short work on a fairly intricate C4D model (65K polys+several 2048x2048 textures). Maybe your test unit was bad?

 

[holmesf]

That's not been my experience at all. I've been playing with it here and there over the last few days. Most things seem to work fine. Starcraft 2 has something to be desired. OpenCL doesn't seem to be supported, but it just compiles code for the CPU instead so that isn't a huge deal. The real loss here is CUDA, although I'm not fully sure if that especially matters on the 13", as Premier's MPE is one of the only CUDA using applications for OS X. It even seems to handle normal size image OpenGL drawing in Photoshop without stuttering. I didn't have any programs hang or fail to launch. Everything from Cinema 4D to Portal ran just fine, even when I opened and did some short work on a fairly intricate C4D model (65K polys+several 2048x2048 textures). Maybe your test unit was bad?

The problem with running OpenCL on the CPU is that kernels have to be rewritten specifically for the CPU. Because CPUs don't have hardware support for thread creation CPU kernels need to be recoded so that a thread loops over many data items instead of just handling a single data item. Typically also you'll have to manual vectorize your loops to take advantage of SSE. Apple makes both of these modifications for the CPU in its OpenCL N-Body example, completely rewriting it. It's hard enough to write OpenCL programs without having to rewrite all your kernels with a dramatically different structure. The lack of any OpenCL supporting GPU in the 13" Macbook will make developers think twice (ok, they are already thinking twice, how about think three times) about using OpenCL in their projects.

I have a 17" Macbook Pro 2011 right here, and so far it has failed to launch a single OpenGL application if the integrated GPU is enabled. Apple applications seem to work (for example the screensavers) but all 3rd party OpenGL applications are failing with no output to the console. It's a big mystery to me.

 

[Will0827]

Does the GPU matter if no gaming is going to be done on the 13inch ? i plan on using it mainly for music production.

 

[Acorn]

this might be a little off topic or even trolling but to be honest im quite surprised that intel was able to create a graphics card that is anywhere near the quality of nvidia. nvidia in terms of pure fps was absolute light years ahead of intel graphics a year or so ago. now they are actually sort of close. I do agree that the nvidia is still better. but im pretty impressed with what intel has done and the gains they have made. we are spoiled because of nvidia. remember the intel 950 and the X3100. that was bad. this 3000 HD series even if a slight downgrade, not so bad really.

 

[AppleGoat]

this might be a little off topic or even trolling but to be honest im quite surprised that intel was able to create a graphics card that is anywhere near the quality of nvidia. nvidia in terms of pure fps was absolute light years ahead of intel graphics a year or so ago. now they are actually sort of close. I do agree that the nvidia is still better. but im pretty impressed with what intel has done. we are spoiled because of nvidia. remember the intel 950 and the 3100. that was bad. this 3000 series even if a slight downgrade, not so bad really compared to ye golden age.

Well, the reason for that is the design. The CPU and GPU are now on the same die.


I remember frequently checking this site in the fall:

www.everymac.com

Really neat site. Well, the spec and description page for 2011 13" i5 says this last paragraph:

"Compared to its predecessor, this model has a very similar external enclosure, apart from a higher-resolution webcam and the aforementioned Thunderbolt port. Internally, however, it has a significantly faster architecture, faster RAM, and improved graphics."

Best I've heard is the the Intel IGP can match the predecessor's 320m in certain situations. But, never "improved."

 

[jegbook]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Epic fail. In the links you show you see the Intel 3000 being very slow in games like black ops. The intel 3000 hd can't play anything on medium settings.

Stop saying this is real benchmarks. You are just posting from a site.

And what you didn't think about Is that in the link you posted the intel igp is running along side a high end quad core mobile sandy bridge CPU. What do you think happens when you don't have that CPU and replace with a mid end i5 dual core which you find in the 13.

Learn to read the facts

Hmmm...

Learn to offer opinion without being rude?