3DMark03 on Mac

Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/3DMark03 on Mac

Well, it was going to happen sooner or later...


Just to fully test the MacBook's performance on Windows, I installed 3Dmark 2003 and it scored 1328 points. My Sony Vaio S460 scored 2358 which totally kills the MacBook because the Vaio is powered by a GeForce Go 6200 with 128MB of dedicated memory. The MacBook on the other hand has a built in Intel videocard at 64MB shared video memory. You can view the full test on the MacBook on 3Dmark 2003 by going here: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4796183



http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=2963&review=MacBook+Review+for+Black+Color+Version

Oh dear, that is certainly not great news.

Nope it isn't. Thats the biggest problem with it atm.

Before, Macs speed stats could have been argued either way, becuase it was a slight case of apples and oranges. But now that they have been thrown in the same boat as PC's, but crippled by Intels AWFUL onboard GPU, they are floundering.

This could either go two ways I think:

1) Intel will use this as a running start to develop their GPU and try to get back into the mainstream market with it.

..or..

2) Mac will have to use someone elses GPU, they can't have their, traditionally graphically and design oriantated platform being wooped.

If they signed a GPU as well as a CPU deal when they switched to Intel (which they probably did) then option 1 will probably happen.

Option 1? Youch. :/

Intel did made some GPUs in early times, but never be main stream, most for e poor onboard chip for low-cost PC or NoteBook.

Dunno if y're improved..... can't get the info about the chip specs.


Intel did made some GPUs in early times, but never be main stream, most for e poor onboard chip for low-cost PC or NoteBook.



Poor old Intel, I wonder how they even stay alive... ;P


graphics shipments and supplier market share for the first calendar quarter of 2006

Overall, Intel claimed 34.1% of the desktop graphics market, ATI held 26.1%, and Nvidia followed with 23.3% market share.

Intel led the mobile graphics market with 53.3% share, ATI held 36.4% share, and Nvidia followed with 6.6% market share.

Intel saw a 1.8% sequential decline in graphics shipments in Q1 2006, was the largest supplier of PC graphics devices worldwide, and claimed an increased share of the total graphics market during the quarter.

http://www.electronicstalk.com/news/jop/jop101.html



It's due to intel ships bundled/onboard graphics chip, most for business/office PCs, doesn't reflect major gaming market tho.

You can consider this as a reason those ppl in office plays mini games on Real Arcade, BigFish...etc, their system requiments are reasonably low, and mostly use DX for gfx rendering for compatibility.

@boomboom
You know that Intel is already market leader (before ati and nvidia) when it comes to sold GPU units and that the G965 is already on the horizon?

Another main problem for this result is the 64MB shared ... all other intel Extreme 3 (Intel GMA950) support up to 228 MB ...

Its a serious mistake apple made there ... that makes the system next to worthless beside textwritting.

Pro of this Chip: It is fully Vista compatible ... something 6200 isn't due to its missing H264 support etc.

I think they did it to differentiate between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro. There is not much difference between the two, except for screen size and the GPU. Though it should be powerful enough to handle most BlitzMax 2D games. :-)

I looked at the Cinebench results for the MacBook (see http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook.ars/6 ). It scores fine on rendering speeds (CPU only), but very badly on OpenGL hardware. In fact, it's only slightly better than my last generation iBook which has an ATI 9550 and got an OpenGL score of 919 (much better than the iBook in the review). The MacBook score 1096, which is kind of sad.

That said, it's a fine machine for none gamers or even casual gamers, who don't want to play any half recent 3D games.

Ragnar