Guys, we're way off base here. I've reviewed the data.
1. Sandy Bridge IGP cannot possibly do 5k+ in those SM2 and SM3 scores. This is because 5K in SM2 and SM3 in 3DMark06 is what my overclocked ATI Radeon 4830 512MB can do. I can play Starcraft 2 on High settings at 1920x1080, Dirt 2 on max settings at 1920x1080, etc. It really is a capable card. Them modern equivalent is an ATI Radeon 5750 or something like that. If an integrated on-die GPU in an Intel CPU can do that, AMD might as well set their headquarters on fire and collect the insurance money, because this would mean AMD Fusion is completely blown to hell.
2. Those Intel's demos as you linked to are extremely horrible and really nefarious.
A. The Mass Effect 2 demo is the starting scene where it looks like there are a lot of objects but it is just a short corridor with flame and other effect thingys. The fact that there is no camera movement, no interactivity, means that demo is really worthless. In fact, that scene of the game is one of the easiest to render. Most in-game scenes have 10x that complexity.
B. Starcraft 2, ditto, in SC2 you can dial the detail level way down, and there is not much camera movement and so on.
C. Putting those clips in a nice little window, while good for comparison, means they're probably running at 800x600 or 1024x768 which are extremely low resolutions.
D. Intel never specifies *what* discrete GPU they are comparing it to. Probably a low-end one, for sure.
E. Anyone that has played Mass Effect 2 and Starcraft 2 will know those Intel demos do not test real gameplay experience in any way.
3. Marvin, I appreciate you sourcing all the material, but I have to tell everyone, *this is not the GPU you are looking for* ~ without having to use any mind tricks. Intel's demos show about up to a Nvidia 9400M level of GPU capability, at the very, very best they could approach 320M level of GPU capability, but I highly doubt that.
4. At this stage I cannot but conclude that there is no way Sandy Bridge IGP can deliver anything more than the Nvidia 320M and as such if Apple were to use it, that would be a step backwards. For the MBP 13", I believe Apple will have to bite the bullet and stick a low-cost discrete GPU in there (probably ATI). MacBook Airs are fine because through 2011 I don't think they would get Core i-series chips (unless it is a rebranded Core 2).
5. If you look at iMovie '11 for example, the level of GPU computation that is required to render a lot of the graphics, I really can't see Sandy Bridge IGP doing that, particularly for a "pro" Mac laptop. (And it is clear the GPU is very heavily leveraged because this is what allows the MBA with 320M to actually be able to do iMovie '11 stuff with such a limited CPU - of course the final "render" of the iMovie edit will be much slower, but the MBA is highly responsive during editing and effects, transitions, etc.)
Originally Posted by Marvin
The CPU scores are shown on the second link. They are fairly even between all the machines tested even though they have slightly different CPUs in each. The SM 2 & 3 scores matched the GTX quite closely. 3DMark might have picked up the GPU name wrongly or the machine was in hybrid SLI and 3DMark was only choosing the name of the IGP.
The CPU score does make it an unfavourable comparison to current GPUs in current machines as an i7 mobile CPU gets 3k and the new i7 was scoring 5k so overall scores would be lower by 2k but like I say, the comparison between the GPUs tested doesn't have that problem.
Intel have been demoing the chips themselves. Here with Starcraft 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ETnmGn8q5Q
and here with Mass Effect 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwW2Wc9XSD4
The comparison was between integrated and a mid-range discrete GPU. What's interesting there is that the fire on the right with SB looks like it's stuttering whereas it's smooth on the left and those do look like laptops behind the presenter. The power meter was showing Sandy Bridge at <50% of the other one. So given that SB has a 35W TDP, the other machine would be a laptop drawing 50-70W.
They said the effects were all set on maximum. I'm sure the 320M was capable of that but not at a very high resolution and with AA off and it wasn't all that smooth.
It just doesn't feel right though, it's like when we saw the IE9 benchmarks beating every other browser and they found out they were cheating by skipping some of the tests.
Anyway, if they manage to allow people to play Mass Effect 2 on entry laptops at maximum quality, I think that will be a good achievement as well as a 100% speedup over C2D.