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

So, 13 inch owners, you got your sandy bridge with intel HD 3000 now. Happy?

josh2007 said:
Love my 13". I didn't know there was anything wrong with the Graphics.
Click to expand...

If you don't think that there is anything wrong with your systems's performance... then there isn't :)

Don't let other people opinions spoil your fun.

Performance is VERY dependent on what you do. If you play call Call of Duty, your performance is down. If you use handbrake to encode video, I bet your performance is way up :)

I have a MBP 2010, I play Call of Duty and WoW on a 1920x1080 external monitor. It's not great but good enough for me. Thats often while a 2 GB VirtualBox VM with Window XP is running also. So I'm happy.

This is all just "banter" for most of us, most of the time.
 
Penn Jennings said:
I'm just curious, which benchmarks did you see that showed overall better GPU performance?

Having said all of that that though, no one buys a MBP 13 and expects kick-ass graphic performance or 60 frames per second playing Call of Duty while connected to a 1920x1080 display. The 2011 MBP 13 are probably "good enough".
Click to expand...
I said overall the same. Not overall better. Bit of a difference there. Look here for one page – the 3000 wins sometimes, the 320M wins sometimes, and overall I wouldn't use either of them for gaming. Though I used to game on a MacBook with a GMA 950, and both NVIDIA and Intel's solutions blow that away.
 
Don't know whats this all about.. it's perfectly fine for the average user. I've been using Cinema 4D on mine with no problems. If you're looking for a gaming machine you'd be better off getting an Xbox or gaming PC.
 
I'm wondering how the HD3000 performs compared to the Nvidia 9400M in my 2008 aluminum macbook. I don't do anything graphically demanding on the macbook, but it really can't even handle displaying video over 720P.

I recently sold my 2006 Mac Pro with Radeon 4870 that my wife used for photoshop and Adobe Bridge, and bought a low end 15" MBP. So I'm wondering if the HD3000 will be better than the 9400M for light duty stuff like playing 720P or maybe even 1080P videos.

If it isn't better, that's fine. I will use the discreet graphics card. But as far as battery concerns go, if I could use the integrated card for most of my stuff, that would be good.
 
I find the HD 3000 graphics more than capable for my needs. I do some gaming and found it to be more than okay. My last laptop was a 2008 Aluminium MacBook with the Nvidia 9400M graphics so that was a big increase.
 
I didn't realize there was anything wrong with the current or previous? I have a 13 C2D and graphics are fine and my brother has an i7 13 inch MBP and the graphics are fine. With that said, if you are pushing powerhouse games get a 15 inch or a desktop, as the 13 is not designed around the concept of maximum performance given its smaller form factor.
 
I don't think anyone has posted here about why exactly Apple didn't choose a different GPU or offer an upgrade, so I will.

Apart from the fact that Apple has never offered a GPU upgrade option on the low-end MBP, Apple can't with Sandy Bridge. Because the GPU is integrated on the same die as the CPU, and a host of other reasons, it is not possible to put another integrated GPU on the logic board. Therefore, the only other option is to put a discrete GPU on the logic board, which the 13" MBP doesn't have room or heat capacity for.

So it was either Sandy Bridge and HD 3000, or stick with C2D and 320M or other integrated GPU. Which do you think was the better choice?
 
iThinkergoiMac said:
I don't think anyone has posted here about why exactly Apple didn't choose a different GPU or offer an upgrade, so I will.

Apart from the fact that Apple has never offered a GPU upgrade option on the low-end MBP, Apple can't with Sandy Bridge. Because the GPU is integrated on the same die as the CPU, and a host of other reasons, it is not possible to put another integrated GPU on the logic board. Therefore, the only other option is to put a discrete GPU on the logic board, which the 13" MBP doesn't have room or heat capacity for.

So it was either Sandy Bridge and HD 3000, or stick with C2D and 320M or other integrated GPU. Which do you think was the better choice?
Click to expand...

I don't think Apple had a choice. I haven't seen any new products based on those chips in months. Intel was not going to keep making those chips just for Apple. I also don't know how Nvida feels about that business either. I doubt sticking with the C2D cpu was viable for another 6 - 12 months. The graphics performance is clearly worse, however, Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt make up for it in the in long run.

To be honest, I'm happy that Apple is taking graphics performance more seriously than it has in the past. You can at least get a MBP that is in the realm of "reasonable graphics performance".

I'm more surprise that Apple released Thunderbolt with NOTHING to do with it. I would have expected them to update the displays, have a Thunderbolt hub or work with a 3rd party for other devices. People talk about Sandy Bridge but Thunderbolt is a huge leap in technology, Sandy Bridge is a small step. This update was about Thunderbolt to me.. and missed it.

When you can run an external RAID with the same performance as if it were internal AND 1 or maybe 2 external monitors all from 1 small port. THAT is a game changer.

That will separate Mac from everyone else.... and I still can't find products :(

(I know, off topic)
 
Penn Jennings said:
All of the early benchmarks that I saw showed the the standard 13 and 15 having significantly weaker GPUs than the 2010 models.

So I'm not sure how you can conclude that the performance did not change.
Click to expand...

They're benchmarks. From REAL Users, mostly they notice very little differences.
 
Sorry to say, but there's nothing "pro" about an integrated GFX card + a 1280x800 screen. My friend has one and it's a good laptop, but there's nothing "pro" about it.

Apple should really leave the "pro" label to the 15 / 17.
 
Juan007 said:
Sorry to say, but there's nothing "pro" about an integrated GFX card + a 1280x800 screen. My friend has one and it's a good laptop, but there's nothing "pro" about it.

Apple should really leave the "pro" label to the 15 / 17.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I have a friend who bought the 13" around the same time that I bought the 15" and the performance difference is staggering.

The 13" MBP is just an aluminum MacBook.
 
Juan007 said:
Sorry to say, but there's nothing "pro" about an integrated GFX card + a 1280x800 screen. My friend has one and it's a good laptop, but there's nothing "pro" about it.

Apple should really leave the "pro" label to the 15 / 17.
Click to expand...
I think it's more what you do with the hardware that allows for the Pro moniker rather than just raw specs.
 
No. It's worse than my 2010 MacBook Pro 13" when playing games in windows.
League of Legends and Minecraft both run pretty sloppy. Not in the start, but after 10 minuttes it's starts to not run smoothly. =/
 
If apple and nvidia ever do a big update with the drivers, the 320m will blow the 3000hd out of the water.

Just check out the windows benchmarks.

Anyways, the difference in real terms isn't that much, it's enough to get the job done. Personally, I would rather have my 2010 13 over the new one's because of the fan noise when I game. the extra 500 rpms make it a freaking jet.

Then again, who cares really? I mean yeah it's like 10 fps difference in some games but really, what the gpu lacks the cpu makes up for.
2.4 core 2 duo vs i5 and i7?
that's what it really should come down to.
 
NZed said:
They're benchmarks. From REAL Users, mostly they notice very little differences.
Click to expand...

"REAL" users can't tell the difference between a C2D and I7 95% of the time, myself included Unless you encode video, run multiple VMs that are some what busy or the like, CPUs are rarely stressed. Even on my C2D. I can run multiple VMs, surf AND play call of duty or world of warcraft and not max both CPUs. Having a smoking fast quad core is nice but rarely used.

Thus the need for benchmarks.
 
Mackilroy said:
They're not targeting gamers with the 13-inch MBP – not anything more than casual gamers, at least. They want the more serious gamers to pony up for the high-end 15-inch machine or above.

Besides, it shouldn't be a surprise that they don't offer another GPU option – Apple never has on the low-end machine, not since the Intel transition anyway.
Click to expand...

Mac's were never really designed for gaming. Its more of a professional workhouse
 
Penn Jennings said:
"REAL" users can't tell the difference between a C2D and I7 95% of the time, myself included Unless you encode video, run multiple VMs that are some what busy or the like, CPUs are rarely stressed. Even on my C2D. I can run multiple VMs, surf AND play call of duty or world of warcraft and not max both CPUs. Having a smoking fast quad core is nice but rarely used.

Thus the need for benchmarks.
Click to expand...

I mean you can tell the difference when you game on a 13" and a 15" right? Running SC2 Medium in HD3000 and running it High on the high end 15" is a real difference. But when gaming on the 320M and HD3000, its really hard to notice any differences like you said in the cores. I also have the C2D but on a 13" 2010 and its really not a gaming machine at all. It sometimes struggles when i have Win 7 on VMware. I actually bought this computer for photoshop editing and other photography related stuffs. But sometimes processing multiple pictures is a pain in the ass... and now i know that i should've bought the 15" back then...
 
iThinkergoiMac said:
So it was either Sandy Bridge and HD 3000, or stick with C2D and 320M or other integrated GPU. Which do you think was the better choice?
Click to expand...

This is the important question many overlook. Give me a current gen Sandy bridge any day. C2D was acceptable with the 320m even with it being as old as it was, but after two generations, the new CPU destroy the C2D's.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)

I love my Macbook 13 i5. I'm a hardcore gamer, but I realize that Macbooks aren't gaming laptops. If I want to play hardcore games like Crysis, I have my PS3 for that. I have a few games installed via bootcamp, Dead Space 2, Left For Dead 2, and NBA 2K11 and all those games runs GREAT on high settings with little or no lag... depending on what's going on in the game.

The bottom line is, the current GPU is not up to par with other high end gaming laptops like alienware. I don't think Macs will ever compete with top of the line gaming laptops. They are just not made for gaming. When my days are slow, I play games on my Mac for 2-3 hours and I am very happy with it. If you plan on using you Mac as an occasional game system, then I think it's perfect. If you prefer to substitute your Mac for a PS3 or XBox 360, then you're gonna be disappointed.
 
NZed said:
I mean you can tell the difference when you game on a 13" and a 15" right? Running SC2 Medium in HD3000 and running it High on the high end 15" is a real difference. But when gaming on the 320M and HD3000, its really hard to notice any differences like you said in the cores. I also have the C2D but on a 13" 2010 and its really not a gaming machine at all. It sometimes struggles when i have Win 7 on VMware. I actually bought this computer for photoshop editing and other photography related stuffs. But sometimes processing multiple pictures is a pain in the ass... and now i know that i should've bought the 15" back then...
Click to expand...

It's funny that you say that... I love my 2010 MBP 13... But I too wish that I gotten the 15 at the time.
 
If Apple were to remove the optical drive in the next Macbook Pro, I wonder if they would put in a bigger battery or a dedicated graphics chip.
 
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