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

[ShintaiDK]

haswell NUC has a HD5000 series... which i believe is the Iris.

Lol... so far none of the desktops have been slated to feature this IGP.

You can say, the desktops problem is, that it got a PCIe x16 slot. 😉

I think the strategy is, perform good enough on desktop. And simply make sure no dGPU is needed in the mobile segment due to form factors and power consumption.

And most people that want what HD5x00 essentially offers. They would buy a NUC/MacMini/etc style one.

 

[sefsefsefsef]

I like the idea of integrated graphics becoming viable for gaming, but I'm not sure I want to buy those integrated graphics from Intel. Intel charges much more per unit of die area than nVidia or AMD, so I'm not sure I'm interested in Intel having more reasons to manufacture larger and larger (and more expensive expensive) CPU+IGP combos.

I also *really* like the concept of Crystall Well. I think it is a very elegant solution to the problem of graphics bandwidth. But again, the fact that Intel is the one making it means that it's going to be super expensive for what you're getting. I would rather give AMD $50 for a 128 MB eDRAM cache, than Intel $100+ for the same thing.

Also, why isn't this in the graphics forum?

 

[AtenRa]

Iris pro is a fine piece of engineering, the only problem is the High Price to performance ratio.

From the above review it is obvious that at the same price you get a faster CPU (Core i7 4700HQ) and a faster dGPU GT-750M. Not only that, with Iris Pro you also have less performance at the same Power usage in Games.

 

[zlatan]

I'm afraid to ask but what about the drivers? Just a simple fact: Intel is only provide two years support for their graphics solutons.
AMD and NVIDIA provide minimum 4-5 years support and an extra 2-3 years legacy. And I don't talk about the quality which is another weak point of Intel.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Iris pro is a fine piece of engineering, the only problem is the High Price to performance ratio.

From the above review it is obvious that at the same price you get a faster CPU (Core i7 4700HQ) and a faster dGPU GT-750M. Not only that, with Iris Pro you also have less performance at the same Power usage in Games.

So Iris is less power efficient, and more expensive than other comparable solutions providing similar performance. Then how come it's a "fine piece of engineering"... 😕

 

[Zodiark1593]

Iris pro is a fine piece of engineering, the only problem is the High Price to performance ratio.

From the above review it is obvious that at the same price you get a faster CPU (Core i7 4700HQ) and a faster dGPU GT-750M. Not only that, with Iris Pro you also have less performance at the same Power usage in Games.

I'm not sure less performance at the same power usage constitutes good, but if Iris Pro was priced lower, it would gain a large following, and possibly even force AMD and Nvidia to step up dGPU progress which would be a win for gamers.

 

[AtenRa]

For an integrated solution its a fine piece of engineering but, performance to price ration is terrible.

About the power usage, I was only talking about the review measurement in Crysis 3. We have to see more power usage measurements in more Games to see if it is less efficient in general.

 

[TechFan1]

Is there any possibility that their 14nm process will allow intel to make a competitive dGPU? Seems like they may try to make a graphics brand with Iris.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Is there any possibility that their 14nm process will allow intel to make a competitive dGPU? Seems like they may try to make a graphics brand with Iris.

There isnt any future for dGPU. So it makes no sense to enter that segment. The HPC part is already covered by Xeon Phi.

 

[blackened23]

So Iris is less power efficient, and more expensive than other comparable solutions providing similar performance. Then how come it's a "fine piece of engineering"... 😕

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.

 

[Sweepr]

Great performance indeed, cant wait to see Apple's implementation of Iris Pro in the new rMBP. I'm also curious about what Intel will be able to do with Gen 8 architecture and 14nm process on Broadwell.

 

[blackened23]

I should also add (in addition to what I posted above), the tests done at computerbase were using OLD drivers. The tests posted at the link in the OP in this topic were new drivers and show it basically trading blows with the GT650M and performing on par with it. Essentially, the computerbase benchmarks linked are not valid, the tests were done in July prior to the new driver release. This was a pre-release unit.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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

 

[blackened23]

Is there any possibility that their 14nm process will allow intel to make a competitive dGPU? Seems like they may try to make a graphics brand with Iris.

No. dGPU outside of HPC will not be happening. Desktop sales, if you haven't noticed, are plummeting downwards - so intel is focused on ultra portable mobile computing.

 

[erunion]

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.



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.

You're confused. GT2 is 20 EUs, GT3 and GT3e are 40 EUs. There is no 20 EU Iris. Iris is GT3 and Iris Pro is GT3e.

 

[JDG1980]

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

The real money in dGPUs comes from the professional products (Quadro/Tesla and FirePro). That isn't going to be replaced by integrated graphics any time soon. And as long as these products are being made, it's not too hard for the companies to make a few extra bucks on the side by selling the lower-binned chips (with artificially limited drivers) to gamers at a lower price. It's just like Intel's strategy with LGA 2011.

On the lower end, we will probably see less offerings in the $100-$175 range, as these parts are replaced by improved integrated graphics (especially once the platform supports GDDR5). But I don't see a situation any time in the near future when enthusiast gamer cards ($200-$999) stop being produced and sold.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

AMD desperately needs to get an apu with gddr5 or some sort of cache onto the market as soon as possible. Intel is going after the ultra portable market aggressively here and I feel that amd could actually compete if they pushed a good enough CPU with a faster GPU than the iris pro. Of course the manufacturers will still probably push absolute crap out the door with anything amd related making it all pointless.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

Does this have 45% OC headroom like the HD4600s seem to?

 

[erunion]

The real money in dGPUs comes from the professional products (Quadro/Tesla and FirePro). That isn't going to be replaced by integrated graphics any time soon. And as long as these products are being made, it's not too hard for the companies to make a few extra bucks on the side by selling the lower-binned chips (with artificially limited drivers) to gamers at a lower price. It's just like Intel's strategy with LGA 2011.

There is no guaranteed future for GPGPU compute either.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/17/intel_knights_landing_xeon_phi_fabric_interconnects/

 

[SiliconWars]

I should also add (in addition to what I posted above), the tests done at computerbase were using OLD drivers. The tests posted at the link in the OP in this topic were new drivers and show it basically trading blows with the GT650M and performing on par with it. Essentially, the computerbase benchmarks linked are not valid, the tests were done in July prior to the new driver release. This was a pre-release unit.

Where does it say new drivers are used? Also, did the power numbers need new drivers as well? There's no getting away from the fact that this "47W" Iris Pro draws similar power as the 65W desktop A10-6700 during gaming, or the 25% faster i7 and 750M combo.

If it's drawing almost the same power while costing more or performing worse it's a pointless chip, same as any other chip showing those characteristics.

 

[ShintaiDK]

AMD desperately needs to get an apu with gddr5 or some sort of cache onto the market as soon as possible. Intel is going after the ultra portable market aggressively here and I feel that amd could actually compete if they pushed a good enough CPU with a faster GPU than the iris pro. Of course the manufacturers will still probably push absolute crap out the door with anything amd related making it all pointless.

I would rule out GDDR, due to the practical issues. Even as sideport as well.

AMD already got some experience via the Xbox One APU with eSRAM. So they need to transfer that design knowledge to their regular APUs. And they need to hurry. 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.

 

[jacktesterson]

Hope Intel improve there drivers to go with it. It will be a big hit.

Wish they would make the full blown version available in cheaper options, like a $100 processor, to compete the with the A8/A10's

Nvidia is slowly being eliminated from the Laptop Market, are a generation behind in Mobile market compared to Qualcomm, and have no presence in the Consoles. Any cause of concern? I really don't know.

 

[krumme]

Where does it say new drivers are used? Also, did the power numbers need new drivers as well? There's no getting away from the fact that this "47W" Iris Pro draws similar power as the 65W desktop A10-6700 during gaming, or the 25% faster i7 and 750M combo.

If it's drawing almost the same power while costing more or performing worse it's a pointless chip, same as any other chip showing those characteristics.

Its a pointless chip because of the price.
If it was half price it would sell. As it stands its more of a statement. If the price is a little representive of production cost perhaps it was to much of a stretch even for Intel.

But the price stands. So it looks like it was just to early to introduce it. Besides we will see how this edram or any other cache solutions pans out eg for xbox. For me it looks like it introduced more complexity than the oposite.

The elegant paper solution is perhaps an elephant with todays tech. We have seen plenty tech that look lean on paper but turn out to be exactly the opposite when hitting the factory floor. But its a part of the game.

 

[blackened23]

"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?

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.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Its a pointless chip because of the price.
If it was half price it would sell. As it stands its more of a statement. If the price is a little representive of production cost perhaps it was to much of a stretch even for Intel.

But the price stands. So it looks like it was just to early to introduce it. Besides we will see how this edram or any other cache solutions pans out eg for xbox. For me it looks like it introduced more complexity than the oposite.

The elegant paper solution is perhaps an elephant with todays tech. We have seen plenty tech that look lean on paper but turn out to be exactly the opposite when hitting the factory floor. But its a part of the game.

Probably the best use scenario involves very small form factors and reduced mainboard complexity while maintaining lower-mid end level of performance. Something like a Mac Mini?

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.