Intel Graphics

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by kamil.amersi, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. kamil.amersi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    #1
    Hi,

    Do you think that the inclusion of Intels graphic card instead of the Nvidia will portentially be an achilies heal in the new mbp 2011? i heard that it isnt quite as capable as nvidias one and might pose a couple of integration issues. do you think this will cause the os to "hiccup" and result in the user experience being not quite as smooth as the current one?
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    Intel IGP is more than fine for running OS X. You won't notice the difference unless you do something GPU intensive such as gaming.
     
  3. kamil.amersi thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2010
    #3
    Ok great, was hoping that the intel doesn't make the interface "rough", if you know what o mean. How long do you think before the current stock of Mbps replenish, Assuming infect that this was a deliberate action from apple to halt supply af the 2010 model
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    If you're asking when will the update be, my guess is going to be early March.
     
  5. altecXP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    #5
    Yes, I'm not sure what the C2D + 320m wattage is but I believe the i5+GPU is lower so it will probably result in better battery.
     
  6. mark28 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #6
    If people run OS X on the 9400m, the 2011 MBP 13" with the Intel GPU will do fine, which is about as fast as the 310m.
     
  7. Krafty macrumors 601

    Krafty

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Location:
    La La Land
    #7
    Is there a spec page for the Intel HD graphics in the i5? Just curious is all.
     
  8. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #8
    i5 found in current MBPs or Sandy Bridge i5? This Wikipedia page has decent table of all Intel GPUs. Scroll down to HD Graphics
     
  9. karohan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    #9
    Current Intel graphics (with the Arrandale processors) leads to rough animations on OS X. The roughness is minimal with the 320m and if the Sandy Bridge IGP performs comparably, OS X animations should run fine.
     
  10. 4everZero macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    #10
    Hi.

    I didn't want to just start a new thread for this question, because it probably didn't need one. I've been researching on MBPs for quite a while now, and I know I'm going to get one sooner or later. So this is my question.

    With the seemingly imminent update in MBPs, and if Apple does decide to go with the Sandy Bridge in thew new MBPs (I'm looking specifically at 13''), would StarCraft 2 be able to run the same on them as they did the 2010 version? Seeing as in terms of a much better processor, the gaming graphics might take a hit because Intel isn't as good with these.

    My friend has the 2010 MBP and has been running StarCraft 2 on medium quality pretty well. And I don't play games other than StarCraft 2 (if I did, I wouldn't be getting a Mac to do that), so I'm trying to find a balance between graphics and overall performance outside of the game.

    I know it's almost impossible to know for sure what the new MBP will consist, but if it were you, would you sacrifice sticking with the C2D to have insurance to know SC2 will run decently, or wait for the new one because the graphics quality won't have a big enough difference to sacrifice a much better processor?

    I apologize if a couple of my terms aren't correct. I'm not the most knowledgeable in terms of these things. Haha!

    Thanks!
     
  11. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #11
    A lot is up to the drivers. If the Intel drivers are exceptionally good for OS X, Intel IGP may be faster than 320M is. On the other hand, they may suck and provide much worse performance than 320M. Anyway, I don't think there will be a big difference and you can always get a previous gen refurb if the Intel IGP ends up being much worse
     
  12. 4everZero macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    #12
    Thanks! Then I think I will probably wait til the new one comes out. Because quite honestly, as much as I love playing SC2, anything will be an upgrade from the HP Pavilion dv6000 I'm using right now which can't even run the game on the lowest qualities without tremendous lag. Also, the whole "mac experience" goes way beyond just StarCraft anyway.
     
  13. orfeas0 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #13
  14. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #14
    The performance of the cores depends on many things. E.g. NVidia GTX 580 has 512 CUDA cores while AMD 6970 has 1536 Stream cores, yet GTX 580 is faster. When the parts are using different architectures and designs, comparing the specs like core count is totally useless
     
  15. Yebubbleman macrumors 68030

    Yebubbleman

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #15
    Barring Apple's careface for OpenCL or lack thereof, as Hellhammer would suggest, the Intel IGP on Sandy Bridge will only be slightly worse than the GeForce 320M found in the current 13" MacBook Pro, white MacBook, Mac mini and MacBook Air, but still way better than the GeForce 9400M it replaced.

    Even then, as long as you are on lower settings, it shouldn't be an issue. Again, you just won't get as good of performance graphically as you might with the 320M.

    More that, OpenCL aside, the IGP is way faster than the 9400M, but only a slight bit worse than the 320M.

    On a Sandy Bridge IGP-equipped machine, StarCraft II will run smoother on lowest settings, but worse on medium settings than a GeForce 320M equipped 13" MacBook Pro. If that makes sense.
     

Share This Page