Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Let Apple know WE DONT WANT "HD Graphics 3000" in 13' model

T

thomaslau

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Feb 24, 2011
4
0
HD Graphics 3000 is TOTALLY a deal-breaker for 13'
it is a Downgrade!!!:mad::mad::mad:

Right now I just want 320m back, i am not asking much.

Why dont we summit the feedbacks all together?? To let Apple know "HD Graphics 3000" is a deal-breaker??? To make them do the right thing!! to tell them they NEED TO CARE ABOUT OUR THOUGHTS!!!



here is the feedback link:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html

I just dont know what to buy now (2010 MBP or 2011 MBP )
 
Genuinely not trying to be rude, but what exactly are you doing on a 13" that requires a powerful GPU...?

Although my main gripe is no 7200rpm or antiglare BTOs. Almost a dealbreaker but I went ahead and picked one up anyway. Don't need the quad core processing or 15" of bulk & heft to run Logic Express...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
theyre not going to change it until the next refresh. If you want the better GPU so badly get the 2010 model for a discounted price off ebay or something... has better battery life anyway
 
What application(s) are you going to run where you are sure HD 3000 is a downgrade?

There is no way for Apple to use the 320m and use the latest Intel CPUs. HD 3000 is so close, wins some and loses some, that it seems a sensible thing to do to get the latest Intel CPUs.
 
the last time they can do it, why not this time???

I feel bad because i want to play games on my 1st mac
 
thomaslau said:
the last time they can do it, why not this time???

I feel bad because i want to play games on my 1st mac
Click to expand...

Models using the 320m were using the older Intel CPUs. These are the new Sandy Bridge CPUs where nVidia cannot make an integrated GPU any more.

What games do you think will perform worse on the new 13"? The 3000 HD is way better than any other Intel graphics before it, and is faster than the 320m in some things and slower than others. They're very, very close.
 
travishill said:
Models using the 320m were using the older Intel CPUs. These are the new Sandy Bridge CPUs where nVidia cannot make an integrated GPU any more.

What games do you think will perform worse on the new 13"? The 3000 HD is way better than any other Intel graphics before it, and is faster than the 320m in some things and slower than others. They're very, very close.
Click to expand...
is it????
 
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)

travishill said:
thomaslau said:
the last time they can do it, why not this time???

I feel bad because i want to play games on my 1st mac
Click to expand...

Models using the 320m were using the older Intel CPUs. These are the new Sandy Bridge CPUs where nVidia cannot make an integrated GPU any more.

What games do you think will perform worse on the new 13"? The 3000 HD is way better than any other Intel graphics before it, and is faster than the 320m in some things and slower than others. They're very, very close.
Click to expand...

It actually might perform worse... It performs at the level of a 310m
 
God forbid you don't buy every new product that comes out... man you sound like the biggest baby crying over this.
 
thomaslau said:
the last time they can do it, why not this time???

I feel bad because i want to play games on my 1st mac
Click to expand...

It's a long story, but essentially it's a licensing issue. NVIDIA had a license to make integrated graphics processors that worked with Intel's Core 2 Duo chips. They essentially replaced the integrated graphics that came standard with the Core 2 Duo.

When Intel switched to the Core i3/i5/i7, they changed the design of the chips, and then said that no one else could design integrated graphics chips to work with those chips. The 15" and 17" models have enough room on the logic board to use both Intel's integrated graphics as well as a second graphics board. However, there isn't enough room in the 13" for a second graphics board (since Apple needs room for the optical drive, battery, etc.).
 
Grouchy Bob said:
Done!

I told 'em I wanted it in pink and to make a 1TB SSD standard. Also, drop the price to $799.

Hope that didn't invalidate my feedback?



So much for your rant being the "deal breaker".
Click to expand...

Pink would be a hit with the ladies for sure.
 
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)

travishill said:
macmac88 said:
It actually might perform worse... It performs at the level of a 310m
Click to expand...

On what application? Do you have a benchmark link?
Click to expand...

What are you quoting? The only benchmarks I've seen is that the IGP with a QUAD CORE is on par with a 320m. The 13" uses a DUAL CoRE...

http://www.9to5mac.com/53376/low-end-macbook-pro-graphics-performance-will-likely-lag-behind-last-previous-generation

Which quotes NotebookCheck
 
KPOM said:
It's a long story, but essentially it's a licensing issue. NVIDIA had a license to make integrated graphics processors that worked with Intel's Core 2 Duo chips. They essentially replaced the integrated graphics that came standard with the Core 2 Duo.

When Intel switched to the Core i3/i5/i7, they changed the design of the chips, and then said that no one else could design integrated graphics chips to work with those chips. The 15" and 17" models have enough room on the logic board to use both Intel's integrated graphics as well as a second graphics board. However, there isn't enough room in the 13" for a second graphics board (since Apple needs room for the optical drive, battery, etc.).
Click to expand...

that's sad, how about removing the optical drive for graphics card??? MBA can do it why not MBP
 
KPOM said:
It's a long story, but essentially it's a licensing issue. NVIDIA had a license to make integrated graphics processors that worked with Intel's Core 2 Duo chips. They essentially replaced the integrated graphics that came standard with the Core 2 Duo.

When Intel switched to the Core i3/i5/i7, they changed the design of the chips, and then said that no one else could design integrated graphics chips to work with those chips. The 15" and 17" models have enough room on the logic board to use both Intel's integrated graphics as well as a second graphics board. However, there isn't enough room in the 13" for a second graphics board (since Apple needs room for the optical drive, battery, etc.).
Click to expand...

That's the size of it, last year they stuck with a core 2/nvidia because the they didn't view the new core i series/intel gfx as being a good enough compromise. Now with the 2nd gen i5/Intel HD they do. I'm sure supply and marketing issues are playing a part as well.

I've been using the 2011 MBP 13" all evening and for every piece of software I've installed and used so far including Photoshop etc it completely wipes the floor with the 2010 model. It's noticeably quicker executing applications particularly when you load up several at once.
 
thomaslau said:
that's sad, how about removing the optical drive for graphics card??? MBA can do it why not MBP
Click to expand...

A lot of us thought they might do that this time. Apparently not, though. They must have concluded that more people want the built-in optical drive.

I'm guessing the next Air will have a similar processor and graphics setup as the new Pro.
 
macmac88 said:
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)

What are you quoting? The only benchmarks I've seen is that the IGP with a QUAD CORE is on par with a 320m. The 13" uses a DUAL CoRE...

http://www.9to5mac.com/53376/low-en...ll-likely-lag-behind-last-previous-generation

Which quotes NotebookCheck
Click to expand...

Ha don't just trust a blog that's quoting a broad summary. We aren't talking about CPU bound stuff here. When you take the /lowest/ 3dmark 06 score on standard res from the Intel 3000 (4096- so we get the same lower GPU clock speed as the new 13" MacBook Pro) vs the score of the 320m from the last 13" MacBook Pro (4335) you are talking about a ~5% differential. That's pretty much equal, and certainly within margin.

The Intel 3000 HD wins in some games and loses in others to the 320m. I'm sure we'll be seeing more /real/ benchmarks comparing the two shortly. My point is the gap is not as wide as some people are making it out to be.
 
Let's just have the benchmarks from reviews settle this one when the lengthy reviews come in so the bickering will end.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the battery life is actually equal if not better in this update, but we'll see about that.
 
I don't understand why is it so hard for so many MBP Pro users buying 15/17" machines to grasp that a 13" is just more portable by design and the PRO name should allow it to have a dedicated GPU+IGP. It doesn't have to be 512MB of video memory nor be exactly like those used in the 15/17" models but a decent GPU when required.

Mac's have Garageband, iMovie and iPhoto that could benefit for these. and with Final Cut Pro ... some environments are so restrictive that a 13" MBP is ideal.

The original and upgrades of the 12" PowerBook G4 never had it so bad in this regard.
 
travishill said:
What application(s) are you going to run where you are sure HD 3000 is a downgrade?

There is no way for Apple to use the 320m and use the latest Intel CPUs. HD 3000 is so close, wins some and loses some, that it seems a sensible thing to do to get the latest Intel CPUs.
Click to expand...

Sandy IGP is not "close" to the 320m. It only "wins" in low-res applications that are CPU-bound, rather than GPU-bound (and only because it is paired with a quad-core + hyperthreading vs. C2D in the AnandTech benchmarks). 320m is 30-50% faster in applications that are GPU-bound (compare the gaming benchmarks on notebookcheck), e.g. gaming at medium settings or native resolution.

It's a moot point, as C2D is end of life and Apple wasn't prepared to completely redesign the bottom-rung MBP to ditch the ODD and add a discreet GPU - especially when there are so many takers for a $1200 IGP-only model.
 
So you would prefer a two generation old processor? I was under the impression that the 320m was only there for hardware video acceleration and not for serious heavy lifting like CAD or gaming. The i5s + HD3000 should do those tasks better than the 320m.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back