graphics card in mpb 13 inch?

hey all,

i'm thinking of getting a macbook pro and im wondering whats the capability of the 13 inch graphics card for steam games such as tf2 and cs source?

thanks

 

It should play those games no problem on very good settings.

 

If I can play Half Life Episode 1 comfortably, then those games should be a cake walk.

 

TF2 requires a good amount of power to run.....so I do not know if the dedicated video card in the MBP 13'' can run it. I know TF2 runs fine on the 15'' MBP. Can anyone else shine on this? I have an old 08 white macbook and it cannot run TF2 at all...fps was terrible and it was extremely laggy.

 

The '08 White Macbooks had integrated graphics (Intel X3100, I believe). They are completely different from anything that Apple has on the market now, GPU-wise, at least. Both the 9400M and the 320M are much more powerful than the X3100.

 

You should be able to run those games on max setting.

 

I can't run TF:2 on max settings on my 9600, at least in OS X. TF:2 does take a lot of power. Half life 2 and CS:S are old games.

Also, a tip for anyone playing on OS X and has stuttering issues or the game not running smooth, enable vertical sync in the graphic settings, it should help.

 

thanks for all the feedback guys' im pumped for my macbook

 

The 13 inch MBP has an integrated 320M graphics card. It's not bad for an integrated, low power solution, but it is weak compared to others.

Half Life 2 and CS:S use very old engines, old games like those should play without a problem. However more modern games will not run as well.

 

If by "weak" you mean that it performs about the same as last generation's flagship 9600M GT, then sure it's "weak".

What resolution are you playing it on? The 13" MB only goes up to 1280x800.

 

TF2 is actually pretty tough on a system. It will run okay but definitely not max settings. My M11xR2 (i7, GT335M, 1366x768) doesn't handle TF2 as well as I'd like it to.

CS:S should run like a champ.

 

I think he means it's weak in comparison to just about any truly dedicated (ie, non-integrated, non-system-memory-sharing) video card available on current machines today with similar pricetags. To keep it in perspective, the 320M actually ranks below the old 9600M GS..

As for the question about gaming performance? TF2 will probably suffice at medium settings at a playable framerate. The older games should be more than fine at pretty much any setting you choose

 

I said the 320M performs about the same as the 9600M GT. The 9600M GS of course also performs about the same as the GT card.

Most people consider the 310M dedicated card to be a very powerful GPU for an ultraportable, and the 320M outperforms it. It might be "weak" compared to GPUs found in larger gaming laptops, but that's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

"About the same" in your words really isn't the truth; "notably and measurably less than" is quite a bit closer. If an 11" form-factor PC (Alienware M11x) can come with a 335M with twice the shader hardware and bandwidth as the 320M, then I think there's room for significant improvement. In reality, even the 330M is a notable step-up from the 320M because of the lack of shared ram, thus providing a significant amount of additional bandwidth for anti-aliasing and texture filtering.

All in all, "weak" was an acceptable adjective. You don't like it, that's fine, but that doesn't negate it's "weak"ness.

P.S. Anyone who considers the 310M to be any sort of 'decent' obviously doesn't know much about graphics hardware.

 

The M11x is like 2" thick. The form factor of any MBP is completely different from that. The laptop runs hot enough as it stands.

 

the m11x is less than half an inch thinker not really a major difference 1.08 inchs for the macbook v 1.29 inches for the m11x so 0.21 of an inch

 

Still, it is a bit thicker and has no optical drive. That's a significant amount of extra space to work with.

 

Someone asked why it was weak, I believe it has been thoroughly explained.

Are there any further questions?

 

Depending on what you're comparing to - the 320m is best in class for integrated chips. But yeah against other dedicated it may be considered fairly weak. But damn good for integrated + battery life. 48shaders is a lot better than previous gen 16 in the 9400m and the 9400m was "decent".

But since source is CPU heavy the OP will be okay. TF2 you can turn up a few settings to make it look pretty but even on some lows/meds here and there you'll be fine and still looks great. For example, check out valve's newest source game releasing today - Alien Swarm. Recommended 2.4Ghz C2D yet gfx options are reasonable.

 

For an ultraportable. In comparison to even an average dedicated laptop GPU, the 310M is weak. I've also seen ultraportables with more powerful dedicated GPUs.

The M11x is thicker because it packs a larger heatsink to keep it cool. Unlike the MacBook and MacBook Pro line, it has sufficient cooling to keep it within acceptable temperature limits at maximum load.

Plus, don't forget it IS an 11" system (although, granted the bezel is large as well). It IS smaller than a MBP 13" in length and width. The lack of optical drive is to make space for a proper hard drive and an adequate battery.

There's no doubt that the 320M is a fantastic GPU for an integrated chip. The average consumer is going to find it more than adequate while running at low power and producing little heat.

For those that are 'above' the average consumer in their demands for the likes of gaming performance and other graphics heavy applications, then the 320M is nearly as poor as other integrated chips however.

 

And to make sure I make myself clear: I do not feel that the 'weakness' of the 320M is really a detriment to the MBP 13 platform. The MBP 13 is built as a slim, efficient, solid, reliable and very attractive ultra-portable laptop for the masses.

It's obvious that the MBP has set the bar for everyone else to achieve in these areas. For those who need something 'stronger' than the MBP's graphics, you will have to go elsewhere. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe that should count against the MBP.

After all, everyone has their own little niche that they'd like to fill. Intensive 3D gaming really wasn't high on Apple's list of things to get done with the MBP 13

 

I'd say a 3dmark06 score of 4500 and 5100 are "about the same", especially since the 320M is more overclockable. Also comparing the MB to a thick 11 inch notebook with no optical drive is again like comparing apples to oranges. The 13 MBP is only 0.95 inches thick.

 

4500 -> 5100 is a ~15% increase, which is not "about the same." Further, the 320M's overclockability is generally bunk, considering that it's heavily bandwidth and latency constrained by the limited bandwidth of shared DDR3 system ram rather than it's own dedicated pool of graphics ram. That alone is a significant detriment to any video gaming that involves texturing of any sort (so, uh, pretty much everything.)

I don't see why this is such a defensive point -- the MBP wasn't meant for 3D graphics like this. It's a low power, low 'fuss' design that does what it's meant to do.

 

Seriously you're not going to notice the difference between 20 and 23 fps, or between 80 and 92 fps. You'll be able to play the exact same games on the 320M as you will on the 9600GT.

Also remember the 320M is found on 1280x800 laptops where as the 9600 comes with 1440x900+, so I'd say that overall gaming performance on the 2010 integrated 13" is actually better than the 2009 dedicated 15".

 

So, your argument has become that 15% slower than a 'midrange' chip from 24 months ago still doesn't qualify for 'weak' status today?

Well, you convinced me I'm done with this thread.

 

For an ultraportalbe? Not at all

Learn 2 read

 

Don't want to jump in on this argument, but I have nothing else better to do at 5:35 AM so...

@Detail: The 320m is noticeably weaker than the 9600 GT. The argument alone started as based on the cards, not necessarily on how they will be used. However since that does not pertain to how the OP wants his information (regarding its usage in the MBP 13) I understand why you structure your argument that way. However, standalone, the 320m is noticeable < the 9600 GT. No amount of excuses is going to change that.

Also, all this is coming from a person who is going to buy the MBP 13 tomorrow.

EDIT: Just noticed I bumped up an ancient thread. I sincerely apologize and hope everyone can look past my foolishness and let this thread sink to the depths.

 

which GPUs/IGPs are you referring to?

a Desktop 9600GT will be noticeable faster than a IGP 320m. also don't get the GT 320m confused with a IGP 320m, they are VERY different. The mobile 9600m GT that Apple used, which were underclocked, are barely (and not very noticeable to me) faster than the IGP 320m they are using now. I've ran a few games on both since I have 1 of each, and it really is barely noticeable, and sometimes its not noticeable at all.