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

[blackened23]

Does anyone know with certainty if Apple will opt for Iris Pro instead of a dGPU in their 15" Retina Macbook Pro? From some of the benchmarks I've seen, a GT 750M offers a lot of performance over the GT 650M (and consequently, the Iris Pro), so who's to say they won't go that same route, particularly to appease those who need CUDA.

Macbook Pro Retina using Iris Pro is pretty much nearly guaranteed at this point because pre-production model specifications have already been leaked via geekbench results.

That said, the 15 inch model may be possible IF apple did a sudden about face within the past two months. Since Iris Pro matches more or less matches GT650M, I don't see Apple doing this. It is certainly possible but leaked geekbench results indicated otherwise previously in terms of specifications. There is no indication whatsoever that Apple will be using dGPU unless they kept a REALLY tight lid on it.

Aside from this, you mentioned the value add aspect of CUDA development. Honestly, I don't really think that Apple users buy into macbook pros for CUDA. I don't have an issue with CUDA whatsoever, developers have done amazing things with it - the main reason for me stating this is that, Apple over the past 5 years has continually switched their mobile dGPU vendors back and forth on a constant basis. One year it would be AMD, another it would be NV, then AMD again, and then last year it was NVIDIA. This year it is intel. With that rate of change I don't really think CUDA developers view Apple as a value added platform - my line of thinking is that CUDA developers, while they do great things - they probably very much prefer the PC / Windows platform.

The same can be said of the desktop Macintosh Pros. Apple has continually done a back and forth with respect to discrete GPU vendors, so CUDA developers cannot buy into an Apple platform and hope for any consistency on a year to year basis. I really think CUDA developers, as mentioned, prefer windows platforms.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Macbook Pro Retina using Iris Pro is pretty much nearly guaranteed at this point because pre-production model specifications have already been leaked via geekbench results.

That said, the 15 inch model may be possible IF apple did a sudden about face within the past two months. Since Iris Pro matches more or less matches GT650M, I don't see Apple doing this. It is certainly possible but leaked geekbench results indicated otherwise previously in terms of specifications. There is no indication whatsoever that Apple will be using dGPU unless they kept a REALLY tight lid on it.

Aside from this, you mentioned the value add aspect of CUDA development. Honestly, I don't really think that Apple users buy into macbook pros for CUDA. I don't have an issue with CUDA whatsoever, developers have done amazing things with it - the main reason for me stating this is that, Apple over the past 5 years has continually switched their mobile dGPU vendors back and forth on a constant basis. One year it would be AMD, another it would be NV, then AMD again, and then last year it was NVIDIA. This year it is intel. With that rate of change I don't really think CUDA developers view Apple as a value added platform - my line of thinking is that CUDA developers, while they do great things - they probably very much prefer the PC / Windows platform.

The same can be said of the desktop Macintosh Pros. Apple has continually done a back and forth with respect to discrete GPU vendors, so CUDA developers cannot buy into an Apple platform and hope for any consistency on a year to year basis. I really think CUDA developers, as mentioned, prefer windows platforms.

At any rate, I'm of the opinion nothing is final until it reaches market, so I suppose we'll have to play the waiting game. (don't even know why I'm bothering even paying attention to the upcoming Macbook though, not my kind of laptop )

 

[bullzz]

@blackend23

not sure where u are getting the $58 number. either way, if apple were adding a dPGU, they wont go with a 40eu iGPU. they cud settle with a 4800MQ. so in effect, its $90+$58

for 15 inch mbp, they will have a bigger battery and will have headroom to put a dPGU. and the 15 inch model is their biggest baddest model anyway. so they will go with 750M

 

[Enigmoid]

Broadwell with GT4 is 2Tflops. And a 28nm Kaveri with DDR3 is no match for it in every single metric. But again, it boils down to R&D budgets.

2 TFLOPS? Holy Crap.

"If it was half price it would sell."

Yep, Apple doesn't exist. That isn't a lucrative contract. Intel definitely ISN'T making tons of bucks there. Laughing on the way to the bank, even. I'm sure nvidia and AMD love the fact that they are forever locked out of macbooks now to never get a mobile dGPU contract again. Then again, like you're saying, Apple is a nobody. Right?

On September 10th you'll be able to see the new retina macbooks with none other than Iris Pro. But i'm sure those wont' sell at all, nope.

Besides which the entire premise of your cost argument is completely false. If you remove the cost factor of any mobile quad CPU, then the Iris Pro is either similar or cheaper in terms of cost. If you want a higher performing mobile dGPU with 2GB GDDR5 VRAM, the latter will cost significantly more than Iris Pro. GDDR5 is extremely expensive, and a dGPU along the lines of a GT750M costs 70$ alone BOM with materials excluding GDDR5. The large portion of the cost will be GDDR5 which as mentioned is ridiculously expensive. The Iris Pro HD5200 only adds 58$ (tray price) to cost including EDRAM cache. So it is cheaper. Moreover, Iris Pro + Mobile Quad has a lower overall TDP than a Mobile Quad + mobile dGPU. This is aside from the fact that motherboard complexity will be less without a mobile dGPU, and the cooling solution can be shared between the CPU + GPU with Iris Pro. That isn't necessarily the case with a mobile dGPU. Overall cost is less, period - unless a vendor opts for a lower performing dGPU.

The only mobile dGPUs which are cheaper are using GDDR3 and perform worse. So I guess if a vendor wants to exclude the 58$ cost of IRIS PRO, then can opt for a cheaper lesser performing mobile dGPU. That is completely their prerogative.

AMD and Nvidia sell far more mobile gpus to apple's imac division (every single imac has one) than the macbook division. The only product with a nvidia gpu is the 15 inch version and that's probably less than 10% of their macbook sales (given how popular the 13 inch mbp and airs are).

Funnily enough HP charges $70 to add a 740m with 2GB DDR3 to your laptop.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/cto.do

http://www.microcenter.com/product/...Geforce_GTX_650_1024MB_PCIe_30_x16_Video_Card

And I can buy a desktop 650 for $90 with 1 GB GDDR5 on a PCB a little smaller than the notebook's mobo, AFTER manufacturer and reseller margins.

The actual 750m probably costs around $40-50 to the manufacturer in volume. Add engineering and vram costs and you are looking at maybe $80 at the most.

An pretty much nobody pays the tray price on intel's website.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...tem=34-314-074
http://ark.intel.com/products/56056/

Yep, the entire notebook costs $200 but the CPU according to intel is $134.

And the i7-4800mq is cheaper than the i7-4700mq on ARK intel!

The TDP for a 650M is also 45W. Essentially the same as the entire CPU+IGP with Iris pro.

Iris @1100 mhz seems to consume roughly 30 watts under load. Also in that review it wasn't really better power wise than an dgpu. Please note that a 650m under load does not consume 45 watts.

 

[blackened23]

@blackend23

not sure where u are getting the $58 number. either way, if apple were adding a dPGU, they wont go with a 40eu iGPU. they cud settle with a 4800MQ. so in effect, its $90+$58

for 15 inch mbp, they will have a bigger battery and will have headroom to put a dPGU. and the 15 inch model is their biggest baddest model anyway. so they will go with 750M

As I said the 15 inch macbook pro will not have a dGPU. If it were, it would be leaked all over the internet and via geekbench, where pre-production models being tested have their specifications leaked. The 15 inch model has already leaked, actually, and unless Apple did a sudden about face in July - the MBP 15 will use Iris Pro.

The 58$ number is (57$, actually) is excluding the CPU cost which is constant. The Iris Pro adds 57$ Tray cost, which is obviously negotiable, and that includes EDRAM. If you compare that to a GT750M with 2GB GDDR5, the 750M costs quite a bit more. So it (Iris pro) is cheaper while offering the benefits of a less complex motherboard layout, shared cooling solution between the CPU AND GPU, and a lower overall TDP. These secondary benefits also lower overall BOM costs. With regard to power use - I'm sure the macbook pro will have benchmarks everywhere in the coming days - you can see for yourself how the power consumption results end up.

Basically, this is just going to spice up the mobile GPU market even more. This will force nvidia and AMD to step up their game and offer better performance at a lower cost if they want lucrative contracts such as Apple - this means nothing but good things for consumers. Intel stepping up = everyone steps up. Lower costs, better performance, it's all about competition. Who honestly thought, 3 years ago, that intel would be in this spot today? I certainly didn't. But Iris Pro delivers, IMHO. And that just means that nvidia will have to do even better with mobile dGPUs that perform *even better* at lower price points. How is that a bad thing?Not sure why various folks are getting upset about it. Again, nvidia and AMD just have to work that much harder to create compelling mobile GPUs since intel delivered - this creates competition in a very exciting market. Imagine 1080p gaming at 60 fps fluid in the most demanding games being do-able on even the smallest form factors. I'm certainly excited. Intel creating Iris Pro just forces (as I said) nvidia to work that much harder. That is a net benefit to us, the consumers.

 

[SiliconWars]

A 7750 only pulls about 40W in gaming, and that's with 1GB DDR5 (twice as fast overall probably?). Intel has a long way to go and while this solution is quite neat, they won't be able to manufacture it cheaply enough for it ever to be a real threat. I mean it's going to lose to Kaveri at 1/3rd the cost and lower power, so what's the point?

 

[blackened23]

A 7750 only pulls about 40W in gaming, and that's with 1GB DDR5 (twice as fast overall probably?). Intel has a long way to go and while this solution is quite neat, they won't be able to manufacture it cheaply enough for it ever to be a real threat. I mean it's going to lose to Kaveri at 1/3rd the cost, so what's the point?

What? So is Kaveri going to offer the same CPU and GPU performance in a 47 Watt TDP window designed for a mobile form factor? Am I understanding this correctly?

I don't know anything about Kaveri, but that sounds like a long shot to say the least. Especially W.R.T. CPU performance.

 

[SiliconWars]

No but it'll also be nowhere near 3x slower on CPU, and graphics should be at least as good, and power draw will definitely be a lot better regardless of what TDP intel is claiming.

 

[Sweepr]

What? So is Kaveri going to offer the same CPU and GPU performance in a 47 Watt TDP window designed for a mobile form factor? Am I understanding this correctly?

I don't know anything about Kaveri, but that sounds like a long shot to say the least. Especially W.R.T. CPU performance.

It wont come close to a 4C/8T Haswell in CPU performance and I highly doubt a 35W Kaveri will match/beat Iris Pro's IGP performance either. Not to mention it will spend half of its time in market as AMD's main APU (till Carizo launches in 2015) competing with Broadwell, not Haswell. dGPU-like performance with IGPs at typical mobile TDP isnt easy, for both Intel and AMD.

 

[SiliconWars]

The point would be that AMD (and Nvidia) would be fighting vs Iris Pro or the Broadwell version with a discrete card that basically destroys it at similar power draw, and similar costs.

Instead of looking at my comment the way you do, look at it in terms of this - "What kind of offering do you think Intel could compete with 35W Kaveri with". You'll be back where you started before Iris Pro ever existed, ie faster CPU and slower GPU. Intel cannot compete on price at the lower end, or performance on the higher end with this and Iris Pro is basically changing nothing.

 

[Erenhardt]

The 58$ number is (57$, actually) is excluding the CPU cost which is constant. The Iris Pro adds 57$ Tray cost, which is obviously negotiable, and that includes EDRAM. If you compare that to a GT750M with 2GB GDDR5, the 750M costs quite a bit more.

How about counting for 2GB of DDR3 that is reserved by GPU? I don't think GDDR5 is that expensive:
7850 1GB for $130
7850 2GB for $140
1GB for $10 is not that expensive!
Cheapest 2GB of slow laptop memory is $20
System memory upgrade options are very limited (limited amount of memory slots, high capacity sticks are expensive).

 

[wlee15]

It's basically a distortion of reality. GT750M is not cheaper, it adds around 100$ total to cost with 1GB GDDR5 VRAM costs factored in. All in all, the Iris Pro adds around 60$ with the CPU price remaining static depending on which quad mobile CPU the vendor opts for. The 4700MQ is 383$ tray priced with HD4600. The 4750MQ with Iris Pro HD5200 is 440$ with EDRAM cache. As you can see, the price is lower (not by much, admittedly), not higher. GDDR5 VRAM prices are significant. If you think 2GB of GDDR5 VRAM with a GT750M is going to be cheaper, good luck with that.

The only way a dGPU is in the same price range is if the vendor opts for a lower performing solution such as a GT630M or GT730M and pairing those with low performing GDDR3. Additionally, it (Iris Pro) is not less power efficient, it is more efficient, it was more efficient than any dGPU in those tests, and all of those tests were based on OLD Iris Pro drivers.

I would seriously doubt that Intel would release sub-optimal release day drivers for BF3 and Skyrim games which have been released for almost 2 years AND are two of the most used benchmarks on review sites.

On the topic of GDDR5 prices bkillian on the beyond3d has commented that cost of going from 8 GB of DDR 2133 to 8 GB GDDR5 is around $100 which puts it at around $170 for 8 GB of GDDR5 using 4Gb modules or about $21 per gigabyte using premium 4Gb module prices although with a 128-bit interface you will need to use the more common 2Gb modules.

 

[crashtech]

It doesn't look like Iris Pro is going to make it to an LGA 1150 CPU, as far as I can tell. :\

 

[Zap]

Wish they would make the full blown version available in cheaper options

That's what I want as well. Too bad Intel will only sell me Iris Pro with such an expensive mobile processor. We can agree that Iris Pro isn't high end gaming, right? Well then, why can't I buy a cheap notebook with Iris Pro or even Iris vanilla? My current notebook (well, one of them) is a Vostro 3360 which is somewhat thin/light and has a mobile Core i5 Ivy Bridge, which is a dual core with Hyperthreading and HD 4000 graphics. Price was very reasonable. I think a Haswell i5 dual core with Iris would be great for low end gaming (rather, less demanding graphics) with games like Starcraft II, Diablo III, League of Legends, etc. I don't need a high end quad core CPU for those kind of games, but something better than HD 4000 would be very welcome.

 

[Zodiark1593]

As I said the 15 inch macbook pro will not have a dGPU. If it were, it would be leaked all over the internet and via geekbench, where pre-production models being tested have their specifications leaked. The 15 inch model has already leaked, actually, and unless Apple did a sudden about face in July - the MBP 15 will use Iris Pro.

One thing that does make me curious, How will Apple market the new GPU should it be used in the 15". Considering it's about on par, if not slightly slower than the GT650M (not counting the overclocking Apple did with their variant), would it not look bad to potential customers to point out that Apple did not move forward on the performance front (or even backwards in some areas)? Or will Apple simply opt not mention GPU performance at all.

 

[blackened23]

One thing that does make me curious, How will Apple market the new GPU should it be used in the 15". Considering it's about on par, if not slightly slower than the GT650M (not counting the overclocking Apple did with their variant), would it not look bad to potential customers to point out that Apple did not move forward on the performance front (or even backwards in some areas)? Or will Apple simply opt not mention GPU performance at all.

If you ponder this question logically you have your answer. Apple does not chase gaming performance. Apple's drivers are well optimized for other things and generally, for the most part, does extremely well at what it's designed to do. And it is not designed for gaming. It is not designed for CUDA development. Furthermore, Apple users, on average, care more about functionality, ease of use, ergonomics, and WORKING OUT OF THE BOX with no hassle rather than tech specs.

Even though I appreciate tech specs as i'm a DIY system builder, buying an ultrabook is an exercise in frustration because there's so much different garbage out there. With a macbook, you just buy and you know it's a great machine. That definitely is NOT the case on the Windows side. I can't tell you how many terrible ultrabooks i've had to RMA for TONS of issues such as: HDMI not working higher than 1080p, WiFi dropping constantly, barely functional trackpad, keyboards that weren't responsive or had "sticky" keys, the list goes on. When you buy apple the stuff just works and it works well. Their consumer base generally does not obsess over technical specs because Apple designs their machines so carefully as to create a fantastic user experience. This is true across their entire product range.

Again, the garbage issues with windows ultrabooks just doesn't apply to Apple systems - they're extremely well designed with a lot of forethought going into "just working" and ease of use. Technical specifications are always without exception where they need to be and Apple designs their drivers to excel at tasks that their user base actually, well, uses. Gaming is not a specific use for any macbook, but it is a useful metric of how well the Iris Pro performs in relation to competing mobile dGPUs.

I used to be one of those guys that hated Apple. I didn't know why, I just did. Until I started buying Windows ultrabooks. Let me tell you, that entire Windows portable ecosystem is nonsense. There's so much low quality JUNK out there that it blows my mind. The issues I mentioned above with windows ultrabooks just NEVER happen with Apple. If you buy it, you buy in confidence - it's rather sad that the best portable computer is apple. I would like Windows manufactures to step up, but they just haven't. Yet.

 

[piesquared]

Competing GPU's get frame paced, thoroughly tested through every resolution conceivable, with a dozen games, frapped, fcatted, time stamped, overclocked, underclocked, tested by dozens of reviewers, analyzed by forum participants, scrutinized by professionals, drivers run through the ringer and then some... and intel's solution gets 2 synthetics and 2 game frame rate averages in friendly games and is declared a winner? excuse me while I LOL. Until intel's solutions are treated in the same manner and subjectivity as any other product on the market, they are in the same position as they have always been AFAIC: last.

 

[blackened23]

Competing GPU's get frame paced, thoroughly tested through every resolution conceivable, with a dozen games, frapped, fcatted, time stamped, overclocked, underclocked, tested by dozens of reviewers, analyzed by forum participants, scrutinized by professionals, drivers run through the ringer and then some... and intel's solution gets 2 synthetics and 2 game frame rate averages in friendly games and is declared a winner? excuse me while I LOL. Until intel's solutions are treated in the same manner and subjectivity as any other product on the market, they are in the same position as they have always been AFAIC: last.

Must be those dirty compiler tricks eh? Joking aside, the product isn't released yet in wide circulation. The new macbook retinas are being announced on Tuesday with world wide availability in a week or so after that. So the reviews are coming. You'll have your data. I'm sure you're itching to compare it to all your AMD gear. Any guesses on how that will go?

 

[piesquared]

Must be those dirty compiler tricks eh? Joking aside, the product isn't released yet in wide circulation. The new macbook retinas are being announced on Tuesday with world wide availability in a week or so after that. So the reviews are coming. You'll have your data. I'm sure you're itching to compare it to all your AMD gear. Any guesses on how that will go?

This product is released and should have been scrutinized by reviewers long ago. I could care less about Apple products, I want to see it in an oranges to oranges comparison. Anything else is not comparable data.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It doesn't look like Iris Pro is going to make it to an LGA 1150 CPU, as far as I can tell. :\

Because it wouldnt fit in the socket. Maybe at 14nm.

 

[krumme]

"If it was half price it would sell."

Yep, Apple doesn't exist. That isn't a lucrative contract. Intel definitely ISN'T making tons of bucks there. Laughing on the way to the bank, even. Apple is a nobody. Right?

It looks like a record in strawmen to me The fact stands, this version does not materialize in the market in any meaningfull numbers as it is. I think the reason for that is the most obvious, its bad business for Intel to make and sell it. Thats how business works.

Yes Apple will sell a derivative of it. Because Otellini wanted it from a strategic perspective not an economic. They still have paranoia because they didnt produce the first Apple cpu even though they were asked for it. Now they think selling to Apple is a way to the mobile market. Well its a way to lose a lot of money because Apple will in no way pay anything that reminds of list price, and Apple have shown their loyality is only one way. And if anything their strategy is to change suppliers if in doubt. Apple is a beatifull, but untrusty trophy wife starting to getting a little old. Intel will earn their money elsewhere.

 

[Magic Carpet]

You're not understanding what segment Iris Pro is aimed at.

You must keep in mind that Iris Pro is designed for super small form factors with long battery life - in this respect Iris Pro is unmatched. The market has shown that consumers value portability and battery life, this is EXACTLY why ARM SOCs are a "thing" now. If anything, iGPU advances with the Iris Pro are insanely good. It's only getting better with Broadwell. Show me another 47W TDP quad core mobile CPU + GPU that can perform that well - you won't be able to.

Cool, that I wouldn't pick a portable device with such a high TDP anyway. It offers little in terms of graphical innovation to warrant such a high price tag, let alone practical uses, since it must have a fan and regular maintenance. I'd rather stick to fanless ARM designs since they seem more practical (less maintenance, usually no moving parts) at the fraction of the cost. 47W is not portable, or truly mobile. It's a "geek", destined for homes with AC plugs nearby. But at home, you might as well pick something more powerful. Of course, it's the path, Intel has chosen and it will surely come to fruition in the future, but not with this intermediate, expensive piece of silicon (you can't even find it in a shop). Really not worth the money, nor the time in its current state. I know, you're going to say, ARM isn't in the same market, but tell that to people that are ditching their laptops/desktops in favor of smart phones and tablets. They vote with their wallet, they don't think about "markets". A lot of people don't really care for that extra pefromance found in newest Intel graphics. Only a small chunk of people (like yourself) would pay attention to that. The younger people who like to game, often choose, the fastest graphics available regardless of the size (they think bigger is better anyway). Iris has no place in the mainstream market, simple as.

On the other hand, you can still get a full size hunk of junk 17 pound laptop with your discrete GPU if you want. Complete with 30 minutes of battery life at 100% load. GTX780M SLI. Take your pick. I value portability and battery life and Iris Pro allows great performance and is UNMATCHED in its class of TDP range. That's what Iris Pro is all about. In fact, I see a future where intel steps up the iGPU game so much that 1080p gaming will become a thing - Broadwell will come close to that, skywell even further. Should be an interesting couple of years down the road.

I'm not saying full size laptops are bad. But they're not portable if you're gaming. They weigh a lot more, they get hot and loud just like desktops. If you want all out performance by all means, that's what you want. But you're not using it on a battery charge if you're gaming.

Of course, if you compare it to that ^, it ticks all the boxes. But again, its availability and price does not make it a rational choice for the masses. Too much fuss, for so little gain, I'd say.

 

[NTMBK]

Because it wouldnt fit in the socket. Maybe at 14nm.

Has this actually been confirmed by Intel or demonstrated to be true, or is it just speculation? (Not saying that it might not be true, but knowing for certain would be a different kettle of fish.)

 

[Nothingness]

Macbook Pro Retina using Iris Pro is pretty much nearly guaranteed at this point because pre-production model specifications have already been leaked via geekbench results.

Do you have a link to these results?

 

[Kallogan]

Iris pro seems to be hard to cool, even with a dual fan cooling, copper heatsinks and the biggest vent ever etc :

http://www.notebookcheck.net/fileadmin/Notebooks/Schenker/S413/16_innen.jpg

http://www.notebookcheck.net/typo3temp/_processed_/csm_hinten_15cb626274.jpg

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Schenker-S413-Clevo-W740SU-Notebook.98313.0.html

"When only Prime95 was performed, the CPU surpassed 100 °C within no time and the device issued a loud warning signal. Apparently the Core i7's TDP of 47 watts can only be provided with certainty when distributed evenly over the CPU and GPU. This phenomenon was not observed in practical applications."

Good experimental chip but need improvements to really fit thin and light laps. Maybe Broadwell will make it more viable. For now, given the price, power consumption and performance, it's not a good deal at all.

I have an asus N550JV 15" with i7 4700HQ and 750M dgu and after a few tweaks i get 10 hours of battery life idling and 7 hours of medium web browsing/watching videos. Battery is 59Wh.