Execution units vs edram (Iris 6100 vs 5200 pro)

[phero]

I'm in the market for a retina macbook pro.

I'd like to compare the Iris 6100 chip to the Iris Pro 5200 chip.

The 6100 has 8 more execution units compared to the 5200 Pro. The 5200 Pro has 128mb edram. There are other differences, but these seem most important.

Can anyone explain how these differences are reflected in performance? I have a feeling the edram is more valuable, but I'd like to hear from people who are more knowledgable.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The 5200 Pro is faster if thats what you ask.

 

[SPBHM]

what is the total TDP? I would think with the more efficient CPU side the IGP will be able to hold a higher clock on the 6100 for a longer period?

 

[ShintaiDK]

The 5200 Pro would be on a 47W part. And the 6100 would be on a 28W part.

 

[phero]

The 5200 Pro would be on a 47W part. And the 6100 would be on a 28W part.

Indeed.

I am aware that the 5200 should be faster for games, if only because of TDP.

However I am wondering in what way execution units and edram affect performance differently. I am not very interested in gaming, but I do care for a fluid and stable operating system. I've heard that retina resolutions can lead to decreased OS X performance when using multiple desktops and/or monitors. I am wondering how edram and execution units might (differently) affect performance in such scenarios.

 

[ShintaiDK]

eDRAM also benefits CPU performance. Not just graphics. This can be seen with the Broadwell-C reviews.

eDRAM alone also makes the 5200 faster in graphics due to the memory bottleneck.

 

[NTMBK]

6100 has more EUs, but at a lower clock speed. It is wide for high efficiency, not high performance.