Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Has anybody published a comprehensive look at the new GMA X3100?

Has anybody published a comprehensive look at the new GMA X3100?
Thread Tools
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2007, 02:28 AM
 
I'm toying with the idea of embracing my inner girly-man and snagging a MacBook.

I'm not much of a gamer, but I'd like to know that whatever I get is at least somewhat graphically capable. Especially coming from a system with a 6800 GT.

I've looked online for a decent review of the Santa Rosa/GMA X3100 but I'm not seeing anything meaty.

Anybody?
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Mac Hammer Fan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2007, 10:29 AM
 
At least don't expect too much from 3D-acceleration:
http://www.learnnowonline.net/images/mag1.gif
MacPro SixCore 3.33 Westmere - MacBook SR 2.2 Ghz - PowerMac Dual G5 2.3
Besides Macs, I love Gothic Horror Films
     
tkmd
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2007, 11:35 AM
 
Ouch - I was kinda expecting more from the rejoice of MB using the 3100...

Barefeats is scheduled to test soon. That should clear up alot of questions....


Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2007, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by tkmd View Post
Ouch ...
What did you expect? I see however about double the performance of the GMA 950 in 3DMark05 and 3DMark06. Still very low compared to dedicated graphics.

Originally Posted by tkmd View Post
Barefeats is scheduled to test soon. That should clear up alot of questions....
For sure. While we have an idea from Windows-centric sites and tests like the previous ones, what finally counts is the performance during actual use under Mac OS X.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 7, 2007, 06:55 PM
 
I have yet to see a quality GMA X3000 (which has been out for about a year) review in Windows, much less an X3100 review in OS X. But the results will be interesting to see if Apple has learned from Intel's X3000 Windows driver woes.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2007, 03:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Pierre B. View Post
For sure. While we have an idea from Windows-centric sites and tests like the previous ones, what finally counts is the performance during actual use under Mac OS X.
QFT. The Windows reports mean very little under OS X. Not that I'm expecting the X3100 to perform a lot better (I'm actually not), but in the past driver and code differences have made results very dependent on which OS was used to benchmark the GPU. A recent (and of course rather extreme) example:

( Last edited by Simon; Nov 8, 2007 at 04:04 AM. )
     
Mac Hammer Fan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2007, 02:55 PM
 
MacBook 2.2GHz versus others
Interesting test about 3D-performance on Santa Rosa macbooks
MacPro SixCore 3.33 Westmere - MacBook SR 2.2 Ghz - PowerMac Dual G5 2.3
Besides Macs, I love Gothic Horror Films
     
Kestral
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2007, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan View Post
MacBook 2.2GHz versus others
Interesting test about 3D-performance on Santa Rosa macbooks
Wow, finally, thanks! I wonder how much of it is a function of bad drivers and how much of it is a function of the integrated graphics chip-set itself.
     
Mac Hammer Fan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2007, 05:17 PM
 
I have read an interesting (positive) review at Macworld too:
Macworld: First Look: Under-the-hood changes boost MacBook performance
MacPro SixCore 3.33 Westmere - MacBook SR 2.2 Ghz - PowerMac Dual G5 2.3
Besides Macs, I love Gothic Horror Films
     
Mac Hammer Fan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2007, 05:55 PM
 
Should we be worried by this XBench test?
Disappointing GL Graphics performance with the new X3100
Xbench: Comparison
MacPro SixCore 3.33 Westmere - MacBook SR 2.2 Ghz - PowerMac Dual G5 2.3
Besides Macs, I love Gothic Horror Films
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 8, 2007, 06:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan View Post
MacBook 2.2GHz versus others
Interesting test about 3D-performance on Santa Rosa macbooks
Thanks. The explanation for why some games are twice as fast and some show no change may be the bottleneck for that particular game. Those bottlenecked on the GPU are twice as fast (thanks to the new GPU), but those bottlenecked on VRAM show no change (because the main memory speed didn't change).

Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan View Post
Should we be worried by this XBench test?
Disappointing GL Graphics performance with the new X3100
Xbench: Comparison
Just another example of what a poor benchmark Xbench is; GMA950 is not 10x faster than GMA X3100, as demonstrated in the gaming benchmarks above.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2007, 03:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan View Post
I have read an interesting (positive) review at Macworld too:
Macworld: First Look: Under-the-hood changes boost MacBook performance
The fact that they went through the trouble of testing both a black and white 2.2 GHz model is nice; it gives you an idea of what the uncertainty is in these benchmarks. Depending on the type of benchmark used, the reproducibility is remarkably bad. The UT frame rate for example jumped by 10%.
     
Mac Hammer Fan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2007, 04:02 AM
 
So I assume there is little noticeable speed difference between the MacBook-late 2007 and mid-2007 for use of non - 3D applications.
MacPro SixCore 3.33 Westmere - MacBook SR 2.2 Ghz - PowerMac Dual G5 2.3
Besides Macs, I love Gothic Horror Films
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2007, 04:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan View Post
So I assume there is little noticeable speed difference between the MacBook-late 2007 and mid-2007 for use of non - 3D applications.
Make up your own mind with the MW benchmarks posted above:
CS3: 1:17 vs. 1:16
iTunes mp3 encode: 1:11 vs. 1:13
Finder zip archive: 5:09 vs. 5:11
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2007, 02:34 PM
 
As these tests bear out, the X3100 is utter garbage. It's just not as bad as GMA 950 which uber garbage.

That said, for a lot of Mac usage, its poor performance is totally irrelevant. (I have a MacBook with GMA 950.)

And yeah, Xbench graphics tests are pretty much useless.
     
Sarc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2007, 12:48 PM
 
anyone know the state of the mac os x drivers for the X3100 ?
I recall a video made a while ago from the fellows at Intel that showcased the new drivers and how the X3100 was then able to handle FarCry.
:: frankenstein / lcd-less TiBook / 1GHz / radeon 9000 64MB / 1GB RAM / w/ext. 250GB fw drive / noname usb bluetooth dongle / d-link usb 2.0 pcmcia card / X.5.8
:: unibody macbook pro / 2.4 Ghz C2D / 6GB RAM / dell 2407wfp - X.6.3
     
Lateralus  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2007, 02:00 PM
 
It really bothers me that Apple is sticking with the X3100 for an $1100-1500 notebook when on the PC side, notebooks priced between $800 and $1000 can be had with a Radeon HD 2600 512MB.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2007, 03:44 PM
 
How many of those come with a T7500 though? Different priorities.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2007, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
It really bothers me that Apple is sticking with the X3100 for an $1100-1500 notebook when on the PC side, notebooks priced between $800 and $1000 can be had with a Radeon HD 2600 512MB.
This must have to do with a combination of the following: (1) the (unknown to us) terms of the Apple-Intel deal; (2) the legendary Apple's greed.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2007, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pierre B. View Post
This must have to do with a combination of the following: (1) the (unknown to us) terms of the Apple-Intel deal; (2) the legendary Apple's greed.
Quite possible. But don't forget wattage either. The X3100 dissipates <35W. IIRC the 8600M has 43W. The HD2600 has 41W.
( Last edited by Simon; Nov 10, 2007 at 04:12 PM. )
     
Lateralus  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2007, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
How many of those come with a T7500 though? Different priorities.
This notebook, in my opinion, has one of the best price/performance/build-quality ratios on the market.

Sure, the CPU is a little slower, but the video card more than makes up for it. It also comes with a DVD burner, multimedia card reader, and S-Video + DVI out. Its 1GB of RAM is also in the form of one DIMM, unlike the MacBook's 2x 512MB sticks.

It also comes with a notebook bag from Asus, a mouse, and a notebook backpack from NewEgg.

Not bad at all for $920.

If you want a T7500 and a larger hard drive; here.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2007, 04:19 PM
 
I think those are excellent examples: The $999 Asus with HD2600 comes with a Turion 1.8 GHz. The T7500 Asus is a quarter more expensive at $1239. And for the record, the GPU will only make up for the CPU in 3D games or stuff like Aperture or Motion. For stuff like web, mail, Office, PS, etc. the GPU doesn't matter at all - what does is the CPU.

I understand your priorities are better met by the Asus models above, but the point I'm trying to make is that Apple simply has a different priority set in mind with the MB. Somebody who uses their MB for stuff like PS will benefit far more from a T7500 over the 1.8 GHz Turion than from the HD2600 over the X3100. The fact that the Asus is cheaper is also no surprise. Apple offers a premium product at a higher price. It runs OS X, the Asus doesn't.
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 02:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
And for the record, the GPU will only make up for the CPU in 3D games or stuff like Aperture or Motion. For stuff like web, mail, Office, PS, etc. the GPU doesn't matter at all - what does is the CPU.
Now you can say that this is just marketing junk, but Apple's opinion differs here. Look what it says in the iMac graphics page:
But high-performance graphics also make such everyday tasks as viewing web pages and iPhoto libraries much faster, too
Emphasis mine of course.
     
Lateralus  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 03:02 AM
 
I don't feel like debating Simon, because I'll probably come out on the losing end given that my knowledge of x86-land is far less extensive.

But I will say that the assumption that graphics power doesn't help with performance in OS X is absolute rubbish. Since the introduction of Quartz Extreme in 10.2, Apple has introduced one technology after another that allows OS X to leach off of the power of the GPU for additional system performance. And this fact is not debatable.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 04:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Pierre B. View Post
Now you can say that this is just marketing junk, but Apple's opinion differs here. Look what it says in the iMac graphics page
I know Apple always claims that, but actual benchmarks say something else. And I think there are more than enough graphics professionals on this board that can confirm that CS3 for example doesn't benefit from a gamer GPU like it does from RAM or CPU.

Personally, I believe games just belong to computers. Just like the web. And then lets not forget there's aside from games enough software that will perform a lot better with a serious GPU (Motion, Aperture, etc.). AFAIC all Macs (except maybe for the mini) should come with a decent GPU with dedicated VRAM. But that's just me. Apple obviously has this customer in mind that wants to do Office, maybe some PS, and of course everyday web and mail stuff. Those people will actually benefit most from a fast CPU (check), enough RAM (through BTO, check) and fast disks (improvement possible). In that sense I think they have their bases covered.

Many gamers will be willing to sacrifice CPU clock for a good GPU with lots of dedicated VRAM. Asus caters better to that market, no doubt. Unfortunately for Apple, fast CPUs are expensive, while decent GPUs are not. That gives a company like Asus with their 'user profile' an advatage.
( Last edited by Simon; Nov 11, 2007 at 04:39 AM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 04:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
I don't feel like debating Simon, because I'll probably come out on the losing end given that my knowledge of x86-land is far less extensive.
I don't think there needs to be a losing end here. It's just a discussion. In the end it's all about personal preference and that's absolutely OK.

But I will say that the assumption that graphics power doesn't help with performance in OS X is absolute rubbish. Since the introduction of Quartz Extreme in 10.2, Apple has introduced one technology after another that allows OS X to leach off of the power of the GPU for additional system performance. And this fact is not debatable.
I agree with you 100%. GPU performance is important for a good overall user experience. And there is no doubt that as OS X progresses GPU performance will become even more important. But I think the main problem for Apple here is that you still get more of a kick from extra CPU clock than from the GPU when Mac users use typical applications (web, mail, Office, PS, etc.). OTOH that extra CPU performance costs serious money.

As I mentioned in the last post, I think the MB should come with a serious GPU with dedicated VRAM. But quite obviously Apple can't justify the extra cost (and possibly engineering effort: increased TDP vs. small case size) with their model customer in mind. I think it's a similar issue to the missing MB lite model in that sense. Unfortunately for people like you, you don't fit their model very well. Obviously Asus comes closer there.

On a side note, have you considered a refurb 15" MBP? In terms of price you're not too far away from a MB and OTOH you'll be getting a 'real' GPU with some decent VRAM.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 10:28 AM
 
X3100 isn't fast, but is it fast enough? You haven't mentioned what apps you use, but aside from games/Aperture/Motion most non-specialty apps don't really lean on the GPU that much. Yes, the Quartz Extreme/Quartz 2D Extreme/Core Image use the GPU, but in my usage it seems like X3100 (and even 950) is fast enough for them.
     
Sarc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 08:31 PM
 
Kinda offtopic, but what's the difference between an Exxx and a Txxx Core 2 CPU ?
:: frankenstein / lcd-less TiBook / 1GHz / radeon 9000 64MB / 1GB RAM / w/ext. 250GB fw drive / noname usb bluetooth dongle / d-link usb 2.0 pcmcia card / X.5.8
:: unibody macbook pro / 2.4 Ghz C2D / 6GB RAM / dell 2407wfp - X.6.3
     
Lateralus  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 08:40 PM
 
I believe the E series is just consumes less power than the T series.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 09:47 PM
 
Other way around: T series are Core 2 Duo Mobile with a 35W TDP, E series are Core 2 Duo Desktop with a 65W TDP or Xeons with an 80W TDP.

More details at ark.intel.com (a great Intel resource).
( Last edited by mduell; Nov 11, 2007 at 09:55 PM. )
     
Lateralus  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2007, 10:09 PM
 
D'oh. I wasn't taking into consideration the desktop line and confused E for L.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Sarc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2007, 10:08 AM
 
I really hope Apple comes out with new drivers like Intel did and get more juice out of it.
:: frankenstein / lcd-less TiBook / 1GHz / radeon 9000 64MB / 1GB RAM / w/ext. 250GB fw drive / noname usb bluetooth dongle / d-link usb 2.0 pcmcia card / X.5.8
:: unibody macbook pro / 2.4 Ghz C2D / 6GB RAM / dell 2407wfp - X.6.3
     
Mac Hammer Fan
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2007, 11:32 AM
 
This Cine Bench test is the Open GL Graphics test, or am I wrong?
In this case, the MacBook performs at least better than my 3 year old Dual G5 with Radeon 9600 128 MB card.
MacPro SixCore 3.33 Westmere - MacBook SR 2.2 Ghz - PowerMac Dual G5 2.3
Besides Macs, I love Gothic Horror Films
     
pyrite
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2007, 05:14 PM
 
damn... I was hoping for a much better performance jump from X3100. What can you expect from integrated graphics I guess, but I'm still disappointed. More and more I'm thinking my next machine will be a refurb MBP (currently MB C2D 1.83)
Hear and download my debut EP 'Ice Pictures' for free here
     
Pierre B.
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2007, 04:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan View Post
This Cine Bench test is the Open GL Graphics test, or am I wrong?
In this case, the MacBook performs at least better than my 3 year old Dual G5 with Radeon 9600 128 MB card.
It tests both CPU and GPU, but the GPU results are not immediately comparable in the sense that the same GPU could produce different results with different CPUs. There is also the drivers issue. See here.

But I think that you can trust what you get from a certain combination CPU + GPU, for the same Cinebench version of course. And you say that the G5 + Radeon 9600 performs worse than a C2D + GMA X3100?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,