Iris pro benchmarks are in, and........they're VERY GOOD

[blackened23]

With updated Intel drivers, outperforms the Nvidia GT650M in most tests, and the 740M. Nvidia and AMD have a LOT to worry about here - no wonder Apple ditched nvidia in the macbook pro. Note: this is the 20 core cut down version. This will only get worse for nV/AMD with Broadwell.

nV/AMD will be shut out of the ultrabook market increasingly (which already, most ultrabooks do not have dGPU) and limited ONLY to full size gaming laptops, since TDP and size do not matter for that type of machine.

With its latest generation of integrated graphics, Intel set out to rival the performance of the mid-range mobile Nvidia GeForce GT 650M graphics card. And the tests leave no doubt about it, both 3DMark and the gaming benchmarks confirm that the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 is on the same level of or slightly below that of the GT 650M. That really is an achievement for an integrated GPU. The Pro Graphics 5200 is on average about 2.5 times faster than the most powerful integrated graphics from Intel's previous generation processors. Until we're able to test laptops with AMD Richland CPUs, for now Intel has the fastest integrated graphics.

It gets better. This is the 20 core 47W TDP version of Iris Pro. The 40 core 53TDP version will be even faster than this. The 40 core (or possibly more) version will be used in the upcoming 2013 Retina Macbook Pro.

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4776/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-the-end-of-mid-range-gpus

 

[Kallogan]

Welcome on earth, there are already lots of benchmark of iris pro 5200, and this the top GT3e 40 cores version.

Any laptop with dgpu is a better buy since it's far less expensive. Also power efficiency is not better than dgpus. It's kind of a power hog hard to cool in a slim lap.

 

[blackened23]

Any laptop with dgpu is a better buy since it's far less expensive. Also power efficiency is not better than dgpus. It's kind of a power hog hard to cool in a slim lap.

Ultrabook is the future of portable form factors, a fullsize laptop is not portable. Have fun with carrying a 17 pound hunk of junk around. If you want a full size gaming laptop that can't be carried, gets 1 hour of battery on a charge, and weights 17 pounds, yeah, dGPU is the way to go. Ultrabook is a different breed of machine and is the future.

Ultrabooks aren't designed specifically for gaming either, although Iris Pro is proving to perform VERY well even in the ultrabook form factor - clearly if you're a gamer and only a gamer, a laptop with a dGPU is the best purchase. Anyway, your last point is not correct since even mid range dGPUs add 40W alone to TDP. So 87W TDP versus 47w TDP (Iris Pro) + Quad mobile. Iris pro literally halves the TDP.

 

[USER8000]

Lol?

Anandtech and other sites tested the 40EU versions months ago,in Intel supplied desktop enclosures,and there are threads on this forum already discussing it. The review you linked to is for the 40EU version with L4 cache.

The part you listed uses the Iris Pro HD5200:

http://ark.intel.com/products/76087/

Here is the Anandtech article:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/2

40EUs in the part and L4 cache.

 

[blackened23]

The benchmarks from a few months ago had old drivers, of which intel recently updated. The Iris Pro now beats the GT650M in most benchmarks while having HALF the TDP.

The GT650M alone is a 45W TDP part. The Iris Pro offers substantial power benefits.

Where Iris Pro is dangerous is when you take into account form factor and power consumption. The GT 650M is a 45W TDP part, pair that with a 35 - 47W CPU and an OEM either has to accept throttling or design a cooling system that can deal with both. Iris Pro on the other hand has its TDP shared by the rest of the 47W Haswell part. From speaking with OEMs, Iris Pro seems to offer substantial power savings in light usage (read: non-gaming) scenarios. In our 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display review we found that simply having the discrete GPU enabled could reduce web browsing battery life by ~25%. Presumably that delta would disappear with the use of Iris Pro instead.

Even using accelerated functions in a browser (which will use dGPU), an Iris Pro would completely destroy any dGPU setup for light usage, even browsing or media consumption in terms of battery life. Again, it's no surprise that Apple ditched discrete all together. This will only get worse in the future - AMD and nvidia will get shut out of high end ultrabooks (which is the future of form factors) and will be relegated only to full size 17 pound laptops. Impressive feat by intel IMHO.

 

[krumme]

With updated Intel drivers, outperforms the Nvidia GT650M in most tests, and the 740M. Nvidia and AMD have a LOT to worry about here - no wonder Apple ditched nvidia in the macbook pro. Note: this is the 20 core cut down version. This will only get worse for nV/AMD with Broadwell.

nV/AMD will be shut out of the ultrabook market increasingly (which already, most ultrabooks do not have dGPU) and limited ONLY to full size gaming laptops, since TDP and size do not matter for that type of machine.



It gets better. This is the 20 core 47W TDP version of Iris Pro. The 40 core 53TDP version will be even faster than this. The 40 core (or possibly more) version will be used in the upcoming 2013 Retina Macbook Pro.

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4776/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-the-end-of-mid-range-gpus

This is just a bad review. Lots of irrelevant 3d mark and only two games tested. Bad bad review.

In the 2 games outside of 3d mark synthetic score nv 650m is still faster. In the synthetic test i didnt look because who cares about the usual bencmark nonsense.

For performance i take a nv650m anyday because i am also sure of future driver updates and consistency in performance. Intel have shown they just leave development after a few years.

The performance is really good but dont overdo it. Its not nv650m level and will never be outside of selected games. Apus is clearly the future for the midrange but there is no need to hang to the 3d mark scores. We already knew Intel would go for them.

Unless Intel does something about pricing this otherwice excellent product does not change anything. It the mainstream 4400 performance that matters and future derivatives of it.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Quite nice actually! Also quite expensive though.

And as the review says it's a massive die. With the 40 core Iris version one might instead start calling it a GPU with iCPU, instead of CPU with iGPU.

 

[blackened23]

"This is just a bad review." Let me guess.

Compiler tricks? Bias? Intel cheating? It's great to rely on these arguments when presented with data that you don't like. The obvious difference here is that intel updated their drivers and is performing *mostly* on par with the GT650M/GT740M not only in 3dmark, but games as well. Intel's driver team has been working over time.

Apus is clearly the future for the midrange but there

No they really aren't unless you want an underpowered machine with poor battery life. APU portables are an anomaly since most of them are extremely low end machines, APUs aren't in the same class as Haswell or Iris which have significantly better power characteristics. Then again, APUs are designed for the lower cost crowd, and they work very well there.

 

[krumme]

"This is just a bad review." Let me guess.

Compiler tricks? Bias? Intel cheating? It's great to rely on these arguments when presented with data that you don't like.



No they really aren't unless you want an underpowered machine with poor battery life. APU portables are an anomaly since most of them are extremely low end machines, APUs aren't in the same class as Haswell or Iris which have significantly better power characteristics. Then again, APUs are designed for the lower cost crowd, and they work very well there.

There is only two selected games tested !

And the nv650 is faster in both.

And its the 40eu version.

Fact.

What was stated in first post was factual wrong.

 

[blackened23]

There is two selected games tested !

And the nv650 is faster in both.

Fact.

Next time i would like you to quote my response instead of this picking out of context.

You have an interesting interpretation of reality since Iris pro won 2 out 4 benchmarks in bf3 (compared to GT650M) so that is a draw. In Skyrim, Iris pro won 2 out of 4 benchmarks, again a draw.

And this is all while having a portable computer with a 47W TDP total, versus a GT650M + quad mobile which has a minimum of 92W TDP.

 

[AtenRa]

Anyway, your last point is not correct since even mid range dGPUs add 40W alone to TDP. So 87W TDP versus 47w TDP (Iris Pro) + Quad mobile. Iris pro literally halves the TDP.

When you use a dGPU the CPU TDP is not 47W but lower in Gaming. You dont add 40W of the dGPU to the 47W(CPU + iGPU) when you game because the iGPU will be inactive.

 

[Erenhardt]

That is not the performance you would expect from 22nm ~200sqmm chip(84sqmm eDRAM + at least half of 284sqmm). Comparing it to nvidia's 28nm 112sqmm chip is somewhat unfair. Going by the die size, we should be looking at somewhere between GTX660(GK106) and GTX680(GK104) performance. So, no...performance is nowhere near good.
I would like to see power consumption tests. Sofar I didn't see any...

 

[blackened23]

When you use a dGPU the CPU TDP is not 47W but lower in Gaming. You dont add 40W of the dGPU to the 47W(CPU + iGPU) when you game because the iGPU will be inactive.

No, that's not true. dGPU is used during light usage for media consumption and accelerated browser functions, but it won't use 100% GPU load, obviously.

dGPU isn't "inactive" 100% of the time outside of gaming. I don't know where you get this idea. If that were true, dGPU would be useless since most ultrabooks and macbooks are NOT designed for gaming. The fact of the matter is, dGPUs are used a low clockspeeds during accelerated functions even in browsers. Chrome and firefox use your dGPU, even with optimus, during light usage. It won't match gaming GPU loads, but nonetheless - even these types of applications rely on dGPU for accelerated functions.

The notion that dGPU is completely turned off 100% of the time outside of the game is the silliest thing I have ever heard. I hope you understand that macbooks aren't used for gaming. The fact of the matter is that Iris Pro matches the GT650M while having half the TDP. Same performance, 47W TDP versus 92W TDP. I hope you see the implications of this.

 

[krumme]

You have an interesting interpretation of reality since Iris pro won 2 out 4 benchmarks in bf3 (compared to GT650M) so that is a draw. In Skyrim, Iris pro won 2 out of 4 benchmarks, again a draw.

And this is all while having a portable computer with a 47W TDP total, versus a GT650M + quad mobile which has a minimum of 92W TDP.

When looking at the results i go for the 1080 and preferably high because its where the gpu and the cache is taxed and used. Its representive of what consumers can expect especially in the future. Thats my reality.

And we are still talking 2 games and 40eu. Its hardly a mini review and the results dont make any difference.

 

[blackened23]

Ultrabooks aren't designed specifically for gaming, but you're talking 13 vs 15 fps. Woo, big difference there.

If you're gaming at 1080p you need a full size laptop, not an ultrabook or macbook. And yes, a GT 780M makes sense there because TDP does not matter in a full size laptop. With an ultrabook, you always lower the resolution to game, you certainly cannot game at native resolution or 1080p on those machines. A GT650M won't allow you to game at 1080p, nor will Iris Pro. Give me a break. At 1080p both of these solutions are chunking along at something like 10 fps. At 1366 resolution though? Iris Pro is soundly beating the GT650M.

 

[inf64]

Only 2 games tested xd. Like others said we know the performance of Iris pro for a long time now...

 

[AtenRa]

No, that's not true. dGPU is used during light usage for media consumption and accelerated browser functions, but it won't use 100% GPU load, obviously.

dGPU isn't "inactive" 100% of the time outside of gaming. I don't know where you get this idea. If that were true, dGPU would be useless since most ultrabooks and macbooks are NOT designed for gaming. The fact of the matter is, dGPUs are used a low clockspeeds during accelerated functions even in browsers. Chrome and firefox use your dGPU, even with optimus, during light usage. It won't match gaming GPU loads, but nonetheless - even these types of applications rely on dGPU for accelerated functions.

The notion that dGPU is completely turned off 100% of the time outside of the game is the silliest thing I have ever heard. I hope you understand that macbooks aren't used for gaming. The fact of the matter is that Iris Pro matches the GT650M while having half the TDP. Same performance, 47W TDP versus 92W TDP. I hope you see the implications of this.

I said the iGPU will be turned off during gaming, not the dGPU. When you game the iGPU will be turned off, thus the CPU TDP will not be 47W. You dont add the dGPU TDP to the CPU (CPU + iGPU) TDP in gaming.

47W is the TDP when you use both the CPU and iGPU, like in Gaming or OpenCL applications etc. When you have a dGPU and you game the iGPU will be turned off, thus the TDP is not 47W but lower.

Got it now ??

ps: im using the term TDP, but the correct is to talk about Wattage or power consumption etc

 

[joshhedge]

If you're gaming at 1080p you need a full size laptop, not an ultrabook or macbook.

No you don't, my rMBP does just fine at 1080.

I still hope Apple doesn't ditch Nvidia, CUDA support is a winner for my personal use. Additionally, last I checked the GT650M performed better than Iris Pro within games, although in the rPro it's essentially a GTX660M.

 

[blackened23]

No you don't, my rMBP does just fine at 1080.

I still hope Apple doesn't ditch Nvidia, CUDA support is a winner for my personal use. Additionally, last I checked the GT650M performed better than Iris Pro within games, although in the rPro it's essentially a GTX660M.

You should check again because Iris Pro is within 1-2 fps at 1080p with updated drivers (you say you game at 1080p, good luck with that , bf3 chunks along at 10 fps on EITHER solution). Maybe you just play weak games, relatively speaking. Let's be clear that you won't game at 1080p on either solution unless you don't mind playing at 5-15 fps. The framerate will be relatively the same with either solution.

At 1366 resolution, which is far more common for ultrabooks and non dedicated gaming laptops - the Iris Pro soundly beats the GT650M.

Besides which, it is already a known fact that macbook pro is now using Iris Pro - it will not be using discrete graphics. With this level of performance and added battery life, the trade-off was well worth it; excluding the higher battery life of Haswell, the new rMBP will immediately cut 45W TDP as compared to the 2012 model.

 

[Magic Carpet]

For performance i take a nv650m anyday because i am also sure of future driver updates and consistency in performance. Intel have shown they just leave development after a few years.

True. nVIDIA can't be beaten in the drivers/longevity department. However, that might change in the future with the increased competition.

 

[Keysplayr]

That is not the performance you would expect from 22nm ~200sqmm chip(84sqmm eDRAM + at least half of 284sqmm). Comparing it to nvidia's 28nm 112sqmm chip is somewhat unfair. Going by the die size, we should be looking at somewhere between GTX660(GK106) and GTX680(GK104) performance. So, no...performance is nowhere near good.
I would like to see power consumption tests. Sofar I didn't see any...

For Intel, it's quite stellar actually. Intel should be able to at least double performance with each successive version of Iris Pro. In a blink, they've done something very impressive.

 

[ShintaiDK]

IGPs keep taking share from dGPU, not the other way around.

And as I keep saying, its only a matter of time before there is no economic incentive to create dGPUs due to volume.

And look at Broadwell with GT4 chips. Its starting to be really serious.

 

[Erenhardt]

IGPs keep taking share from dGPU, not the other way around.

And as I keep saying, its only a matter of time before there is no economic incentive to create dGPUs due to volume.

And look at Broadwell with GT4 chips. Its starting to be really serious.

Maybe someday in the future we will have gaming consoles powered by IGPs...

 

[SiliconWars]

With updated Intel drivers, outperforms the Nvidia GT650M in most tests, and the 740M. Nvidia and AMD have a LOT to worry about here - no wonder Apple ditched nvidia in the macbook pro. Note: this is the 20 core cut down version. This will only get worse for nV/AMD with Broadwell.

Huh?

nV/AMD will be shut out of the ultrabook market increasingly (which already, most ultrabooks do not have dGPU) and limited ONLY to full size gaming laptops, since TDP and size do not matter for that type of machine.

Ultrabook market...that's what 4k units a month or so? Nobody buys ultrabooks, they are expensive trash.

It gets better. This is the 20 core 47W TDP version of Iris Pro. The 40 core 53TDP version will be even faster than this. The 40 core (or possibly more) version will be used in the upcoming 2013 Retina Macbook Pro.

http://uk.hardware.info/reviews/4776/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-the-end-of-mid-range-gpus

Never heard of a 20 core 5200 Iris Pro but looking at the benchmarks I can tell that's nonsense already.

 

[Magic Carpet]

IGPs keep taking share from dGPU, not the other way around.

And as I keep saying, its only a matter of time before there is no economic incentive to create dGPUs due to volume.

And look at Broadwell with GT4 chips. Its starting to be really serious.

Good point. Once the population has completely been dumbed down and changed buying habits, this will surely happen. Convenience > enthusiasm/security.