# drivers for Intel's GMA X3100 integrated graphics chipset



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

Of interest to note:

AppleInsider | Leopard driver install may hint at future MacBook plans


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Reveeen said:


> Of interest to note:
> 
> AppleInsider | Leopard driver install may hint at future MacBook plans


Old news I'm afraid - that has been the shared ram graphics chipset since the Late 2007 MacBook revision.

MacBook (Late 2007) - Technical Specifications

Here's hoping that there's a better chipset in the next rev. whenever that one happens!

(Not that GMA X3100 is "bad" - but I have fond memories of the devoted graphics card in the old iBook... not that it was a powerhouse by any means, but I found it somewhat less "crippled".)


----------



## Reveeen (Aug 26, 2008)

So, on a scale of one to 10, how does the x3100 work out?

I'm only asking because I am seeing desktop computers (from HP/Compaq) with this video chip selling in the $299 range (with Vista @ Staples) that I was afraid of buying to try and Hackentosh.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

As someone who actually uses such a machine all the time, the two such chipsets used in the MacBook line (the GMA 950 and now the X3100) are ... okay. They're not great, but they're not crap either.

For all intents and practical purposes, using the X3100/950 is like having a basic 64MB "real" video card, with two exceptions: for 2D stuff it's actually _better_ than your average 64MB class video card (keep in mind 64MB video cards have been out of circulation for a while now), but for 3D gaming and other 3D stuff, it's _worse_ than 64MB "real" card. The X3100 can actually address up to 116MB of shared RAM, but other limitations IME tend to bring it back down to "64MB video card" class.

So whether a GMA chipset is a factor in your buying depends a lot on what you're going to do with it.

It should go without saying that today's ultra-modern 256MB-minimum super-groovy video cards (complete with their own fans and/or heat sinks! Yay progress!) are going to kick a GMA's butt in things that video cards are generally best at, but most Mac users (this will come as a shock to _some_ people) don't really use their macs for much more than email, web surfing and the occasional video. High-end video cards mostly just sit wasted inside their machines.

As demonstrated by the fact that an Intel Mac Mini is routinely used as a media center for Hi-Def TVs, GMA chipsets can handle even HD demands (720p and upscaled 1080i) without hiccups. But try playing World of Warcraft on it and getting over 30fps or so (on highest detail). Yeah.

So there you have it. The true answer is "depends." I personally would have preferred if Apple had just stuck underpowered "real" video cards in their MacBooks, but it was a design/cost consideration and the gamers would have howled bloody murder, so overall it was probably the right choice *for that line*.


----------

