Intel HD vs. 320m

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by transistor2000, May 24, 2010.

  1. transistor2000 macrumors newbie

    Dec 11, 2009
    I'm one of those people stuck between the new MBP 13" and 15" i5.
    I like the idea of efficient computing and extending battery life as long as possible. I don't game very much, but use productivity apps, light web design, audio editing, word processing.
    The 13" seems to fit the bill, but the new 15" i5 seems more appealing mainly because of the fact that the new core processors are just that much more future proof than the now aging C2D. I use Handbrake occasionally and the added performance of the i5 would be welcome, but I also have a Win7 desktop to do that with. I don't travel much, so portability isn't a huge concern.
    My question is mainly geared toward battery life relative to overall system performance when running on Intel HD graphics exclusively (using third party selection software) vs. the 320m. How is the battery life on the Intel HD 15" vs. the 13" 320m and how do they compare in terms of performance?
    I definitely feel either system would work well for me, it's a matter of preference.
  2. vbman213 macrumors 6502

    Apr 13, 2010
    In that case get the i5. The resale value of the i5 will be much higher than the 13" C2D. Stick with the newer technology.
  3. vant macrumors 65816

    Jul 1, 2009
    I doubt that would be the case. 13" MBPs have always had higher resale values than the 15"/17" counterparts.

    Also, the Intel HD IGP was such a step backwards from the 9400M that Apple decided to forgo the i3/i5s for the MBP13s and stick with the C2D platform where nVidia still has licenses to integrate their GPUs.

    If Intel had it their way, the MBP13s would be stuck with a i3/i5 with just the Intel HD IGP alone (which performs worse than the 9400M).

    If nVidia had it their way, the MBP13s would have an i3/i5 with the 320M. Intel stopped this however.

    It's also worth pointing out that the C2D performs similarly to the i3. The 2.66GHz in particular outperforms any mobile Core i3 processor. Saying the C2D is dated is true, but saying that is is outperformed is not.

    In response to your question about battery life, the MBP13 is at 10 hours and the MBP15 is at 8-9. The MBP15 test was with the dedicated GPU off.
  4. transistor2000 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Dec 11, 2009
    Thanks for clearing that up. I didn't realize Intel HD was slower than 9400m. Sad... it makes the 13" more attractive.
  5. OblivionLord macrumors newbie

    Oct 24, 2010
    Slightly old thread, but I would like to point out that this is false.

    The 2.6ghz C2D compares with the 2.26ghz i3 350M. The 2.6ghz C2D does not beat the faster i3 370M and 380M.

    This is a fair apples to apples since the 3xx series does not use turbo boost like the i5.
  6. Timur macrumors 6502a


    Oct 14, 2008
    These benchmark only represent use-cases where Hyperthreading is effectively used. Any application that does not/cannot make use of Hyperthreading should mostly be scaled by Gigahertz when comparing C2D vs. i3.

    According to Lloyd Chambers ( pure Integer maths is one case where Hyperthreading doesn't help. Another case is professional audio applications/plugins (albeit at least Logic Pro slowly gains some HT features).

    And with the i3 not being able to use Turboboost it doesn't even have an edge with single-threaded applications either.
  7. arcite macrumors 6502a


    Sep 6, 2009
    Cairo, trapped in a pyramid with my iphone
    I have had my 13' 2.4 for about 3 days now ;)

    The 13 has the benefit that it does not get hot, unlike the i5/i7. The price difference is also around $500, so if really don't need the integrated graphics card, it probably isn't worth the difference - especially if you already have a separate pc.

    IMO the best feature is the perfect light up keyboard and trackpad. It's awesome.

Share This Page