Sleeping Dogs

A Square Enix game, Sleeping Dogs is one of the few open world games to be released with any kind of benchmark, giving us a unique opportunity to benchmark an open world game. Like most console ports, Sleeping Dogs’ base assets are not extremely demanding, but it makes up for it with its interesting anti-aliasing implementation, a mix of FXAA and SSAA that at its highest settings does an impeccable job of removing jaggies. However by effectively rendering the game world multiple times over, it can also require a very powerful video card to drive these high AA modes.

Sleeping Dogs

At 1366 x 768 with medium quality settings, there doesn't appear to be much of a memory bandwidth limitation here at all. Vsync was disabled but there's a definite clustering of performance close to 60 fps. The gap between the 650M and Iris Pro is just under 7%. Compared to the 77W HD 4000 Iris Pro is good for almost a 60% increase in performance. The same goes for the mobile Trinity comparison.

Sleeping Dogs

At higher resolution/higher quality settings, there's a much larger gap between the 650M and Iris Pro 5200. At high quality defaults both FXAA and SSAA are enabled, which given Iris Pro's inferior texture sampling and pixel throughput results in a much larger victory for the 650M. NVIDIA maintains a 30 - 50% performance advantage here. The move from a 47W TDP to 55W gives Iris Pro an 8% performance uplift. If we look at the GT 640's performance relative to the 5200, it's clear that memory bandwidth alone isn't responsible for the performance delta here (although it does play a role).

Once more, compared to all other integrated solutions Iris Pro has no equal. At roughly 2x the performance of a 77W HD 4000, 20% better than a desktop Trinity and 40% better than mobile Trinity, Iris Pro looks very good.

BioShock: Infinite Tomb Raider (2013)
POST A COMMENT

173 Comments

View All Comments

  • GullLars - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    Those are strong words in the end, but i agree Intel should make a K-series CPU with Crystalwell. What comes to mind is they may be doing that for Broadwell.

    The Iris Pro solution with eDRAM looks like a nice fit for what i want in my notebook upgrade coming this fall. I've been getting by on a Core2Duo laptop, and didn't go for Ivy Bridge because there were no good models with a 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 display without dedicated graphics. For a system that will not be used for gaming at all, but needs resolution for productivity, it wasn't worth it. I hope this will change with Haswell, and that i will be able to get a 15" laptop with >= 1200p without dedicated graphics. 4950HQ or 4850HQ seems like an ideal fit. I don't mind spending $1500-2000 for a high quality laptop :)
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    ANAND!!

    You got the FLOPs rating wrong on the Sandy Bridge parts. They are at 1/2 of Ivy Bridge.

    1350MHz with 12 EUs and 8 FLOPs/EU will result in 129.6GFlops. While its true in very limited scenarios Sandy Bridge's iGPU can co-issue, its small enough to be non-existent. That is why a 6EU HD 2500 comes close to 12EU HD 3000.
    Reply
  • Hrel - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    If they use only the HD4600 and Iris Pro that'd probably be better. As long as it's clearly labeled on laptops. HD 4600 Pro (don't expect to do any video work on this) Iris Pro (it's passable in a pinch).

    But I don't think that's what's going to happen. Iris Pro could be great for Ultrabooks; I don't really see any use outside of that though. A low end GT740M is still a better option in any laptop that has the thermal room for it. Considering you can put those in 14" or larger ultrabooks I still think Intel's graphics aren't serious. Then you consider the lack of Compute, PhysX, Driver optimization, game specific tuning...

    Good to see a hefty performance improvement. Still not good enough though. Also pretty upsetting to see how many graphics SKU's they've released. OEM'S are gonna screw people who don't know just to get the price down.
    Reply
  • Hrel - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    The SKU price is 500 DOLLARS!!!! They're charging you 200 bucks for a pretty shitty GPU. Intel's greed is so disgusting it over rides the engineering prowess of their employees. Truly disgusting Intel; to charge that much for that level of performance. AMD we need you!!!! Reply
  • xdesire - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    May i ask a noob question? Question: Do we have no i5s, i7s WITHOUT on board graphics any more? As a gamer i'd prefer to have a CPU + discrete GPU in my gaming machine and i don't like to have extra stuff stuck on the CPU, lying there consuming power and having no use (for my part) whatsoever. No ivy bridge or haswell i5s, i7s without iGPU or whatever you call it? Reply
  • flyingpants1 - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    They don't consume power while they're not in use. Reply
  • Hrel - Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - link

    WHY THE HELL ARE THOSE SO EXPENSIVE!!!!! Holy SHIT! 500 dollars for a 4850HQ? They're charging you 200 dollars for a shitty GPU with no dedicated RAM at all! Just a cache! WTFF!!!

    Intel's greed is truly disgusting... even in the face of their engineering prowess.
    Reply
  • MartenKL - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    What I don't understand is why Intel didn't do a "next-gen console like processor". Like takeing the 4770R and doubling the GPU or een quadrupling, wasn't there space? The thermal headroom must have been there as we are used to CPUs with as high as 130W TDP. Anyhow, combining that with awesome drivers for Linux would have been a real competition to AMD/PS4/XONE for Valve/Steam. A complete system under 150w capable of awesome 1080p60 gaming.

    So now I am looking for the best performing GPU under 75W, ie no external power. Which is it, still the Radeon HD7750?
    Reply
  • Phrontis - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    I can't wait for one on these on a mITX board such with 3 decent monitor outputs. Theres enough power for the sort of things I do if not for gaming.

    Phrontis
    Reply
  • khanov - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    Without a direct comparison between HD 5000/5100 and Iris Pro 5200 with Crystalwell,
    how can we conclude that Crystalwell has any effect in any of the game benchmarks? While it clearly is of benefit in some compute tasks, in the game benchmarks you only compare to HD 4600 with half as many EU's and to Nvidia and AMD with their different architectures.

    We really need to see Iris Pro 5200 vs HD5100 to get an apples to apples comparison and be able to determine if Crystalwell is worth the extra money.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now