Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by dHk, Jun 12, 2012.
Which is better?
The Intel HD 3000 was roughly comparable to the 320m, and the HD 4000 is 40% better according to Apple.
I think the HD 3000 and HD 4000 support also Turbo Boost 1.0 or 2.0. So the speed depends on your tasks. The HD 4000 is certainly better, because this IGP supports realtime decoding/encoding of 1080p H.264 material (AirPlay) and supports OpenCL.
320m is better because its Nvidia
HD4000 ich much faster. It is faster than the dedicated 9600M GT used in older MBP and should be on-par or faster than the 330M
Is the intel 4000 good enough for photoshop editing?
Well, you could look up notebookcheck: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
Also see the benchmarks here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5872/intel-dual-core-ivy-bridge-launch-and-ultrabook-review/4
Note that ULV Ivy Bridge seems to have some performance problems due to throttling, so the Air IGP performance would be lower than the MBP's.
edit: let me check those links you posted. I always post too quick lol
I believe there is an hd4000 and hd4000m right? The macs use the m variant
Yes. But then again, I don't have a problem in Photoshop on my 5 yr old C2D with integrated graphics, though I have serious issues in Aperture.
no there isnt a mobile variant, just the regular HD 4000, what makes them different are the clocks on each. The quads have more clocks and down it goes to the ulv cpus.
And yes the HD 4000 is much faster than the HD 3000 which was mostly on par to the 320m.
Photoshop editing is most time a CPU question, not GPU.
HG Graphics 3000 performs like GeForce 320m according to last year benchmark. So 4000 one should be faster this time.
just looked it up and wow. cant believe intergrated gfx has gone up that much to be on par with 330gt. i have a mid 2010 17 in macbook pro with the 512mb 330gt and its kind of mind blowing cus i still play a lot of games with no problems
Crazy, right? I knew that performance of integrated chips moved on, but it was a real shocker to realize that the new MBA is actually almost twice (both CPU and GPU-wise) as fast as my 2.5 year of top of the line MBP (which cost around 2500€ back then).
It would be fine, but it may not be able to take advantage of the mercury engine functions in CS6. This really won't affect most people, but you can research them if you like. The Apple stores tend to have photoshop installed. You can always test your images on one of them prior to purchase.
wait when haswell hit next year, they are touting us with another great round of improvement. The idea is that intel will dominate the mid range market, those are anand words not mine
I like using my computer to output 1080p video to my 50" TV, so video is important for me.
Any issues with the HD4000 handling this?
You're not comparing Apples to...well Apple's here.
The only way to get a reliable benchmark is to compare Mac to Mac.
Look at the variance in the HD 4000 results. Take 3Dmark06 for example:
At worst, the HD4000 could be WORSE than the 320m.
I very much doubt this, but it's not impossible.
You don't know where the Macbook pro falls within that range of HD4000 benchmarks, so you can't even guess at how much faster it is.
integrated graphics will never be as good as dedicated graphics as it uses shared system memory. The integrated cards can only do so much but from my experience i could run photoshop indesign and illustrator cs5 on the 3000hd but it would often freeze up after continuous use. not exactly a power horse but will perform most tasks even at intermediate levels. I started to have serious problems when I was running cad / 3d apps though.
I stand by dedicated graphics to be much better and especially not a fan of Intel's integrated graphics ! 320 is better.
That is not the only one benchmark site I linked. You should be able to extrapolate yourself, though. Here are some Cinebench scores:
Compare it to 320M and similar scores the Cinebench database :
Sure, the way they benchmarked stuff seems to be done by amateurs, but the overall picture seems clear: the HD4000 performs on similar level as the earlier dedicated 330M
and you are using a 6 year old benchmark. use vantage or unique heaven engine
You also have to pay attention to what system is using it, if its a quad>dual core> ulv they will have different clocks
That's irrelevant, I was only showing that there's a large difference between benchmarks for the same GPU.
Also, it's well know that Vantage does not work well on older GPUs, regardless of their power, so it's still not an accurate comparison.
Um wasn't the 320m technically integrated since it utilized system memory as VRAM? Your argument seems contradictory.
Based on my research on review benching, notebookcheck, and personal experience with a 2009 15 macbook pro and a 2010 13 macbook pro the order of power goes from 9600M GT > 320M =/> HD3000 > 9400M.
The 320M actually is almost as powerful as the 9600M, but it's definitely wayyy cooler running and power efficient. Whenever I switch to the 9600M the laptop starts whining (fans become audible). The reason I put "=/>" between the 320M and HD3000 is because in some benchmarks Intel is actually equal, but for many games, Nvidia still wins.
I think the stigma of Intel iGPU's are still around, even though for the past year and a half, starting with the HD3000, their iGPU has been acceptable. I was all for bashing Intel before, and I don't doubt if Nvidia was allowed to make iGPU's for the core i architecture, it'd be better, but this is what we have.
Some comparisons of the HD4000 vs 3000.
Comparisons of 320M vs HD3000, they generally trade blows evenly, or the 320M pulls slightly ahead.
The HD4000 has to be at the minimum equal to the 320M or better. I believe it will be better based on the improvements made from the HD3000.
Sidebar: all the GPU's mentioned in this post are INTEGRATED, except the 9600M GT, yes even the 320M.