I'm wondering what dedicated GPU the Intel GMA X3100 is closest related to in terms of graphical processing power. Would it be above or below that of a Radeon 9800 Pro or Nvidia 6600 GT for example? Also, are there any concise benchmarks comparing this to other dedicated mobile GPUs? I've searched all over but I can't seem to find anything.
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.
What GPU is the Intel GMA X3100 equivalent to?
- Thread starter asdfTT123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How are you defining power? Are you talking about say dedicated video memory? Pipelines? Some FPS test? Compatibility?
Power in terms of processing speed and frame rate benchmarks compared with competing GPU's. There seems to be a huge lack of benchmarks in the mobile platform. Has anyone here tried gaming with Leopard + SR Macbook with this GPU? Anyone care to post playable games and framerates? Thanks =]
There should be a lot of reviews on the PC side of things. However the GMA X3100 isn't usually benchmarked separately from the chipset it is built into. You're best bet is to find out what chipset it is built into and find reviews for that chipet.
The G965 for instance?
The G965 for instance?
I have a 3 year old Powerbook with the Radeon 9700 graphics.
I'm just about to buy a Macbook to replace it.
It seems the new just updated Macbook's graphics are weaker than my 3 year old powerbook
I'm just about to buy a Macbook to replace it.
It seems the new just updated Macbook's graphics are weaker than my 3 year old powerbook
I have a 3 year old Powerbook with the Radeon 9700 graphics.
I'm just about to buy a Macbook to replace it.
It seems the new just updated Macbook's graphics are weaker than my 3 year old powerbook
Yes but the Macbook Pro's graphics will kick your 9700's butt!
Here is an interesting forum thread for you,
There seems to be issues with DX10 when playing games in Vista for now, but any day soon...
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=128777&page=27
Google is our friend.
The above results were done using an older version of 3D Mark. They are synthetic benchmarks, which means that they often don't represent real-world performance very well.
They also were done using an X3100 that could share up to 256MB of memory. Apple restricts memory sharing on the MacBook to 144MB...this would produce lower performance, obviously.
I've heard plenty of talk indicating that the Mobility Radeon 9700 can outperform the X3100 at some tasks. According to PC sites, the X3100 fits somewhere between the Geforce Go 6100 and the GeForce 7100m, both also integrated setups. So it is certainly siginifcantly slower than the discreet GeForce 7300.
The above results were done using an older version of 3D Mark. They are synthetic benchmarks, which means that they often don't represent real-world performance very well.
They also were done using an X3100 that could share up to 256MB of memory. Apple restricts memory sharing on the MacBook to 144MB...this would produce lower performance, obviously.
I've heard plenty of talk indicating that the Mobility Radeon 9700 can outperform the X3100 at some tasks. According to PC sites, the X3100 fits somewhere between the Geforce Go 6100 and the GeForce 7100m, both also integrated setups. So it is certainly siginifcantly slower than the discreet GeForce 7300.
whoa... really? Those results show the x3100 right behind the mobility x1600 that was in the first 2 versions of the MBP and a whopping 10x higher score than the GMA 950. I'm guessing those results really don't reflect real world performance very well...
An X3100-based system is bound to have a faster CPU etc than a 950-based system so those benchmarks will be analysing more than just the GPU.
Barefeats.com did benchmarks of the new MacBooks and found the graphical power not a great deal better then the GMA950.
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook.html
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook1.html
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook2.html
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook.html
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook1.html
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook2.html
Very true...which demonstrates the near-impossibility of objectively comparing integrated GPUs.
Interesting links thanks. I remember being pleasantly suprised how well my Powerbook ran UT2004 and Doom 3, despite seeing people complain everywhere about how demanding these games were (especially Doom 3)
Asolutely right. When I brought my Powerbook, everyone told me what a weak graphics card it had, compared to PC laptops. I dealt with it by saying my PB was for WORK and doing real stuff (typing scripts, minor editing, dealing with clients) that earned money, not for stupid playing games.
Anyway, it earned back the money I spent on it within the first year. That's more than most games machines ever do.
Intel themselves have put the X3100 around the performance of the GeForce4 Ti 4200.
But you have to take into consideration that the X3100 shares the main system memory, so the performance will be hindered in that way and it will slow down the performance of the main CPU.
But you have to take into consideration that the X3100 shares the main system memory, so the performance will be hindered in that way and it will slow down the performance of the main CPU.
My thoughts exactly. I've been using a 12" PB as my main machine for over 3 years and it has been able to do almost every task I've asked of it. Of course the Intel Macs can crush it in stuff like Photoshop and other CPU intensive programs, but I still get a kick out of it being able to our perform the MacBooks in most game tests. I think it shows how important dedicated graphics are regardless of how poor they are (the 64MB NVIDIA 5200 my PB has is a perfect example).
The horse has been beaten to death, but the fact of the matter is that Apple took a step backwards when they adopted integrated GPUs for the MacBook. Fortunately, the MacBook is an otherwise excellent laptop...but it could have been even better.
sad but quite true. I guess apple did the calculations and decided that the added graphics power of a dedicated solution mattered very little to most macbook buyers, and/or using integrated on the MB would enable more upsells to MBPs.
I concur about the crap; macbooks would be great if they had even a low end dedicated GPU.
However, video like 1080p is usually going to be processor intensive but not so much in the GPU. I've used HD video (1080i and 1080p) on an older macbook with no problem. And with a core 2 duo, a newer macbook would have no problem. It's when your doing rendering or 3D that the dedicated GPU really comes into play.
The older GMA and the newer X3100 both have video processors in them to aid in the decode of high-def videos. It's used in windows to keep processor usage down. I don't know about in OSX though.