Macbook SR x3100 performance

Is it true that Leopard's driver for x3100 is bad, and that gma 950 actually outperforms x3100 with current drivers?

I hope not , but also, is there a way to get a rough idea of a bench mark for x3100 in leopard? Like a simple software that I can use.

Thanks

 

http://www.barefeats.com/mbook2.html

The GMA X3100 doesn't have optimized drivers yet on Mac, and even on Windows, Intel is still struggling to offer the IGPs full capabilities. Still, tests in actual games has shown that the GMA X3100 is consistently faster than the GMA 950. In terms of synthetic GPU benchmarks there's really only Cinebench and XBench.

 

time will tell with apple what they decide to let loose with video drivers.

i dont think ive seen any updates for the previous gma950, x1600, or 8600s yet, so id be willing to guess that what we have, is what we are getting.

 

Most cards get a new driver with every OS update. For instance, 10.4.11 updated the graphics card driver for the X1600 in the MBP to 1.4.58 from 1.4.56 in 10.4.10.

 

Consistantly faster? Not by much. Going from 12 to 17 fps isn't exactly anything to write home about.

All of those games running under OS X are still unplayable.

Have a look around here at this forum too. People that have this card in their Windows PC have to go so far as to disable games use of HW T&L to get them to run at acceptable speeds. Even then its only slightly above where the GMA950 is with current drivers.

Both the GMA 950 and X3100 perform WELL BELOW their paper specifications. Both are a joke. Apple really needs to offer the GeForce 7150M in the MacBook if they insist on shafting us with integrated graphics and not giving us an option of at least a GeForce 8400M GS.

 

didnt know that, thanks! i stand corrected

 

that's a 42% increase in frames, what kind of performance increase are you looking for? 400% to 60 fps?

 

It's still unplayable.

Theres no reason Apple couldn't have thrown in an nVidia IGP or even *gasp* a dedicated card!

 

The Intel IGPs are cheaper than nVidia's solution. Plus, too much heat for a dedicated card, the single fan couldn't handle it.

 

The macbook doesnt need a gpu. Why do you insist it does?

 

people always want more more more im quite happy with the x3100. it suits the needs of the macbook.

if people wanna game , go buy a dell, thats a better value for that stuff.

the macbook doesnt need anything more. now, if they could provide it, while keeping it cool (i doubt it), the same thickness (i doubt it), and only one fan ( i doubt it), BRING IT APPLE. All else, forget about it.

 

Yeah true. I am sure as hell not buying the macbook for gaming. More for photoshop and illustrator. Those programs are actually cpu and memory intense so a gpu for me is too much. The macbook allows for a good amount of ram and a solid fast as hell cpu.

 

oh yea, 2.2 GHZ worth of goodness should help on my 350 DVD handbrake compressions! still too slow though, haha

 

x3100 is more than enough, for god's sake i never thought I could run cs source on this computer.

 

What settings/performance you get?

 

i get 40fps avg (stress test) with everything low @1024x768 very playable
i get 30fps avg (stress test) with everything low @1280x800 okay

 

Look at the MacBook Pro.

Slightly thinner than the MacBook, hotter enclosure (aluminum) and still a single cooling fan.

No reason a dedicated GPU or better IGP couldn't be used.

The reason I "insist" upon it is the cost. The MacBook with DVD writer is $1408 in some places in California (different tax levels). Thats how much mine was. $1408 for the worst of the worst GPUs? Come on

I kick myself every day for buying it instead of a Dell or HP with a dedicated GPU.

Thankfully I now do have something with a dedicated GPU. If only I had the heart to rip someone off by selling them my MacBook the same way Apple ripped me off.

 

Next time, I imagine you'll do your research.

When I bought my MacBook, it was the cheapest current generation 13" on the market, so I jumped. And I'm completely satisfied.

And Jokkon, I get slightly better results in the stress test than you with my setup, but when I join an online game, I am lucky to get 30fps. I'm praying for a driver update soon.

 

The fact that the MacBook Pro is aluminum helps with the heat, the heat conducts through it making the components cooler than with plastic. Plastic will just insulate them, making them hot.

They probably can't add a dedicated GPU to the MacBook without adding another fan to deal with heat.

 

The MacBook Pro actually has 2 cooling fans and as someone mentioned, the aluminum means that the entire laptop is used as a heatsink and it's a pretty common complaint about MacBook Pros that they are too hot. I do think they should try to offer something a little bit better in the Blackbook, like maybe a 8400M G, but if the upcoming Montevina platform and it's GMA X4500 derivative improves things as Intel believes it would, that maybe sufficient.

 

The MBP has two cooling fans.

 

have you tried this command?
cl_showfps 2
i used this cmd when i was playing online with about 23 ppl, I notice that the fps varies depending on the map I am playing. On de_dust2 the fps varies from 20 to 30 , on cs_cbble the fps varies from 30-50. And the game isn't even playable when I am near the tunnels and underwater on the cs_millitia. I think you are getting better results than me probably because you have more ram than I do?

 

I was using net_graph 3, but I'll try your way so we can compare results. Oh, and I only like playing on cs_office servers.

And yes, the X3100 loves extra ram, just as the GMA950 did before it.

 

the MBP has a much better cooling system installed. apple didnt rip you off, you sound like you didnt do enough digging before you bought. after all, you did spend your money, not the other way around

 

I just went to ncix and purchased to 2 sticks 2gig of buffalo ram. I don't really see any improvements in fps but load time has shortened by a whole lot. Also cs_militia used to be unplayble when I had 1 gig of ram. Now I get about 20fps when I am near the water. Pretty awesome

Right now my setting for the game is : 1280x768 (seems to run better than 1280x800 and I don't really see a difference between the 2) (texture, model = medium) shader low, shadow low, bilinear, everything else off