Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Sven11, Jan 19, 2012.
Which card is faster? (in percent if possible)
The 3000 HD is 11% faster.
i seriously doubt it.
One is an integrated GPU with no dedicated memory and the other is a discrete GPU with either 256mb or 512mb of dedicated Memory.
Same topic, just created 45 minutes later.
But I guess it is all moot now, since you found an answer via searching anyway.
Since it's such an older GPU, the 9600 doesn't have specific FPS for a lot of the more recent games at the Notebook Check GPU Comparison. However, it does seem like performance would be comparable or in favor of the 9600 based on the game/setting.
If you had certain games in mind, might as well google "9600m gt skyrim" and the same for the Intel HD 3000 and see how the performance ends up.
9600m gt is faster check cinebench r11.5 gpu scores almost 2x as fast.
2009's 9600 gtm was faster than the integrated 320m in 2010. The 320m is marginally faster than the HD 3000. Therefore, the 9600gtm > 320m > HD 3000
You question is wrong. By asking which one is "faster" you are assuming that you can play game with it.
You can't, unless these are 8 years old games. The performance of both card are terrible for playing video games because they are not made for that.
You need a MBP with a real graphic card like the Radeon.
RAM upgrades improve the HD3000
I noticed an improvement in performance from the HD3000 in a 13" MBP when I upgraded it to 8 GB of RAM.
WoW went from seizing up in 25 man raids when all hell broke loose to slowing to 5 fps in the frantic bits but not crashing out. It also stayed at 30 fps for much longer while the game got busier.
It isn't fantastic but much better than previously with only 4 GB on the board.
For gaming the HD3000 is severely limited compared with any modern discrete card but works far better than the majority of integrated solutions. This bodes very well for the HD4000 Apple will probably be using the future.
You get 512mb allocated to shared video RAM with 8gb total memory installed vs. the 384mb you get when you only have 4gb. You're probably seeing a small boost because of it.
What about the HD 3000 with 8gb of 1866 ram? Since it uses system ram, this would improve performance. I used Xbench for a synthetic benchmark and noticed, not only higher bandwidth in ram, but higher scores with the faster ram installed.
I want someone with the 9600gt to run Xbench and post results, then I will be gladly to post mine as well.
I don't think the HD 3000's motherboard can handle 1866 mhz ram. Even if it could, I don't think it would make up the difference.
I beg to differ, as I have been running 8gb of hyper X 1866 since August in my 17" i7 2.3.
Per notebookcheck's benchmarks the HD 3000 comes out ahead (but not by much) of the 9600m GT, even in real world testing of games. Experience also shows me the Intel is better, testing between my C2D Dell XPS M1530 w/ the 8600m GT and the HD 3000 in my 13" MBP.
My MBP ran Shogun 2 better than my XPS. But some of this might be other intangibles like CPU improvements and faster memory. All power to you guys the want to stick to older tech, but as for me and mine, we will keep plodding forward buying the "inferior" new stuff.
Looking into it further I think the numbers are debatable. The 9600 probably has a slight edge. I'd like to see how new games vs old games run on both.
Is there any way to allocate more RAM to be shared with the integrated graphics?
4gb ram = 384 VRAM
8gb or more = 512 VRAM
I don't think the GPU is capable of handling more than that since it isn't the most impressive GPU out there.
Maybe in the future the hd 4000 will be able to harness 768mb -1GB
I'm pretty sure that if you run out of assigned VRAM on both the HD 3000 and the currently offered discrete graphics that if available it will allocate system memory for that usage on the fly. This used to be called "turbo cache" about 7-8 years ago...
but, does it actually run at 1866 mhz?
No, actually it runs at 1867. System profiler says the same thing.
That would explain the improvement indeed, a 33% increase in available GFX memory is significant but not earth shattering. Thanks for the info.
WoW is very CPU intensive and had a habit of maxing out the used RAM when 4GB was available. With 8GB it has about 2.5GB headroom even when thrashing all 4 cores (2 real + 2 virtual). Blizzard recently released a 64-bit client which seems to have helped performance too.
Check out my thread, I did compares with the 1333mhz memory and the 1866, both memory and GPU tests with the intel hd 3000 and the 6750m.
You are using Xbench to test? Interesting, this argument may be old but could be valid still:
Got a better bench?
MBP13 with 4gb
MBP13 with 8gb