Tomb Raider (2013)

The simply titled Tomb Raider is the latest entry in the Tomb Raider franchise, making a clean break from past titles in plot, gameplay, and technology. Tomb Raider games have traditionally been technical marvels and the 2013 iteration is no different. iGPUs aren’t going to have quite enough power to use its marquee feature – DirectCompute accelerated hair physics (TressFX) – however even without it the game still looks quite good at its lower settings, while providing a challenge for our iGPUs.

Tomb Raider (2013)

Once again, at 1366 x 768 the gap between 650M and Iris Pro 5200 is at its smallest. Here NVIDIA holds a 15% advantage over the 55W Iris Pro.

Tomb Raider (2013)

Increase the resolution and image quality and the gap widens considerably. Again the problem here appears to be AA impacting Iris Pro much more than the 650M.

Sleeping Dogs Battlefield 3
POST A COMMENT

174 Comments

View All Comments

  • HisDivineOrder - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    I see Razer making an Edge tablet with an Iris-based chip. In fact, it seems built for that idea more than anything else. That or a NUC HTPC run at 720p with no AA ever. You've got superior performance to any console out there right now and it's in a size smaller than an AppleTV.

    So yeah, the next Razer Edge should include this as an optional way to lower the cost of the whole system. I also think the next Surface Pro should use this. So high end x86-based laptops with Windows 8 Pro.

    And NUC/BRIX systems that are so small they don't have room for discrete GPU's.

    I imagine some thinner than makes sense ultrathins could also use this to great effect.

    All that said, most systems people will be able to afford and use on a regular basis won't be using this chip. I think that's sad, but it's the way it will be until Intel stops trying to use Iris as a bonus for the high end users instead of trying to put discrete GPU's out of business by putting these on every chip they make so people start seeing it CAN do a decent job on its own within its specific limitations.

    Right now, no one's going to see that, except those few fringe cases. Strictly speaking, while it might not have matched the 650m (or its successor), it did a decent job with the 640m and that's a lot better than any other IGP by Intel.
    Reply
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    You confused me here on these points:

    1) The NUC uses a 17W TDP chip and overheats. We're not going to have Iris in that form factor yet.
    2) It would increase the cost of the Edge, not lower it. Same TDP problem too.

    Otherwise I agree, this really needs to roll down lower in the food chain to have a serious impact. Hopefully they'll do that with Broadwell used by the GPU when the die area effectively becomes free thanks to the process switch.
    Reply
  • whyso - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    So intel was right. Iris Pro pretty much matches a 650m at playable settings (30 fps +). Note that anandtech is being full of BullS**t here and comparing it to an OVERCLOCKED 650m from apple. Lets see, when intel made that 'equal to a 650m' claim it was talking about a standard 650m not an overclocked 650m running at 900/2500 (GDDR5) vs the normal 835/1000 (GDDR5 + boost at full, no boost = 735 mhz core). If you look at a standard clocked GDDR3 variant iris pro 5200 and the 650m are pretty much very similar (depending on the games) within around 10%. New Intel drivers should further shorten the gap (given that intel is quite good in compute). Reply
  • JarredWalton - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/814

    For the games I tested, the rMBP15 isnt' that much faster in many titles. Iris isn't quite able to match GT 650M, but it's pretty close all things considered.
    Reply
  • Spunjji - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    I will believe this about new Intel drivers when I see them. I seriously, genuinely hope they surprise me, though. Reply
  • dbcoopernz - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    Are you going to test this system with madVR? Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    We have Ganesh working to answer that question right now. Reply
  • dbcoopernz - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    Cool. :) Reply
  • JDG1980 - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    I would have liked to see some madVR tests. It seems to me that the particular architecture of this chip - lots of computing power, somewhat less memory bandwidth - would be very well suited to madVR's better processing options. It's been established that difficult features like Jinc scaling (the best quality) are limited by shader performance, not bandwidth.
    The price is far steeper than I would have expected, but once it inevitably drops a bit, I could see mini-ITX boards with this become a viable solution for high-end, passively-cooled HTPCs.
    By the way, did they ever fix the 23.976 fps error that has been there since Clarkdale?
    Reply
  • dbcoopernz - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    Missing Remote reports that 23.976 timing is much better.

    http://www.missingremote.com/review/intel-core-i7-...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now