Read the XBit labs review from a few days ago.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000.html
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel HD 3000 slower than the custom built 320M
- Thread starter mabaker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The only thing that is hold a apple back is a macbook pro with a decent video card in there macbooks there making a big mistake. all these mistakes will soon pile up and people will get fed up.
I have to agree, I have the 13" MBP w/ 320m. It is the best computer I have ever used and is my main work computer "web developer".
What I find frustrating is that at best the HD 3000 is the same as the 320M and at wost is slower, this is the newer model, it should be faster! It's like the MacMini G4 to MacMini Core Duo all over again.
As well, this is a $1100 laptop we are talking about, I hate to do the price debate, but that really is a lot of $$$ for what this machine is giving you at this point.
I understand that Intel is primarily to blame for this because of their spat with nVidia, denying them a QPI licence and whatnot, but Apple is a large enough and clever enough company to have worked around that.
Yes, it is a very good upgrade. I will, however, be doing some comparison shopping to see what others are offering at $2,000.
People game on 13 inch laptops?
*Ahem* 13 inch MAC laptops?
As if the alienware screen wasn't small enough, lets cram it into a mac and make boot camp a requirement and have a horrid video card ontop of it.
But hey, its allright... lets just lower the graphics to 8-bit style and call it a day after our eyes are pussing from squinting so hard.
This mentality is really irritating.
Some of us do enjoy having powerful machines crammed into the smallest form-factor possible. 13" is not tiny anymore and if worst comes to worst you can hook it up to a larger display.
I mean, come on. Sony has been selling 13" laptops for over a year now with Nvidia's Optimus solution that switches between a dedicated 330M and an Intel chip on the fly with a 1920x1080 resolution as standard that get better battery life and weigh less than the 13" MacBooks. You have to pay $4000 for it, but obviously features could be traded around to get something comparable.
I'm actually happy that Apple seemed to mess this up. I just bought a 13" Air a couple months ago and even with the Core2Duo I think this is the best machine I've ever owned. I was afraid that if some of the rumours with the 13" refresh ended up being true -- like the 1440x900 resolution and matte option -- I would have felt like my newish machine was already obsolete.
I don't even like the AMD GPUs on the 15"+ machines, so I hope next year's refresh is better.
Yeah, like you I'm kind of happy that I won't have any lust for the new models just yet. I'll stick with my 2010 model with the 320m thanks.
Maybe next time they update (closer to when I might actually be wanting to upgrade) they will get a few things right, like a more powerful GPU and no optical drive - oh, and a higher resolution screen. Do that, with the typical CPU speed bumps and we might have something.
Until then, my existing model will soldier on just fine.
Maybe next time they update (closer to when I might actually be wanting to upgrade) they will get a few things right, like a more powerful GPU and no optical drive - oh, and a higher resolution screen. Do that, with the typical CPU speed bumps and we might have something.
Until then, my existing model will soldier on just fine.
I like what you did there.
Anyway, it's a little more complicated than that, since they are pairing the intel HD 3000 with a faster CPU so it's not going to be a simple or straightforward comparison. Basically what we will need to have happen is for someone to post benchmark scores on the new machines so they can be compared against the older scores.
For example, let's use Left 4 Dead 2 on OS X. It runs really well on my 2010 MBP 13" (I got the slightly faster one, the 2.66 Ghz core2duo model). I can run the benchmark tests on that game, such as average fps rate, etc. and that same test can be run on the newer MBP models - both the lower and higher end 13" ones. Then the scores can be compared and we will get a better sense of which laptop performs best FOR THAT GIVEN SCENARIO.
This is basically what we will need to happen, and it will, to answer your question in any factual sense. Anything before that is guesswork.
You have to remember that apple spends more money on other parts of the notebook. I doubt that the unibody aluminum casing is cheap. Look at the competitor's models and then apple's... It's clear which one places a greater importance in appearance and quality of build.
Yes, read a test about a igp thats scaled with desktop cpus.
That helps us out alot....
I think people are forgetting that the mobile intel 3000 hd tests out there is running alongside a mobile quad core sandy bridge cpu.
Do you see and option for quad core cpu in the 13? No. That means you can take those bencmarks, and remove a few fps or two, since the intel igp in the 13" is running along with a slower cpu compared to the one in the benchmark. Think guys, think.
WOW!!!!! So it's not just 3-6FPS slower?! The difference between the two just keeps getting bigger and bigger!
I actually ended up asked before I even saw this thread. When I saw it this thread, I was like "perfect".
The Apple rep said the Nvidia 320M was a better card.
Typical value for a mac. You can get 5lb (instead of the 4.5lb MBP 13) Windows laptops for under $1000 with i5 14" blu-ray, 7200 rpm drive and ATI5650 so there's really no point in comparing spec/value except to other macs. Refurbs are a great deal right now and will be an even better deal once these new models hit the refurb store in a few months.
Cheers,
This almost sounds like a smack to the face when I upgraded from my 1.5Ghz PowerBook G4 (128MB ATi Radeon 9700) to a new Santa Rosa white MacBook with the Intel GMA X3100 and the 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo... 
Ran Halo on both and you would think that a computer that was a couple generations newer would have run Halo of all things better, but that was clearly not the case. My old G4 Stomped my MacBook in gaming. I even did the same test with a last generation iBook G4 (32MB Radeon 9550) and it still out paced the much newer MacBook.
I now have the 13" MacBook Pro with the Nvidia 320m. (Yeap, it runs Halo like a dream) and many other games that my previous white MacBook choked on. Finally, I can play Fable Lost Chapters without looking at a slideshow.
Ran Halo on both and you would think that a computer that was a couple generations newer would have run Halo of all things better, but that was clearly not the case. My old G4 Stomped my MacBook in gaming. I even did the same test with a last generation iBook G4 (32MB Radeon 9550) and it still out paced the much newer MacBook.
I now have the 13" MacBook Pro with the Nvidia 320m. (Yeap, it runs Halo like a dream) and many other games that my previous white MacBook choked on. Finally, I can play Fable Lost Chapters without looking at a slideshow.
Actually, there would be room on the motherboard now that they've switched to the Sandy Bridge processor. If you'd like to see a very detailed post that makes that point clear then check out this link:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1100467/
Besides that, there are several compact and light 13" notebook computers from other manufacturers that are using Arrandale/Sandy Bridge processors with discrete GPUs, DVD/CD drive, ExpressCard slots and/or card readers so if Apple really wanted to put a discrete GPU in the 13" model they most likely could have done so.