Intel GMA X3100 vs. Nvidia GeForce 320M

Hey,

Alright, so, I've searched high and low for any comparison between these two but I can't seem to find anything - I've been searching for some time now, to no avail...

Thing is, I have a MacBook from December 2007 (13 inch, 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB Ram and the Intel GMA X3100 Graphics) and it's singing its last songs at the moment, which is why I need a new laptop.
Until wednesday I was more or less dead-set on a MacBook Pro (15 inch, 2.4 GHz i5, 4GB Ram and NVIDIA GeForce GT 330M 256mb Graphics), because I'm quite positive, after reading for many straight days about, that it is quite future-proof, if I can say so.. I mean it has a dedicated graphics card for Pete's sake - if anything, that's an upgrade from my current MacBook.
At this point I find it appropriate to add, that the 'only' graphic-intese application I will use is Aperture (I simply could not justify it on my current MacBook - the trial version was slow and lagged, I never wanted to even try to install the full version).
I should maybe also add that my current MacBook fires up the fans when watching lo-res YouTube and has a hard time playing 720P YouTube at a viewable Frame rate.

Now, here is the dilemma:
Will the new MacBook Air (top-of-the-line-13-inch-version) be sufficient for Aperture and note taking? It will of course be a whole lot faster at quite possibly everything I throw at it, than my current Mac, but will it be at the same level or even close to the performance of the low-end MacBook Pro, detailed above? I know it'd be a clever choice to upgrade RAM to 4GB and possibly also the CPU to the 2.13GHz version, but then it'll be the same prize as the above detailed low-end MacBook Pro. But, again, will be as good or close to as good? Or do I get more bang-for-my-buck with the MacBook Pro?

I hope the above written wasn't too confusing and I look forward to your advice,

Sander

 

overall, no the new Air will not keep up with a 13" MBP let alone a 15 or 17... this is mainly because of the processor. however comparing it to machines with a standard hard drive, it will seem very fast in many ways because of the SSD... however oyu can also add SSDs to the other macs as well.

Will it work for what you want... probably.... the 320m is no slouch, an light years better than an intel X3100.

If you want a small portable machine, but don't mind a bit bigger than the 13" MBA, you should look at a 13" MBP. If you do want to add a SSD to it though, don't get one from Apple... you can get better/faster ones 3rd party cheaper and put it in yourself... and its not vey hard at all.

 

Yup from what you say I think you should go with the mbp 13''. It's quite cheaper too. The GT 320M is somewhere between the 8600M GS and 8600M GT I think.

 

Apple doesn't use the GT 320m ... it uses a 320m that is an IGP, not a discrete GPU.

That said its quite fast for an IGP.

here are some game benchmarks including the MBP 13" with the 320m
Apple MacBook Pro 13: Can a Mac Be a Decent Windows Laptop? - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

I know it's an IGP, but I thought it was the only (and apple-restricted) variant of the 320M

 

dude, there's no comparison.

320m >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x3100

you won't find comparisons because they're not in the same league. high school basketball vs. the NBA.

x3100 can barely do 720p. can't do old games like Half Life 2.

320m can run 1080p with ease. games like StarCraft II and Call of Duty will run.

you can consider the X3100 a "bare minimum" graphics chipset.

finally...while the top of the line (or bottom of the line) MB Air would be sufficient for your stated needs...if you're willing to spend $1,600 on a ultraportable...you really need to give the Sony Vaio Z a look. It's baseline $1,700 setup is an order of magnitude more powerful than the Air (i5/i7, SSD, 330M, 4GB-8GB RAM), while not sacrificing portability or much weight (3lbs) or battery life (7 hours).

just a thought.

 

320m scores around 4700 3dmark06 points, while the X3100 gets like 500.

 

from the link I gave... its basically, spec and design wise.. like an integrated version of the GT 325M

 

Eh, I got 5200 out of it http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph3889/33137.png

But yeah, like has been said before, the 320M is basically a GT 325M soldered to a motherboard. It's orders of magnitude faster than the X3100.

If I were you, I would wait until the next revision of MacBook Pro's come out with Sandy Bridge. The current 13" models (MB, MBP, Air) all come with Core 2 Duo processors that are not significantly different from the ones in your MacBook. Wait for a significant CPU update to the 2nd generation Core i3/i5 processors before upgrading.

 

Correct mms if I'm misunderstanding you
It's pretty clear after reading your responses (thank you all for the fast and helpful responses) that you think I should go with the 13-inchacBook Pro, because the 320M is significantly faster and much better an more capable than my X3100. Looking at the bemchmarking scores, I can understand that the 320M should be more than capable to run Aperture with no problems - thus making the 15-inch MacBook Pro somewhat overkill, right?
Only problem is I have to replace the old machine as soon as possible; within a month. My current MacBook is literally singing it's last verse (mainly because I almost set it on fire () and now the screen has a dark spot....) and, correct me if I'm mistaken, the current MBP 13-inch seems slightly outdated with C2D?? That's why I started taking the 15-inch MBP into consideration.

Again thank you all for you responses and help.

 

Core 2 Duo's might be "out-dated" as in there is something newer... that doesn't make them bad at all.

If Apple how somehow crammed a i3/i5 in there they would have had to also have crammed in a GPU (or stuck with intel integrated only). This would have lead to a hotter machine, that used more power... they built a machine for its all around goodness not focusing on just one little area.

When they make a new MBP 13" sometime with the i3/i5 family in it, it will most likely be a wedge shape with the thickest part slightly thicker than now... for extra cooling room. After having used my 13" MBP for many months, I'm actually glad they went with a C2D and the 320m... its an awesome machine.

 

Go for the 15" if possible within your budget constraints. The 13"er is already outdated, since it's using 2.5 year old Core 2 Duo processors (the launch date in Intel's processor database is like August 2008 for the exact CPU model in the lowest end MBP).

The Core i5 in the 15er is significantly faster, and since it's actually a modern/current processor, it's much more futureproof as well.

 

For what it's worth, Apple's probably using the latest R0 stepping which is slightly newer, and offers additional temperature/load sensors and 2 more instructions for VT plus the usual efficiency improvements over the original stepping.

 

2 extra instructions and an additional sensor doesn't give apple a reason to use 2+ year old tec in newly released hardware. they should have use the Core i3 ULV at 1.2Ghz. that's another reason I bought a Macbook 15 over a 13. i got the i5 CPU not a Core 2.

 

More mature silicon doesn't change the fact that the microarchitecture dates back to July 2006

 

so they should use a new processor that actually performs worse.. just cuz its newer? and get a GPU in there that is about 25% as good? sure.. that makes sense.

 

Interestingly enough, the 1.2GHz Core i3 ULV overclocked to 1.5GHz is about on par with the Core 2 currently in the MBP 13. It's somewhere between hilarious and sad, really.

Honestly, the regular-voltage i3 is well under the thermal envelope of the MBP13, they shoulda just gone with that. Too bad they cheaped out (and got away with it...)

 

I've had a x3100 and now 320m.. Yeah no comparison, as others mentioned the 320m IGP is pretty damn good. I'd glad apple went this route with C2D. Rather that than an i3 + 9400m lol

 

they couldn't even do a i3 9400 ... if they went with a i3/i5/i7 they'd either have to use the built in Intel graphics (horrid) or they'd have to add in a separate GPU like they did on the 15" and 17" ...

 

More mature silicon has nothing to do with why Apple chose the 320m. The thermal envelope of the MBA 11.6" would not accommodate the i3/i5 CPU + a separate graphics chipset. Apple learned QUICK that you NEVER (read:never) rely on just Intel's GMA graphics. The GMA950 and X3100 were horrible, and Apple got slammed for it. So they went to Nvidia for an integrated solution, and Nvidia custom made Apple the 320m chipset, which is basically a GT330m's GT216 core that's been downclocked and stuck with using system memory. Now since you have Nvidia graphics, there's no need or room for anything else, and so to keep the lowest TDP envelope possible, the C2D was used. The Core 2 Duo, IMO, is more efficient than the current Arrandale i-series. Maybe after the die-shrink to 22nm the ULV Core-i's will be better. People can put down the C2D all day long, but in the end it's been one of the best processor architectures ever to come out of Intel's fabs. Efficiency wise, NOTHING touches a ULV Core 2.

 

The CPU alone might well be within the thermal envelope, the complete package will not and would also require more space .

 

We were talking about the MBP13. I've never complained about the Air still running Core 2, that's at least understandable/defensible. The Pro 13 running Core 2 really isn't.

 

why not? Apple was worried about iOS stuff... they didn't want to design new computers yet.

Would you have wanted them to put an i7 in the MBP 13" and use intel graphics? The only way they can use decent integrated graphics is to stick to Core 2. No matter what people keep saying, there is NOT room inside the current design to fit a GPU and the cooling requirements (and everything else that goes along with it). When they make the next version, it will be either slightly bigger (thicker) or wedge shaped so the butt is a bit bigger and they can fit everything in it... or hopefully they'll actually make it slightly smaller and remove the optical drive, that would give plenty of room.

But overall, it comes down to... they would have had to majorly redesigned the casing in order to have done that.... then the MBP 13 wouldn't have matched up in looks with the 15 and 17... meaning those had to have redesigns as well. Apple chose to put off a redesign because they were too busy in other areas to want to get that done. I'm not sure why that is not understandable, it seemed to be a very good choice.

 

If Sony managed to fit an i7, a dedicated GT 330M, two SSDs and an optical drive into a notebook smaller than the MBP 13, Apple could have fit an i5 into the current MBP13 with an Nvidia graphics chip. Come on, don't argue a point you can't win.

Just because Apple didn't want to redesign the logic board doesn't mean they couldn't have.

 

its much more than the logic board.. there is a LOT more to laptop design than just saying its something similar, so they can do it too! The amount of room you have inside doesn't always match up to what you think might be there just looking at the outside. Just for comparison... a m11x has more internal room inside of it to house everything they put in it than the 13" MBP. When they finally remove the optical drive from the MBP 13" then they could fit in SLI GPUs if they wanted to.

I'm not arguing any point I cannot win, I just seem to be more knowledgable in the area. If you don't get anything from it, well you don't get anything from it, and it doesn't bother me.

 

Interestingly enough, I'm a hardware design engineer at a mobile device company. Tablets instead of laptops though, so maybe you are just that much more knowledgeable than me.

What other than the logic board would they have to redesign? I'm at a loss here - following the assumption that they could go with the same board dimensions (which is not unreasonable given the number of 11-13" notebooks with Core iX and dedicated graphics cards), they would be able to use the same case and everything else. Even if they had to increase the size of the board, if they changed the layout of the internals they'd be able to do it. They did it for the 15", so but I'm figuring that the cost of redesigning it plus the additional cost of the new Intel processors ate into their profit margins a bit too much for their comfort.

 

take one apart... look inside of it. I do actually have experience designing laptops, I just don't feel like getting into the details

The inside of the unibody would need minor adjustments which involves costs. Sure they can fit it inside without changing the looks of the laptop, I wasn't meaning that is was impossible. I'm just taking into account everything they wanted in there. They do not want to go to a 1.8" hard drive... they do not want to make the batter smaller... they don't want to make the keyboard thinner and dump the backlight.
I've never worked on designing super ultra portables with low power parts, but for larger that use a lot of power, heat management is very important, and I do not see a way they can fit all of that in there... the fan size is inadequate for cooling a GPU and CPU (and keeping it quiet), which is why the 15 and 17 has dual fans. There needs to be more ventilation, or a fan that can move more air, which wouldn't fit easily, and be very loud.

But the design has to stay within Apple's design philosophy, not just "whatever we can cram in the package." I'm sure there are plenty of people that do not agree with me, but I've actually stripped apart my 13"er trying to find an easy way they could have done it. If it had been my final decision, I would have had them just take out the optical drive, put in i5s and i7s and the same 330m in the 15 and 17. They could have fit all that with a second fan, and still made the battery larger than it is now... but they weren't willing to dump the drive yet.

 

First of all I want to thank you all, again, for your responses and input - I really do appreciate it, a lot

Secondly, I'd just like to tell you, that I just put in an order at Amazon.com for the base 15-inch MacBook Pro, a Seagate Momentus XT 500GB, and Kingston Mac Ram (2x4GB) for a total of $2110 - I personally see this as great deal, because a similarily configured MacBook Pro on Apple.com would have been $2515 and that with a regular 7200rpm HDD. I see this as a great deal even more so because of the fact, that a machine with those specs would have run me a whopping $3292 here in Denmark, where I currently reside.

But why did I go with the 15-inch and not the 13-inch?
I did this because I personally did not want to buy a laptop that uses the same (not entirely, but almost) processor as the one I have now, and because I want to try a 15-inch display. I like a 13-inch for the portability, but when playing with pictures in Aperture or even fullscreen-iPhoto, I wanted to see how much better 15-inch would make it.
I also went with the 15-inch because of the dedicated GPU. Not only for pictures and HD movies but also for playing games every now and then.

At this point I am very satisfied with my decision and choice, and I can not wait to get my hands on this machine! I'm excited for some accelerated action on this MacBook Pro - I am sure it will be light years faster than the one I'm currently using!

A last, quick question; when I actually do get this thing in my hands, should I boot it up and set it up with the stock HDD and RAM first, and make sure everything is in working order, or should I just pop in the XT and 8gb right away and run the installation disk before anything else??

Again thanks for your insight and advice!

/Sander

 

Personally, I'd boot it first.