Intel HD 4000 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 Pro

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by CarlHeanerd, Aug 15, 2012.

  1. CarlHeanerd macrumors member

    CarlHeanerd

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Location:
    Adams County, PA
    #1
    Hi all!

    So, I own a mid 2007 iMac with the aforementioned ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 "Pro" (really an underclocked XT). I use the machine for general computing, some light Final Cut / iMovie rendering, recording, and light gaming. I am considering either a new Macbook Air or a Macbook Pro 13" with an SSD and I am confident that most functions will be dramatically faster on those machines.... however, I have some questions about the graphic subsystems.

    I have been seeing Cinebench results and other benchmarks putting the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics around twice as fast as my ATI. I find this startling to believe. Perhaps I am jaded from the dark days of the GMA series. Anyways, are these accurate results? My principle that when upgrading that the new system should be at least twice as fast in every way, so this intrigues me.

    My main concern is the light gaming I do. My big titles are Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike: Source, the Portal series, Civ IV. Would these games run faster on the new graphics systems? How would this system fare with the upcoming Counter Strike: Global Offensive?

    Or should I just wait for Haswell? Thanks all for your help.
     
  2. thedarkhorse macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #2
    believe it, integrated graphics have stepped up in the past few years. No they won't give max settings at high resolutions, but long life consoles have stagnated game technology and intel GPUs have caught up because of this, newer integrated models can handle most all modern games at relatively decent quality
     
  3. CarlHeanerd thread starter macrumors member

    CarlHeanerd

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Location:
    Adams County, PA
    #3
    "Modern" game throws me off. I guess they mean the latest Unreal Engine or Cryengine titles. Considering I don't consider most of those games fun, I guess I'll stick to my "ancient" Source engine games.
     
  4. inhalexhale1 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Location:
    Ridgewood, NJ
    #4
    I'm going to have a review up very soon for how the 13" MBP runs World of Warcraft. At native res (1280x800) and everything set to ultra (with 3 exceptions), the game ran @ 29.97fps while recording the movie, and only went down to the mid-20s when in a raid. I capped the fps to 29.97 during recording; fps were higher normally (40-60). The review will show Dragon Soul, Cata Questing, BG's, and Ogrimmar. If you guys are interested, I'll post when it's on YouTube.

    The 3 exceptions
    - The system caps Sunshafts to disabled and Liquid Detail to fair
    - I set shadows to low, because anything higher caused a big fps drop

    I was very impressed by the 4000HD, and I think you'll be happy with it. Especially for older games.
     
  5. CarlHeanerd thread starter macrumors member

    CarlHeanerd

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Location:
    Adams County, PA
    #5
    Please do so. Are these games running under OS X or under Windows? I find Windows will almost always give significant performance boosts because of drivers and such. Please try TF2 if you can, it's free!
     
  6. inhalexhale1 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Location:
    Ridgewood, NJ
    #6
    Under OSX. I'll have it done by next week, and I'll post a thread on it when it's on YouTube. I'll shoot you a PM too with a link. I'll be doing a comparison video with the MBA too in the next 2 weeks, to see how they compare head 2 head.

    I only play the blizzard games on computers, but I'll look into TF2.
     
  7. Wafflausages macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2010
    #7
    5 years in technology time is a big leap :) Tthe 4000 should be able to run the source games since they arent very taxing. Just turn the shadows and AA down then you should be fine at native resolution :)
     
  8. gokart mozart, Aug 16, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2012

    gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #8
    The current Unreal engine is just a few years younger than Source. Its the same Unreal engine that powered Bioshock 1 and Gears of War. The newest cryengine is still pretty new, but I think Frostbite 2 (BattleField 3) is a better example of a modern engine. Especially considering how demanding BF3 can be on a modern system. Not to say Crysis 2 or the upcoming FarCry 3 are graphical chumps.

    But yes, the Intel HD series has made huge strides with each successive generation. And they are far better than the GM series was back in the day, relatively speaking.

    UE4 only got unveiled publicly a few months ago.
    http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06...4-elemental-demo-lights-up-the-uncanny-valley
     

Share This Page