I'm very close to making a decision on if I should replace my main Macintosh, my 2.6 GHz MacBook Pro 17" (current most-used machine) with a refurbished Core i7 2.66 17" (Macintosh I am looking at to replace it). I'm only curious about if the Intel HD graphics are as bad as everyone says, or if it will be an improvement on this GMA 950 equipped computer I'm using at this moment.
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 Graphics
- Thread starter Quad 2.5 G5 =)
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A ColecoVision would be an improvement over the GMA. XD
I've never heard of a Core i7 Macintosh... As far as I remember, they stopped making Macintosh' back in the mid-90's.
The new Intel HD Graphics will blow that GMA away, but that's not saying a whole lot. Don't expect to be playing video games on it, unless you like Snake and Tetris.
I've never heard of a Core i7 Macintosh... As far as I remember, they stopped making Macintosh' back in the mid-90's.
The new Intel HD Graphics will blow that GMA away, but that's not saying a whole lot. Don't expect to be playing video games on it, unless you like Snake and Tetris.
You can play games like CoD Modern warfare 2 and Starcraft 2 on a Intel HD GPU
And it still has a dedicated 330M which provides plenty of power. It might not max out crysis at full HD with 60+fps, but it's not a gaming laptop ofcourse.
You can play games like CoD Modern warfare 2 and Starcraft 2 on a Intel HD GPU
yeah if you like lego slideshows
You can play games like CoD Modern warfare 2 and Starcraft 2 on a Intel HD GPU
And it still has a dedicated 330M which provides plenty of power. It might not max out crysis at full HD with 60+fps, but it's not a gaming laptop ofcourse.
Of course I realize that I would have the 330M, which is an improvement over the 8600M GT. The most graphically demanding game I have on my MBP is Second Life, along with Flight Sim X. I was wondering what the power of the HD Graphics are, because I will be travelling, (by that time, I will have purchased the system in question) and would like to squeeze every ounce of battery life out of it. Also, the question I more asked was this. Is the HD graphics as bad as people say, or is it better than it's reputation. In more..simple words, how good is it compared to a MacBook 2.2 with the X3100, or a GMA 950 equipped laptop? And please, no sarcastic comments, I want real answers, not something that does nothing for anyone but bump their post count up by one.
One more question, is there any chance of having the graphics switching being available for Windows? And if not, or even if it is doable, is it a software/driver function, or a hardware limitation?
He made a sarcastic remark about the order of the words, nothing more.
Bahahaha! That's not what's amiss here, Nancy Drew. They haven't made a Macintosh since the 90's... at all.
Besides, calling every Mac a Macintosh would be like calling every Ford an Edsel.
End.
Please excuse my small error. Is it possible we can continue with the topic at hand?
You are forgiven.
But seriously, the HD graphics seem to do quite well, just don't expect to be playing COD or Steam games at high settings.
As well, the GPU is chosen by the application. If OS X feels it needs moar powa it will automatically use the 330m. I believe there is a power saving mode...
But seriously, the HD graphics seem to do quite well, just don't expect to be playing COD or Steam games at high settings.
As well, the GPU is chosen by the application. If OS X feels it needs moar powa it will automatically use the 330m. I believe there is a power saving mode...
no, the new Intel GPU isn't as bad as people say it is. I was giving real answers. In some games it outperforms the Nvidia 9400m.
If you don't believe me, check notebookcheck. The Intel HD gets 30+ fps at starcraft 2 on low settings.
On youtube are plenty of video's of people playing with the Intel HD GPU also that you can look at.
But I don't think you'll be able to run Flight sim X with the Intel HD GPU, I hear it's a very demanding game.
Maybe it's best to underclock the 330m. The 330M is more than twice as fast as the 320m, so you can sacrife some GPU power for more battery life.
From what I have read, the Intel HD is about on par with the nVidia 9400m. While neither are amazing, they are at least decent. Not suited to gaming, but I don't know of an integrated GPU that is. If you are talking about traveling and gaming on battery, it won't matter too much what graphics are in use, the high CPU use will eat through the battery pretty quick.
Thank you very much. This is what I was wanting to know. (I was referring to others' remarks that gave no information to me whatsoever on the question I asked.) I will probably be able to get better performance than the computer I have to use it with, even if the clockspeeds are lower, as I read that the Flight Sim X is more CPU intensive than anything else. As for underclocking it, I think that's what I will do under Windows 7, and just use the Intel HD graphics for OS X when I'm on the road. Other than that, I'll overclock it and just be using it always for when I'm at home.
Intel HD graphics slow performance???
Hello ! i am new in mac world and i have bought 2 weeks ago and for example i open the "Liquid Mac application", in the dock bar the icon opens slowly and when i closed it, it closes slowly with a little pause and it happends to me when i am using "intel hd graphics" no with nvidia 330 m some help please...
Thank u very much.....
Hello ! i am new in mac world and i have bought 2 weeks ago and for example i open the "Liquid Mac application", in the dock bar the icon opens slowly and when i closed it, it closes slowly with a little pause and it happends to me when i am using "intel hd graphics" no with nvidia 330 m some help please...
Thank u very much.....
I don't see any issues with the Intel HD Graphics.
However I cannot comment on the long term usage, since I almost exclusively use the GT330M (Too many programs I use can use the extra power, so I don't bother with switching; but these same programs I've used on the Intel HD Graphics and there weren't any issues).
Performance-wise, I think the Intel HD Graphics are as good as the 9400M from the last generation of Macs.
However I cannot comment on the long term usage, since I almost exclusively use the GT330M (Too many programs I use can use the extra power, so I don't bother with switching; but these same programs I've used on the Intel HD Graphics and there weren't any issues).
Performance-wise, I think the Intel HD Graphics are as good as the 9400M from the last generation of Macs.