How far back do we have to go for Haswell's Iris Pro to be the top dog GPU?

[Hulk]

How far back in time do we have to travel for Haswell's Iris Pro GPU to be faster than the fastest discrete GPU available? And what was that GPU?

 

[skipsneeky2]

I would certainly hope it can come close to a 7800gtx.HD4000 for me i know can in some occasions be slower then a 9500gt DDR2 then sometimes its faster.Add in about whatever difference in performance a Iris Pro GPU would have over HD4000/HD4600 and i think this would give a idea.

Would then need to check reviews of cards like the 9500gt DDR3/9600gt/5670 where i think HD4600 can be about performance wise then see where those cards fall in comparison to the 8000 series then backtrack to the 7000 series using 8000 series reviews.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

It's hard to find even indirect comparisons but I think it's faster than the X1950 XTX, it might be on par with the 8800 GTX, and it should be slower than a GTX 280.

 

[R0H1T]

Anything pre GDDR5 era I'd say.

 

[MrTeal]

According to the Anandtech review (http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/5), Iris Pro trades blows pretty evenly with a DDR3 GT640 other than a couple outliers like BF3.
In DX10 games like Crysis that would probably slot it in around an X1900 XTX or 7900GTX glancing at AT reviews, although the lack of settings makes comparing them really tough.

Alternately, according to TPU a GT450 is about 25% faster across resolutions than a GT 640. Also, a stock GT450 is 13.6% faster than a GTS250 (9800GTX+) and 31% faster than a 9800GT.

Skylake will present an interesting opportunity, since there will be socketed GT4e parts where someone could actually compare Iris Pro vs something like a GTS 250, HD4870 or GTX280 and see how they compare.

 

[ShintaiDK]

X1900XTX/7900GTX performance was passed long ago.

It looks to be GTX8800 performance give and take. With 60% higher gflops to the Iris Pro.

 

[MrTeal]

X1900XTX/7900GTX performance is passed long ago.

Interesting, do you have any evidence of that? The next step after that level would be 8800GTX, and that was a pretty large leap forward. Obviously you get DX11 compatibility with Iris Pro, but in terms of raw power it doesn't seem to be there yet.

 

[greatnoob]

Performance of the Iris Pro 5200 is right in between a GTX 260 and GTX 260 216Core edition. Which makes it faster than a 9800gtx.

Iris Pro (theoretical max w/ eDRAM) <= GTX 260C > GTX 260 = GT 650m

 

[ShintaiDK]

Interesting, do you have any evidence of that? The next step after that level would be 8800GTX, and that was a pretty large leap forward. Obviously you get DX11 compatibility with Iris Pro, but in terms of raw power it doesn't seem to be there yet.

I think we are over in "common sense" area

The performance of those cards are simply too low. Iris Pro beats them in all metrics, even memory bandwidth.

A X1900XTX for example is 48 pixel shaders. ~10GP/sec, ~10GT/sec, 1.3GV/sec and 49.6GB/sec.

Iris Pro for example got twice the GT/sec and the eDRAM alone is 50GB/sec.

 

[jji7skyline]

Passmark places the Iris Pro 5200 between the GTX280 and GTX285 which is pretty impressive.

 

[greatnoob]

Passmark places the Iris Pro 5200 between the GTX280 and GTX285 which is pretty impressive.

That is in raw compute performance with the super fast eDRAM being utilised, which bloats that number. In actual games where memory is usually at 60-70% use it does not perform near a GTX 280, kinda close but not exactly there.

 

[MrTeal]

I think we are over in "common sense" area

The performance of those cards are simply too low. Iris Pro beats them in all metrics, even memory bandwidth.

A X1900XTX for example is 48 pixel shaders. ~10GP/sec, ~10GT/sec, 1.3GV/sec and 49.6GB/sec.

Iris Pro for example got twice the GT/sec and the eDRAM alone is 50GB/sec.

As greatnoob said, raw compute isn't a good indicator of gaming performance. A 8800GTX has 36.8GT/s though, so by that metric it's almost twice as powerful as Iris Pro. Pixel fill rate on the Iris Pro is lower at 10.4GP/s vs 13.8GP/s for 8800GTX. Memory bandwidth is similar at 25.6GB/s + 50GB/s vs 86.4GB/s for the discrete card.

As far as I've seen, Anandtech is the only one that's tested Iris Pro directly vs a similar discrete solution and that showed that in games it performs very similarly to a DDR3 GT640. In some compute applications and some synthetics it blows the doors off the GT640, but in actual gaming at the same settings it doesn't appear to perform any better. It would have been interesting to see if they had dropped an 8800GTX into the PCIe slot on that CRB they tested.

For something like this the answer will vary wildly based on what metric you use for "fastest", especially comparing a DX11 part to a DX10 one. As I mentioned earlier, it will be interesting with GT4e to compare Skylake's iGPU to a discrete card in the same system.

 

[sm625]

Iris pro completely decimates anything prior to Radeon HD 4xxx series. I'd rather have a HD4770 than Iris pro, even though some synthetics are worse. The problem is that you can buy a 4770 on ebay for like 30 bucks, which makes the iris pretty much worthless unless you're trying to save power, in which case a modern optimus solution using a non-iris intel chip and a low end maxwell part would be more cost and power efficient.

 

[blastingcap]

How far back in time do we have to travel for Haswell's Iris Pro GPU to be faster than the fastest discrete GPU available? And what was that GPU?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107-7.html

 

[Onox]

Thank you for asking this question, it is something I wanted to know too. What about the Intel HD Graphics 5500 (Broadwell GT2) in a Core i7-5600U ? To which discrete card would it have a similar performance ? Its architecture is slightly more modern than the Iris Pro 5200, but it has less units and no eDRAM. Is it inferior in performance to a GeForce 8800 GTX ?

 

[SPBHM]

it's difficult to compare because the older CPUs are slower, but judging by the 3dm06 and vantage scores here
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/477...ics-review-the-end-of-mid-range-gpus-3dmark06

it's faster than the 8800GTX at least

if you compare some 3dmark vantage feature tests
Iris Pro 5200 texture fillrate
466
8800GTX 506

pixel fillrate
Iris Pro 5200
3.83
8800GTX
4.2

http://techreport.com/review/15293/amd-radeon-hd-4870-x2-graphics-card/4
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/15

 

[skipsneeky2]

Good old games would be awesome to try out on Iris Pro.Something like UT3 really could open up where this thing stands.Had quite a few 8000 series reviews from TPU which had this title in there and even some 7000 cards.That game landed in their reviews till the GTX590 lol.

Anandtech even did a UT3 review and it included the demo,download it and give it a run and compare their numbers to what the Iris Pro gets.

 

[MrTeal]

Good old games would be awesome to try out on Iris Pro.Something like UT3 really could open up where this thing stands.Had quite a few 8000 series reviews from TPU which had this title in there and even some 7000 cards.That game landed in their reviews till the GTX590 lol.

Anandtech even did a UT3 review and it included the demo,download it and give it a run and compare their numbers to what the Iris Pro gets.

You're still dealing with reviews set apart in time with wildly different drivers, etc.

Looking at that, it's obvious that FPS are down across the board in common cards between the two reviews, by a large amount. The 9800GTX+ gets twice the FPS as the rebadged GTS 250. Different settings maybe, and also a different test platform. The first review was an E8400@3.6GHz on WinXP, the second was an i7-920@3.8GHz and Win7-64.

Hopefully someone on here with a Z97 board picks up a i7-5775C in a few weeks when they're released, and can run some Iris Pro 6200 benchmarks on the same system as some older top of the line cards.

 

[skipsneeky2]

Different settings maybe, and also a different test platform. The first review was an E8400@3.6GHz on WinXP, the second was an i7-920@3.8GHz and Win7-64.

The frame difference is most likely cause XP doesn't support DX10.If i remember correctly many people ran DX9 for higher performance as it shut off certain DX10 features that hogged performance in Crysis and a few other titles as well.

I still think cards like the 8800GTX are faster then Iris,cards like the 7900GTX are about useless today anyways so mind as well use Iris.Unless someone drops in both those gpus we simply won't really know but my money is on the 8800 being better.