 |
 |
AnandTech: HD 3000 worse than 320M
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status:
Offline
|
|
Read and Weep. I knew it would be true, and it is.
Of course, I've abandoned gaming with Windows, and it seems the OS X game performance with the 3000 is a bit better than the 320M. See here. Could it be that Apple's drivers for the 320M were subpar and their drivers for the 3000 are stellar?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Note that the test resolution at medium is higher than what the internal display can handle.
It is slightly surprising that the values are so much worse than the preview numbers, but I guess it's down to Intel's infamously terrible drivers. It's not really fair to say that the HD 3000 is consistently worse than the 320M. In fact, it's about even - it wins on tests dependent on memory bandwidth and loses on those dependent on shader power.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Doesn't Apple write the drivers (with Intel's help)?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Yes, but that test is done in Windows. The tests under OS X are better.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top