Intel HD 4000 Mobile Graphics Performance

[ssn637]

Looks like some initial benchmarks are out showing the Intel HD 4000 mobile integrated graphics solution to be a mild improvement over the previous HD 3000:

http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/Intel+HD+Graphics+4000+Mobile/compare

The new Lenovo Thinkpad X230 (i5-3320M 2.6 GHz) posted a 3D Mark 06 score of around 4300, which is lower than the NVidia GeForce 320M. Assuming the new 13" MacBook Pro doesn't include a discrete GPU, is this really what we can expect in graphics performance?

 

[rpmor]

according to real-world benchmarks in actual games the performance seems to be better than what suggests there with some games seeing 50% performance gains over the HD3000.

but atm lets all be honest we all know that the Intel HD chips wont be meeting dedicated GPU performances just yet *if* ever considering how much space it has for use and while the main concern of the CPU is being a CPU.

that being said you can game quite comfortably with either depending on the game you throw at it but no one here is going to tell you that the Intel HD is a gaming chip for the biggest and baddest games out there. its not an amazing performer, its an average/good performer depending on what games you throw at it. you really shouldn't be shooting for BF3 on it or anything like that....if you need gaming then get one with a dGPU thats the basics.

 

[ssn637]

Well, the NVidia GeForce 320M doubled the performance of the previous 9400M and allows for decent frame rates in Boot Camp. I suppose if the HD 4000 offers a 50% improvement over the HD 3000 that would be tempting, especially for those of us considering an upgrade from a Core2Duo to an Ivy Bridge CPU. A quad core for the 13" would be a clincher

 

[dusk007]

Why don't you look up some benchmarks
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

You can compare here though there are very few games tested with both GPUs as they are so far apart.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html
Just select what is interesting

The HD 4000 is definitely a lot faster than a 320M and the HD 3000 was about on par with a 320M in low details. Generally you can play pretty much any game on low detail setting. Compared to discrete current gen AMD/Nvidia graphics it looses ground quickly with medium or higher details. Intel obviously optimized for good performance in the low and as they wouldn't achieve high details anyway.
All games I could find where both the 4000 and the 320M were tested. The 4000 is usually 50% and in some 100% faster. Metro 2033 and Res Evil 5 is double the speed.
It is about equal to a 520MX and better than most of the lower end Fusion APUs.

Compared to the Arrendale GPU the HD 4000 is like 6 usual GPU Generations faster.

 

[ssn637]

Thank you for the links...the Thinkpad X230 3D Mark 06 benchmark I posted earlier actually came from that source. As far as I understood, the remaining scores for the HD 4000 were obtained with MSI gaming notebooks which of course aren't indicative of what we can expect for the 13" models.

Depending on the sources, claims of performance benefits with the HD 4000 range from 30% to 200% over the HD 3000. So it's anybody's guess at this point I'd imagine. Also, I'd be interested to see how long the IGPU can maintain 1200+ MHz turbo boost frequencies under load before temperature limitations are reached.

I'll be looking forward to the first reports once the new MacBook Pros finally arrive (next week?). And I'd prefer an integrated GPU in the 13" model since I don't care for GPU switching unless it's done properly.

 

[dukebound85]

is the hd4000 the mobile one? The apple website doesnt mention mobile, just the hd4000 (not the hd4000m)

http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/Intel+HD+Graphics+4000+Mobile/compare

 

[mikeo007]

is the hd4000 the mobile one? The apple website doesnt mention mobile, just the hd4000 (not the hd4000m)

http://community.futuremark.com/hardware/gpu/Intel+HD+Graphics+4000+Mobile/compare

It's a mobile CPU, therefore a mobile HD4000.

----------

Why don't you look up some benchmarks
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-320M.28701.0.html

You can compare here though there are very few games tested with both GPUs as they are so far apart.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Computer-Games-on-Laptop-Graphic-Cards.13849.0.html
Just select what is interesting

The HD 4000 is definitely a lot faster than a 320M and the HD 3000 was about on par with a 320M in low details. Generally you can play pretty much any game on low detail setting. Compared to discrete current gen AMD/Nvidia graphics it looses ground quickly with medium or higher details. Intel obviously optimized for good performance in the low and as they wouldn't achieve high details anyway.
All games I could find where both the 4000 and the 320M were tested. The 4000 is usually 50% and in some 100% faster. Metro 2033 and Res Evil 5 is double the speed.
It is about equal to a 520MX and better than most of the lower end Fusion APUs.

Compared to the Arrendale GPU the HD 4000 is like 6 usual GPU Generations faster.

You can't use notebookcheck's numbers for a direct comparison. Look at the spread on HD 4000 results for 3dmark06...4300-7100. There's a 60% variance in the same model of GPU. The only way to know how the HD4000 performs in a MacBook will be to benchmark it in a MacBook.