Originally Posted by Mr. H
Are you sure about that? The X3100 really isn't great. Whilst the nVidia integrated units still don't compare to the dedicated counterparts, I was under the impression that they were still a vast improvement over Intel's offerings.
Don't suppose you have any links to comparisons between Intel and nVidia integrated GPU performance?
Okay, I found this link.http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...ist.844.0.html
Now, the X3100 is far below, look at the 3DMark06 benchmark which shows X3100 as having only 500 or so 3DMark06 points.
The issue, as I suggest, is that even if you look at the nVidia 8400 M it's theoretically twice as good as the X3100... at about 1000 3DMark06 points... However, this is not a good 3DMark06 score.
For smooth graphics, gaming and say hardware-accelerated GPGPU stuff, you'd need to look at the 3DMark06 score of around 3000 points at least, going into 2009.
That's the level of the 8600M GT.
The next big question before we go into the 8400M , 9400M , etc etc. is right now, Intel Integrated is not supported by a lot of the new Mac games. GPGPU stuff, well... Will Nvidia mobile GPUs have the same issues? Can I play Command&Conquer3 on my new MacBook? That could be the more pertinent question for the new MacBook GPUs. Mac gaming.
When talking about the 9-series Nvidia mobile GPUs, things look a bit more promising. It would be very agressive but if new MacBooks had a 9300 mobile GPU, that would be pretty sweet, if all current Mac games are supported. We're talking 50% of a current MacBook Pro performance, which is not bad, if there was 128MB VRAM (even if it was DDR2).