Which is better? Intel Graphics HD3000 or NVIDIA GeForce 320M?

Which is better? Intel Graphics HD3000 or NVIDIA GeForce 320M?

 

I'm submitting my vote for the Intel HD 3000. I went from an Alienware with a Nvidia 260m to a MacBook with Intel HD 3000. The Intel has a lot of haters but in my personal experience, it's been awesome. I haven't had any issues with it aside from the fact that my MacBook Pro gets fairly warm when I play WoW for extended periods of time. It plays WoW and Eve Online on High graphics at 30fps.

Comparing the two is so circumstantial that it's hard to say which is better. I'd say, depending on what your looking to do, you'd be good either way. Me personally, I wanted the Sandy Bridge processor on a Mac and a small machine so the 13" MacBook pro is perfect for me. I can't say enough good things about it.

 

Also I forgot to tell you, if your looking to buy a Mac or Dell, hit me up because I can assist you in getting a corporate discount. I've done the same for a few members on these boards.

 

on Mac OS X, I've gotten better and faster performance with the HD 3000 in a i7... the i5 might be the same, but its technically a bit slower. In Windows though, according to benchmarks, the 320m is faster.

 

The Nvidia card might have a slight advantage because Nvidia has decent video drivers, but I would prefer the Intel Graphics, because you get core i5 vs. Core 2 Duo

 

I'd say that the 3000 is better. I just think it'll take some time for the drivers to mature and be a bit better.

 

Look at the reviews of the 2010 MBP 13 vs. 2011 MBP 13 over at LAPTOP Magazine - Product reviews, tech news, buying guides, and more. Even though they are about the same in 3DMark 06, the old MBP smokes the new one in gaming benchmarks. The new one seems to run a lot cooler though and gets a little better battery life.

 

The old one "smokes" the new model when it comes to gaming? It is true that there are some titles that run better on the 320m simply because they take advantage of Nvidia's architecture but the same could be said when comparing the 320m to an AMD 5400 when other titles take advantage of AMD's architecture. There are also some games that run at higher framerates on the HD 3000. So the whole "smokes" concept really isn't there. The 320m is better for some, the HD 3000 is better for others, and the HD 3000 is all around about the same as the 320m (though performance in OS X tends to be better).

 

What benchmarks show that the HD 3000 is better for some games? When I did a search for benchmarks comparing the 2010 MBP to the 2011 MBP, I didn't find a lot of game benchmarks but the ones I found indicated the opposite. For example, from the source I mentioned:

2010 MBP 13: 19/47 FPS in Far Cry 2 and 50/124 FPS in WoW (native/auto res)
2011 MBP 13: 13/21 FPS in Far Cry 2 and 28/74 FPS in WoW (native/auto res)

And the 2010 had the old Core 2 Duo processor. To me, that is "smokes". The HD 3000 is fine for older, less demanding games, but the old MBP 13 was better for gaming than the new MBP 13. There's a reason why Apple still puts a dedicated GPU in the MBP 15.

 

you may want to look at some of the benchmarks here....
AnandTech - Intel?s Sandy Bridge i7-2820QM: Upheaval in the Mobile Landscape

of course that would be better... but what does that have to do with anything? no 13" macbook (Pro or normal) has ever had a dedicated GPU... the 320m is not one either.

 

It was even reported that SCII runs at a higher framerate on the HD 3000 than the 320m.

 

Yeah, but those are benchmarks from an Intel/Compal prototype, not a production piece and not a Mac. The benchmarks on the notebookcheck HD 3000 page paint the opposite picture.

But anyway, I think the relevant question for this forum is whether a new MBP 13 with HD 3000 graphics performs better than the old model with GT 320M. There are some interesting results here comparing the two:

MacBook Pro (2010) vs MacBook Pro (2011)

And a few here:

MacBook Pros (Early 2011) Review | Laptops | From the Lab | Macworld

OK, fair point.

 

That reviews actually shows the HD 3000 on top when it comes to OS X gaming. There was only one benchmark where the HD 3000 tied with the 320m. So, in all those OS X tests, the HD 3000 "smoked" the 320m while gaming (which is not surprising as the HD 3000 OS X drivers seem to be better than the Windows releases while the 320m Windows drivers are better than its OS X versions).

Portal also performed better on the 2011 MBP models as well. So there are titles that run better on the 2011 models, you just ended up proving my point. Not every game is going to run better but that can always be changed with game updates and driver updates from Intel (which has been pretty bad with Windows driver support in the past). So yeah, those two links show benchmarks with the HD 3000 running better than the 320m for some titles. Even then I highly doubt that anyone is going to buy a 13" notebook and expect Modern Warfare 2 to run on it especially when even Alienware's M11x isn't all that great for gaming either.

 

dmk is right.
Look at the Windows 7 64bit benchmarks.
It is higher. You can't take the OS X benchmark because the limit is artificial not fully optimized like gaming on Windows.
Look at the left for dead benchmark on OS X and Windows.

For OS X

Left 4 Dead (SP Campaign “No Mercy”
Low Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 51
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 48
For Windows
Left 4 Dead (SP Campaign “No Mercy”
Low Settings
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (avg fps) = 57
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (avg fps) = 69


I wonder if you actually know how to read and understand statistics ...

 

Now who is trying to spin data to make it favor their viewpoint? Why can't OS X benchmarks be used? That is the primary OS on a MacBook Pro after all. That is like saying you can't use Windows benchmarks on a Dell and can only go with tests done under Ubuntu.

Maybe, instead of trying to insult people (ie me), you should let the data speak for itself. I didn't say anything that the data did not reflect. It doesn't matter if a game runs at a higher fps in Windows or not. I wasn't talking about Wndows benchmarks and my original statement still holds true that some titles perform better under OS X with the HD 3000 over the 320m.

P.S. Unless you are a statistician, I suggest you not try to insult others when brining up statistics (which has nothing to do with the data set other than averaged numbers since nothing beyond that was performed on the results).

 

1)Because games have always been optimised for Windows?
OS X is an afterthought.
2) Both Machines got better performance on Windows than OS X this says alot about optimization on OS X.

If Windows have the HIGHEST performance for BOTH machines isn't it logical only performance should be considered to be fair?

It is no secret that GPU manufacturers always worked with Microsoft regarding game/3D development hence they always had the edge.

 

how does that make sense if the user is never going to use Windows?

 

I don't think Operating System Environment is in the scope of the discussion.
Isn't discussion of hardware capabilities the topic?

Is someone having difficult understanding simple logic?
Intel 3000HD runs faster on Windows than OS X.
Nvidia 320M runs faster on Windows than OS X.
So we take the fastest speed Intel 3000HD can run and compare to the fastest speed Nvidia 320M can run and surprise both runs fastest in Windows!
And the Nvidia 320M wins.

What kind of analogy compare does comparing Hackintosh fit in...
It seems to be someone got downgraded graphics(pure hardware potential comparison) and refuse to admit it.
Well you can continue to enjoy nerfed hardware on OS X.

 

We are discussing the capabilities of the hardware through benchmark tests but those studies were all done under specific software. That hardware is useless unless there is something on the software end that can use it. It makes no sense throwing Windows benchmarks at someone when they may never use that OS on a MacBook Pro. So a higher fps count in a game running under Windows means absolutely nothing to someone who is running Mac OS X on their MBP or someone else who has Red Hat installed on an HP desktop.

It doesn't matter if the games aren't optimized for OS X, that is irrelevant and does not invalidate the benchmarks. I might as well start saying that the new Alienware M17x is a terrible system because OS X runs buggy on it. When talking about hardware capabilities, all aspects much be looked at especially if that hardware was designed to run different operating systems. People can also completely ignore one side or the other if they don't run a specific OS. People aren't going to care about any Windows benchmarks if they primarily run OS X on their MBP. So throwing out those OS X numbers means a person like that has nothing to go off of.

 

Bottom of the line is who really cares if Portal 2 runs at 57fps and not 68 gps. Both are framerates that I can definitely live with. It makes 0 sense to argue over what graphics card overachieves more. The OP asked which one is better and I say neither one is super duper and neither one sucks . All I see is benchmark this and benchmark that....WHO CARES?

To answer the OP's question, plain and simple...they both are decent, it's a preference thing really...do you like a mature older lady or a young ripe 18 year old girl that both perform fairly equally?

 

I'd pick the 18-year-old, though 21-23 is more my kinda thing. *cough*