Intel Iris Pro 6200 is something else

[Pariah]

THG just posted a review of the new Broadwell desktop CPU's. Nothing too interesting on the CPU side, but the integrated Iris Pro 6200 puts up some pretty startling numbers for a low power integrated GPU. Certainly not going to replace a 980Ti, but it destroys anything AMD has in their integrated portfolio.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5675c-broadwell,4169-6.html

Looks like one helluva HTPC chip, that can legitimately game at 1080p.

 

[boozzer]

750 level of performance!!! wow. this could very well be what I am looking for in a new laptop.

Q: is skylake going to have the same gpu parts?

 

[jj109]

Intel's plan of eating the discrete GPU market feet first is starting to unfold... $260 for a 4c/4t Broadwell with a built-in R7 250/GTX 750-class GPU is a dream come true for prebuilt sellers.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I highly doubt its going to perform like that in reality. The resolution tested is super low, and one instance where its really far ahead of the HD 4600 is under 2x MSAA, which the HD 4600 does not support, so it runs extra slow.

Low resolutions mean fast CPUs are an advantage. You have to see medium and high setting benchmarks.

According to Intel's own documents, Iris Pro 6200 is 20% faster in 3DMark11 compared to Iris Pro 5200, on the mobile side.

 

[ShintaiDK]

750 level of performance!!! wow. this could very well be what I am looking for in a new laptop.

Q: is skylake going to have the same gpu parts?

Skylake will have a new (gen9) GPU, plus it will have up to 72EUs vs Broadwells 48. So Skylake should be considerable faster.

 

[Kallogan]

tis amazing for laptops and 768p gamers

skylake will nail it even more

cool thing with haswell and xtu you could undervolt/underclock cpu side to let the igp fly under load, surely you can't be cpu limited with those kind of low mid range gpus

 

[AtenRa]

I highly doubt its going to perform like that in reality. The resolution tested is super low, and one instance where its really far ahead of the HD 4600 is under 2x MSAA, which the HD 4600 does not support, so it runs extra slow.

Low resolutions mean fast CPUs are an advantage. You have to see medium and high setting benchmarks.

According to Intel's own documents, Iris Pro 6200 is 20% faster in 3DMark11 compared to Iris Pro 5200, on the mobile side.

That is nice PR review,

Bioshock 1080p low and HD4600 is on par with Kaveri A10-7700. :whiste:

GTA V 720p Minimum and R7 240 faster than Kaveri A10-7850K with DDR2400MHz.

 

[Kallogan]

this is it guys !

dual core broadwell cpu with full Iris pro 6200 for laptops :

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-5350H-Notebook-Processor.143888.0.html

my dream come true. Or am i wrong ?

 

[gorion]

What will be the price of those cpus?

 

[NTMBK]

Skylake will have a new (gen9) GPU, plus it will have up to 72EUs vs Broadwells 48. So Skylake should be considerable faster.

Is 72EU Skylake confirmed? I'm sure I heard the same rumours about Broadwell, but they didn't pan out.

Great benchmarks, though. Want to see some more investigations into how performance scales with resolution, texture details, etc- worried performance will fall off a cliff when the working set falls out of eDRAM. But it looks like the perfect chip for a gaming HTPC.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Is 72EU Skylake confirmed? I'm sure I heard the same rumours about Broadwell, but they didn't pan out.

Great benchmarks, though. Want to see some more investigations into how performance scales with resolution, texture details, etc- worried performance will fall off a cliff when the working set falls out of eDRAM. But it looks like the perfect chip for a gaming HTPC.

Not sure if its official. But up to 50% faster GT4e vs GT3e is posted by Intel. And thats not going to happen without an EU increase.

 

[BFG10K]

What will be the price of those cpus?

That's really the million dollar question. Iris is completely useless to the high end, but price it too high and the low end won't accept the cost.

There's also nothing stopping AMD from adding eDRAM to their future desktop APUs.

 

[stuff_me_good]

Smoke and mirrors and people are praising after seeing only a glimpse of the "truth" that the intel want's you to see.

Please use your brain and check the settings and not only the nice graphs. :whiste:

 

[Alatar]

The wholesale price for i7-5775C located at 366, the. For the i5-5675C at 276 US dollars

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Broad...775C-i5-5675C-Iris-Pro-Graphics-6200-1160517/

 

[NTMBK]

Not sure if its official. But up to 50% faster GT4e vs GT3e is posted by Intel. And thats not going to happen without an EU increase.

Nice find, thanks! A dual core Skylake plus GT4e and DDR4, that's a serious console killer...

 

[JoeRambo]

There's also nothing stopping AMD from adding eDRAM to their future desktop APUs.

They will add HBM that has nice BW as well. The problem currently is die sizes - 28nm vs 14nm is unsustainable when you need ton of area for GPUs. Intel is becoming GPU manufacturer that also has some great x86 core IP.

 

[bononos]

That is nice PR review,

Bioshock 1080p low and HD4600 is on par with Kaveri A10-7700. :whiste:

GTA V 720p Minimum and R7 240 faster than Kaveri A10-7850K with DDR2400MHz.

Even if the maps were chosen to favour the Iris, the large gap in performance is very very impressive.

 

[AtenRa]

Even if the maps were chosen to favour the Iris, the large gap in performance is very very impressive.

yeap, exceptional

Core i5 5675C = $276
A10-7850K = $140
A8-7650K = $105

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5765c/7

I really dont understand why Ian only used 720p on the integrated graphics.

 

[exar333]

yeap, exceptional

Core i5 5675C = $276
A10-7850K = $140
A8-7650K = $105

http://www.anandtech.com/show/9320/intel-broadwell-review-i7-5775c-i5-5765c/7

I really dont understand why Ian only used 720p on the integrated graphics.

The performance delta is $150 now on a halo, niche offering. Skylake will bump-up performance considerably and this will be the lower-end.

All while using about half the power...

Intel has already shown that people will pay more for their CPUs, this is just additional added value and provides them the ability to make more CPU SKU choices. Less CPU cores, more GPU; or vice versa. Things are going to look REALLY interesting when stacked memory comes into play for both Intel and AMD.

 

[exar333]

That's really the million dollar question. Iris is completely useless to the high end, but price it too high and the low end won't accept the cost.

There's also nothing stopping AMD from adding eDRAM to their future desktop APUs.

Price is comparable to the 4670K (maybe $10-20 more?) for the i5 version. This is a GREAT CPU that drops-in and gives all the great performance of the existing i5s while really bumping-up the iGPU chops.

 

[BFG10K]

Price is comparable to the 4670K (maybe $10-20 more?) for the i5 version. This is a GREAT CPU that drops-in and gives all the great performance of the existing i5s while really bumping-up the iGPU chops.

Nobody who buys a 4670K will be running it with iGPU. Iris is a total waste of time in CPUs with such a price bracket.

In order for it to take on low end dGPUs, it needs to be in low end CPUs that cost $50-$100. The problem is, it can't be there because it would no longer be a $50-$100 CPU.

Of course the shipping figures will still count it as "video card market share" even though nobody in their right mind would ever use it. Much the same way I use a Titan with my 4790K, yet it's still a "+1" for Intel's GPU shipments.

Skylake will bump-up performance considerably and this will be the lower-end.

Likewise, dGPUs will ramp up performance considerably, including the low end. In one refresh we've managed to attain Titan performance on a 970 at one third the price, which is now classed as mid-range. And that's without any die shrinks.

With a die-shrink (e.g. Pascal) I expect Titan levels of performance at the low-end. Iris / Skylake being competitive with that is a fantasy.

 

[jj109]

With a die-shrink (e.g. Pascal) I expect Titan levels of performance at the low-end. Iris / Skylake being competitive with that is a fantasy.

Now that's a fantasy...

 

[LTC8K6]

I actually like having the HD4600 with my 4790K as a backup in case of video card trouble.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't use it, but it's right there if I need it, and it will get the important stuff done just fine in a pinch.

I would love it if the iGP were much faster.

 

[exar333]

Nobody who buys a 4670K will be running it with iGPU. Iris is a total waste of time in CPUs with such a price bracket.

In order for it to take on low end dGPUs, it needs to be in low end CPUs that cost $50-$100. The problem is, it can't be there because it would no longer be a $50-$100 CPU.

Of course the shipping figures will still count it as "video card market share" even though nobody in their right mind would ever use it. Much the same way I use a Titan with my 4790K, yet it's still a "+1" for Intel's GPU shipments.


Likewise, dGPUs will ramp up performance considerably, including the low end. In one refresh we've managed to attain Titan performance on a 970 at one third the price, which is now classed as mid-range. And that's without any die shrinks.

With a die-shrink (e.g. Pascal) I expect Titan levels of performance at the low-end. Iris / Skylake being competitive with that is a fantasy.

I am not sure I agree.

This is priced about the same as buying an existing i3 ($120) + GTX 750 ($100) but only uses about 1/2 the total power.

A lot of arguments against the current AMD APU lineup was exactly this. Spend a little more and get comparable (or better GPU performance) with considerable better thermals and consistent CPU performance. Also, Intel has a lot more choices, and often deals, for MBs. This pricing gives another alternative, but this time you also get a true 4C part. It is truly a viable to option to purchase for light gaming, and you don't have regrets with adding a GPU later, as you do with a APU.

Also, not sure where the Titan comparison came from?

Edit: Skylake will offer a faster halo Iris Pro, and this Broadwell-level performance will probably more in-line with mid-level offerings...

 

[RussianSensation]

Now that's a fantasy...

Absolutely not. BFG10K is correct.

March 2010 = GTX480 NV's flagship priced at $499, using 270W+ of power
February 2014 = GTX750Ti has more or less similar performance for $149, using < 75W of power

Alternatively, GTX580 came out November 2010 for $499 and today a $125 card is 30% faster. That took 4.5 years.

OG Titan came out Feb 2013 for $1000.
Today a $250 graphics card is faster. That took just 2 years and 3 months!

$1000 Titan loses to a $250 R9 290 (reference card!)

By summer 2016, OG Titan/R9 290 level performance will be considered at the lowest end in terms of graphics because today already R9 290 is a mid-range videocard. It'll probably take Intel 5 years until their GPU is as fast as the Titan.

The wholesale price for i7-5775C located at 366, the. For the i5-5675C at 276 US dollars

This Intel Comparison is absolutely stupid for desktops. Someone shopping for a gaming laptop or desktop will be better off buying a discrete GPU. Any 6-8 core FX series or an i3 paired with a $125 R9 270X or a $150 R9 280 will lay waste to any Skylake APU.

Pascal and AMD's 14nm chips should increase performance 70%+ at minimum and once Intel runs into a memory bandwidth bottleneck, they will need HBM or something.

The Intel APUs will kill discrete gaming graphics besides $700-1000 cards brigade can keep dreaming and drinking "the discrete GPU is soon dead" marketing Intel Kool-Aid. We didn't even get to Intel's drivers or AA options and their control panel for graphical settings is abysmal. :whiste:

This is priced about the same as buying an existing i3 ($120) + GTX 750 ($100) but only uses about 1/2 the total power.

Way to use one of the worst price/performance GPUs available dude. R9 270X is 44% faster than a 750Ti for $125, R9 280 is 65% faster for $150. A standard 750 doesn't even register on the map here.

Edit: Skylake will offer a faster halo Iris Pro, and this Broadwell-level performance will probably more in-line with mid-level offerings...

So what? AMD/NV will offer even faster discrete GPUs for gaming. This $266 Core i5 setup might be great for someone playing LoL or Half Life 2 but try running Crysis 3 or Metro Last Light or TW3 or GTAV at 1080P on an Iris Pro or Skylake alternative and it will be a joke compared to a budget $125 R9 270X. In any event, once Zen launches and 14nm GPUs come out, this performance leap by Skylake will be entirely wiped out by 14nm GPUs that at $150 + a Zen CPU or a Core i3 will mop the floor with a $266 i5 APU for gaming.

This is even worse than AMD's APUs since they offer light gaming performance at budget prices. Who the hell buys an expensive $266 to $350 i5-i7 to play on integrated graphics?