Intel HD 3000 wow...

[Davidkoh]

There are many more variables than just looking at numbers. It matters what operating system your in (Mac OSX seems to have better performing drivers for the Intel HD3000) and the game. A game like Call of Duty 4 is completely GPU bound, so the stronger GPU of the 320M shines through. A game like Starcraft 2 is almost entirely CPU bound, so the better CPU of sandy bridge shines through.

How come the 2010 MBP wins in Starcraft 2 then? Starcraft 2 is FAR from being entirely CPU bound. Maybe if you run it at lowest resolution with everything at minimum. But if you run it at better settings
you will be limited by the GPU.

I can agree with you regarding the HD3000 having better drivers in OS X. So there the difference is smaller. But if you look at the Windows tests the 320m MBP gets up to 35% higher FPS than the HD3000 one.

It all boils down to what you do the most, if you encode loads of video then you'd want a better CPU, if you play games you'd want a better GPU.

Windows drivers suck for HD3000.

OS X drivers are far superior for gaming.

Too bad you need Windows if you want to play most games .

 

[CaoCao]

If the rumors are true and the 13" is only getting a CPU running at 17w what still leaves 8w for them to add in a discrete GPU(unless they want much better battery life), although I doubt they would differentiate the two sizes with that. If they dont do that then they should do something to compensate the cost of not having it by giving 4gigs ram standard or blk. Also it would make the 13 pro kind of useless.

Wouldnt a discrete GPU in the new MBA just go in the place that the 320 was in? Sorry if thats a stupid question.

no no no, hell no. Either go with 17W or 25W, no discrete.

the 320M actually is part of the chipset so it required no extra space than the system would without it.

 

[macjacky11]

Hope the new Airs wont be using Intel HD 3000.

 

[Roman2K~]

Hope the new Airs wont be using Intel HD 3000.

99.99% sure they will. Unless they have gone the AMD route, which I can't see happening, they have no choice but to upgrade to Sandy Bridge which all include this IGP (or its crippled brother, the HD 2000).

 

[Steve121178]

Ivy Bridge will be the same thing as Sandy Bridge, it'll simply be catching up barely to what AMD/nVidia were doing the year prior. You want to know how Ivy Bridge IGPs will perform ? Look at the current crop of nVidia mobile GPUs, and substract about 10%.

Intel should've simply bought nVidia outright and ditched its own failed graphics division in order to compete with AMD/ATI.

You don't understand what you are talking about. Intel have to balance GPU with power consumption. Intel aims to produce extremely power efficient chips. You can't have a machine running for 5-10 hours on a single charge if it has an energy zapping GPU.

Anyone who claims Intel have a "failed graphics division" really needs to stop embarrassing themselves with their complete lack of knowledge and leave the talking on these boards to those who have a clue.

"Intel should've simply bought nVidia outright and ditched its own failed graphics division in order to compete with AMD/ATI"

Embarrassing.

 

[Susurs]

You don't understand what you are talking about. Intel have to balance GPU with power consumption. Intel aims to produce extremely power efficient chips. You can't have a machine running for 5-10 hours on a single charge if it has an energy zapping GPU.

Anyone who claims Intel have a "failed graphics division" really needs to stop embarrassing themselves with their complete lack of knowledge and leave the talking on these boards to those who have a clue.

"Intel should've simply bought nVidia outright and ditched its own failed graphics division in order to compete with AMD/ATI"

Embarrassing.

Do you really think that 320M is an energy zapping GPU?
+ If there wasn't this agreement between Intel and Nvidia we would have already seen upgraded versions of Nvidia integrated graphics with far better performance than even 320M as somebody already said.

 

[ri0ku]

You don't understand what you are talking about. Intel have to balance GPU with power consumption. Intel aims to produce extremely power efficient chips. You can't have a machine running for 5-10 hours on a single charge if it has an energy zapping GPU.

Anyone who claims Intel have a "failed graphics division" really needs to stop embarrassing themselves with their complete lack of knowledge and leave the talking on these boards to those who have a clue.

"Intel should've simply bought nVidia outright and ditched its own failed graphics division in order to compete with AMD/ATI"

Embarrassing.

Wow this post is whats embarrassing :S .... Are you saying Nvidia's chipset is a power zapper?

Intels GPU solutions have always been terrible, yes they have to work out a way to make the chipset run at decent power concumption but theres things like the AMD fusion cores now which some run at lower voltage than most of the atom series and they kill intel in peformance.

You cant say its all about intel wanting to be the good guy and make chips run for hours on there low power consumption crap... its about intel being used more widely and stopping nVidia and co from getting into machines. They have made it so that we cant have decent graphics in premium model notebooks like the macbook air or the macbook pro.

 

[416049]

I have played multiple games so far including Crysis and yet have to find a game which I cannot play 1600x900 or 1920X1080p (unless the game doesn't support the resolutions) Left4Dead works great, Counterstrike as well etc, stop complaining. If you want to buy a gaming computer go with Alienware or build it yourself.

 

[Davidkoh]

I have played multiple games so far including Crysis and yet have to find a game which I cannot play 1600x900 or 1920X1080p (unless the game doesn't support the resolutions) Left4Dead works great, Counterstrike as well etc, stop complaining. If you want to buy a gaming computer go with Alienware or build it yourself.

Which computer do you have?

 

[416049]

Which computer do you have?

Macbook Pro 13inch 2011 and I am using it with a external 23inch screen, I could put in screenshots of some of them

 

[Davidkoh]

Macbook Pro 13inch 2011 and I am using it with a external 23inch screen, I could put in screenshots of some of them

What graphic settings do you use and what fps are you getting?

 

[416049]

What graphic settings do you use and what fps are you getting?

Depends on the Games

In Left Dead 2 I have 1600*900 online as well as offline

Same Settings for COD 4

FPS i don't know but the game runs 100% smooth

 

[ri0ku]

Depends on the Games

In Left Dead 2 I have 1600*900 online as well as offline

Same Settings for COD 4

FPS i don't know but the game runs 100% smooth

Use the command cl_showfps 2

The intel 3000hd should be able to run some games alright but on low settings

But sorry I doubt your running Left 4 Dead 2 with those settings at that resolution on an intel 3000HD at a decent framerate.... my 9600m struggles to do that and its far faster. The multi core rendering on with the help of the i5 of course will be helping you but not enough to make the fps significantly better

 

[416049]

Use the command cl_showfps 2

The intel 3000hd should be able to run some games alright but on low settings

But sorry I doubt your running Left 4 Dead 2 with those settings at that resolution on an intel 3000HD at a decent framerate.... my 9600m struggles to do that and its far faster. The multi core rendering on with the help of the i5 of course will be helping you but not enough to make the fps significantly better

sorry noobish question but where do i type it into or how do i open the console?

 

[voigtstr]

Macbook Pro 13inch 2011 and I am using it with a external 23inch screen, I could put in screenshots of some of them

You haven't tried playing EVE online by any chance? I'd be very interested to see how the intel chip handles EVE...

 

[416049]

You haven't tried playing EVE online by any chance? I'd be very interested to see how the intel chip handles EVE...

not yet but i will try a bit later

 

[ri0ku]

sorry noobish question but where do i type it into or how do i open the console?

I just checked my PC running an i7 with the AMD HD 6970 with everything set to high (which is only slightly more than your settings) and running at 1920 x 1080 and my max fps is 80 and lowest is 58.

I dont see the 3000 HD getting above 30fps in massive waves.

However the command console has to be turned on in settings first under keyboard settings then its the button to the left of your "1" key that opens it in game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JUm2XVKAcc

This proves the performance your saying just cant be true. Hes running at 1024 x 768 which is dramatically lower than the res you stated and look at the video. The performance is terrible, thats not playable when theres hundreds of zombies on screen.

Its not terrible... but its not great. If you run on a low res with low settings you probably can get away with an ok game performance.

 

[KnightWRX]

Anyone who claims Intel have a "failed graphics division" really needs to stop embarrassing themselves with their complete lack of knowledge and leave the talking on these boards to those who have a clue.

As someone who has been following this whole thing since the Intel i740 (remember that one ?), I can safely say I have a clue and your post was off target and insulting (against the forum rules).

You failed to even address a single one of my arguments, rather relying on name calling rather than actual knowledge. The 9400M and 320M are far from power inefficient, offering already good battery life in the Apple notebooks they were used in, proving your whole basis for calling me clueless completely wrong from the get-go.

Seriously, do you have something to contribute to this thread other than Intel blind faith ?

The fact remains, I don't believe "Ivy Bridge" is going to be the one to finally "catch-up" to the competition. Intel has failed to deliver a GPU that competes with ATI's and nVidia's current generation for the last 10 year. They will continue to fail in this. nVidia and ATI meanwhile deliver mobile GPUs that perform much better and are used in laptops with great battery life like my present MBA, the previous generation MB and MBPs.

And that my friend is a fact.

 

[ri0ku]

As someone who has been following this whole thing since the Intel i740 (remember that one ?), I can safely say I have a clue and your post was off target and insulting (against the forum rules).

You failed to even address a single one of my arguments, rather relying on name calling rather than actual knowledge. The 9400M and 320M are far from power inefficient, offering already good battery life in the Apple notebooks they were used in, proving your whole basis for calling me clueless completely wrong from the get-go.

Seriously, do you have something to contribute to this thread other than Intel blind faith ?

The fact remains, I don't believe "Ivy Bridge" is going to be the one to finally "catch-up" to the competition. Intel has failed to deliver a GPU that competes with ATI's and nVidia's current generation for the last 10 year. They will continue to fail in this. nVidia and ATI meanwhile deliver mobile GPUs that perform much better and are used in laptops with great battery life like my present MBA, the previous generation MB and MBPs.

And that my friend is a fact.

Well said my friend

 

[416049]

I just checked my PC running an i7 with the AMD HD 6970 with everything set to high (which is only slightly more than your settings) and running at 1920 x 1080 and my max fps is 80 and lowest is 58.

I dont see the 3000 HD getting above 30fps in massive waves.

However the command console has to be turned on in settings first under keyboard settings then its the button to the left of your "1" key that opens it in game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JUm2XVKAcc

This proves the performance your saying just cant be true. Hes running at 1024 x 768 which is dramatically lower than the res you stated and look at the video. The performance is terrible, thats not playable when theres hundreds of zombies on screen.

Its not terrible... but its not great. If you run on a low res with low settings you probably can get away with an ok game performance.

Sorry but how would you know If i am speaking the truth or not heck what would I have to do to prove it to you that yes it is possible my computers temperature is around 75degrees celcius but yes it is running i am actually playing against a friend right now online on the helms deep reborn campain where there are hundreds of zombies still it is running smoothly

the guy in your vid is using it without an external screen, i am using with hence the resolution is possible you can find my setup in the setups past and present part 14,

ok found a different command which works with the frame rate and i am getting about 30 to 35 FPS +/- a bit when having massive waves attacking me

 

[ri0ku]

Sorry but how would you know If i am speaking the truth or not heck what would I have to do to prove it to you that yes it is possible my computers temperature is around 75degrees celcius but yes it is running i am actually playing against a friend right now online on the helms deep reborn campain where there are hundreds of zombies still it is running smoothly

the guy in your vid is using it without an external screen, i am using with hence the resolution is possible you can find my setup in the setups past and present part 14,

ok found a different command which works with the frame rate and i am getting about 30 to 35 FPS +/- a bit when having massive waves attacking me

Huh what? I know your using an external monitor and hes not... but the point is thats more graphically intense... so therefor hes running it at a much lower resolution that you are with the same hardware and yet his gameplay is like that..

So by logic and basic knowledge you running it at the same settings with the same hardware on a higher res would make the performance even worse... -_-

 

[KnightWRX]

Sorry but how would you know If i am speaking the truth or not

Considering your MBP 13" is mass-produced and this is the Internet where tons of others have the same notebook, with the same GPU and have run benchmarks, your statements can be cross-verified against other's in order to find out if you are indeed lying or not.

If you had a one of a kind MBP 13", then you would be right in saying there's no way of knowing. Since that isn't the case, the guy can know after doing some research into the subject.

 

[416049]

Considering your MBP 13" is mass-produced and this is the Internet where tons of others have the same notebook, with the same GPU and have run benchmarks, your statements can be cross-verified against other's in order to find out if you are indeed lying or not.

If you had a one of a kind MBP 13", then you would be right in saying there's no way of knowing. Since that isn't the case, the guy can know after doing some research into the subject.

yes while thats true I still get that frame rate and why would i be lying online It would have no benefit for me nor make me feel better, it is a graphically intense game yet i still manage to get around 30fps, max is around 35-40 on 1600x900, in 1920x1080p it is crawling but that is expected.

 

[ri0ku]

yes while thats true I still get that frame rate and why would i be lying online It would have no benefit for me nor make me feel better, it is a graphically intense game yet i still manage to get around 30fps, max is around 35-40 on 1600x900, in 1920x1080p it is crawling but that is expected.

Then tell us... how come you have a magical 3000 ?

How can someone with identical hardware running the same settings except for running at a much lower resolution that you has gaming performance much worse than what your claiming?

 

[416049]

Then tell us... how come you have a magical 3000 ?

How can someone with identical hardware running the same settings except for running at a much lower resolution that you has gaming performance much worse than what your claiming?

I never said anything about a magical 3000 nor was I implying that the lowest I get is 20FPS which is still fine for most parts. I am attaching screen shots but of course Photoshop is a great tool which i could have used to change the pictures just to prove a point...