Intel igp (3000 hd) destroyed by the 320m, many benchmarks inside

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by henrikrox, Feb 25, 2011.

  1. henrikrox macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #1
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    3dmark 06 1280×800
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 = 4629
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m = 4754
    Left 4 Dead – 1280×800 Med Settings (click here to see details of settings)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min/max/avg) = 38 / 90 / 63
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min/max/avg) = 53 / 92 / 75
    Call of Duty: Black Ops (SP “Five” Zombie)

    Low Settings
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min/max/avg) = 9 / 65 / 32
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min/max/avg) = 38 / 54 / 43
    Medium Settings
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min/max/avg) = 12 / 63 / 26
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min/max/avg) = 38 / 57 / 44
    High Settings
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min/max/avg) = 9 / 31 / 20
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min/max/avg) = 12 / 26 / 15
    Resident Evil 5 Benchmark Tool 1280×800 (DirectX 9)

    Without AA
    Low Settings (shadow low/texture low/overall quality low)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 37.4
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 43.7
    Medium Settings (shadow med/texture med/overall quality med)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 26.6
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 35.9
    High Settings (shadow high/texture high/overall quality high)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 15.6
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 23.8
    With AA
    Medium Settings (aa 2x/blur on/shadow med/texture med/overall quality med)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 16.8
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 30.1
    High Settings (aa 4x/blur on/shadow high/texture high/overall quality high)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 13.3
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 17.7
    Resident Evil 5 Benchmark Tool 1280×800 (DirectX 10)

    Without AA
    Low Settings (shadow low/texture low/overall quality low)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 33.0
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 41.1
    Medium Settings (shadow med/texture med/overall quality med)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 25.4
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 33.8
    High Settings (shadow high/texture high/overall quality high)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 16.0
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 22.7
    With AA
    Medium Settings (aa 2x/blur on/shadow med/texture med/overall quality med)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 15.5
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 28.3
    High Settings (aa 4x/blur on/shadow high/texture high/overall quality high)
    2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (fps) = 13.4
    2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (fps) = 16.7


    You see how much the Intel 3000 hd looses?

    Avg fps Is what matters. 20 more fps
    On medium settings compared to the intel 3000 hd.

    Wow.
     
  2. macmac88 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    #2
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

    Please source...
    http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/#dsq-form-area
     
  3. henrikrox thread starter macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #3
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/#dsq-form-area

    Here's the link. On average the new is 10 fps behind all the time. Many times more. Remember to Look at avg fps
     
  4. henrikrox thread starter macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #4
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Also interesting


    Q: Is the fan loud?
    A: On the 2011 model, the fan is much louder then the 2010 during intensive tests. I would say about twice as loud. However, if your just surfing the internet and doing non-gaming/intensive CPU stuff, both machines are both whisper quiet.

    Thanks to whoever made this. Awesome work. Seems the new 13 is a letdown
     
  5. Frosties macrumors 6502a

    Frosties

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    Sweden
    #5
    And the new processor kills the core2duo. No real news here.
     
  6. ChronoIMG macrumors regular

    ChronoIMG

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #6
    Why are we still seeing these threads about Intel HD 3000? Known fact, move along.
     
  7. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #7
    I would like to see his SC2 benchmarks. Glad he did this.
     
  8. nsanch4 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    #8
    This is a bummer... I was closely monitoring the results of the blog as well... I am a PC user and wanted to switch to MAC. Sold my HP Envy with SSD just a month a go for the refresh, hoping the 13inch would have a decent gcard. I am not a gamer, BUT i want to make sure Diablo 3 will be playable (Thats the only game im planning to play other than those mini games). AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

    I dont want to spend an extra 1k (15inch higher end model) just for Diablo 3....
     
  9. Red33m macrumors member

    Red33m

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    #9
    Who buys a 13" MBP for gaming?

    I like the new one best to the C2D
     
  10. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #10
    I think it is more to be able to play a game every now and then. :)
     
  11. henrikrox thread starter macrumors 65816

    henrikrox

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    #11
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

    Ofcourse but we aren't discussing this here. We all knew the CPU was better. But some people does more then hang around the app store and twitter.

    Some people still believe the new gpu is better then the 320m. And I've tried all day to tell it's obviously not. But the new 2011 13 buyers won't admit it.

    Oh well.

    Its finally verified. Thanks to the guy behind this. Awesome job
     
  12. Frosties macrumors 6502a

    Frosties

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    Sweden
    #12
    [irony]
    Well I for one use my computer to compute things so for me the cpu is the big cheese but some people does more than hang around game sites and play pretty graphics at higher fps than the eye can register.

    Oh well.

    [/irony]
     
  13. nsanch4 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    #13
    Not really for gaming. You buy the 13' for other stuff, but would also want to be able to play games from time to time. I hope it plays Diablo 3, even in Low settings.
     
  14. TomCondon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    #14
    destroyed?

    10fps beating is not "destroyed"

    someone has a 2010 anyway...
     
  15. mashsensor macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    #15
    That dude did an awesome job with the benchmarks,

    So now we know:
    1. 320m is better than hd3000 in gaming situations.
    2. Both the 320m and hd3000 sucks for gaming, its a title of which one sucks more.
    3. The new 2011 13 inch can handle some light gaming fine.

    There you have it folks, if you are a hardcore gamer who is getting a new laptop to play games, don't get a 13 inch MBP! 2010 or 2011 :D

    If you are a hardcore gamer you can get a 500-600 dollar desktop that can "destroy" these laptops. :)
     
  16. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #16
    The fact that HD3000 fps values have substantially higher spread can be interpreted as driver immaturity. Interestingly, the HD3000 fps spikes are higher than that of 320m, which under circumstances could be interpreted as greater potential of the intel IGP.

    Anyway, wait few month till the drivers are more mature and try again.
     
  17. MR1324 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    #17
    you pretty much summed up what I had to say about this topic. Based on this anandtech article regarding the HD 3000 vs 320M, the performance difference is something like 6%, so they perform roughly the same.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape/1

    I have an 11" MBA right now and am thinking about picking up one of the new 13" MBPs.
     
  18. Evil Spoonman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #18
    I'm glad nothing I do in my daily life depends on your understanding of technology or data analysis.

    Ding, ding, ding. Also it will depend on the CPU consumption of the game, as they share the same thermal envelope. Do we have clarity on which 13" we are testing here? The 2.7GHz 13" has a faster GPU.

    Yep, right now they are very similar in performance.
     
  19. Buck987 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
  20. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #20
    The tests were on the 2.3GHz Core i5 model.
     
  21. Evil Spoonman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #21
    Interesting. That will be different again than the results from the 2.7GHz 13", due to the larger L3 cache than the 13", but a turbo max the same as the low-end 13".
     
  22. gorcman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    #22
    True. Then again, even the 320m isn't fully optimized for Mac OSX. I get much better framerates in bootcamp than with OSX.

    I guess the question comes down to, will Intel give support drivers better than Nvidia does?
     
  23. frick macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    #23
    No. This reflects the difference in CPU power between the machines. For example, when you are looking directly at a wall (or some other simple structure) in-game and the GPU isn't doing much work, the framerate becomes dependent on the CPU, as the GPU is no longer the performance bottleneck. The new MBPs have considerably faster CPUs than the old C2D-based models, so the fact that they have higher max framerates in certain games on low settings is not surprising.

    In all GPU-limited scenarios (medium settings or higher, AA on, etc.) the HD3000 loses to the 320m. Keep in mind that the 320m isn't really a great graphics chip either, which is the reason why most people aren't happy with the GPU regression in the 2011 13'' models.
     
  24. 1BadMac macrumors 6502

    1BadMac

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    #24
    Exactly. While I was impressed with the 320m in comparison with 9400m, it wasn't that great of a GPU. It was just substantially better than a really, really crappy card - the 9400m.

    The HD 3000 may be marginally slower (6% according to Anandtech's review) - but it is still way better than what Apple was putting in the 13" this time last year.
     
  25. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #25

Share This Page