Pricing

Intel's launch lineup with Haswell is pretty spartan, but we do have enough information to get a general idea of what Crystalwell will cost as an addition.

Peak Theoretical GPU Performance
  CPU Cores/Threads CPU Clock (Base/4C/2C/1C Turbo) Graphics GPU Clock (Base/Max Turbo) TDP Price
Intel Core i7-4950HQ 4/8 2.4/3.4/3.5/3.6GHz Intel Iris Pro 5200 200/1300MHz 47W $657
Intel Core i7-4850HQ 4/8 2.3/3.3/3.4/3.5GHz Intel Iris Pro 5200 200/1300MHz 47W $468
Intel Core i7-4800MQ 4/8 2.7/3.5/3.6/3.7GHz Intel HD 4600 400/1300MHz 47W $378

The i7-4950HQ and i7-4850HQ are the only two Iris Pro 5200 parts launching today. A slower 2GHz i7-4750HQ will follow sometime in Q3. CPU clocks are a bit lower when you go to GT3, likely to preserve yield. Compared to the i7-4800MQ the 4850HQ carries a $90 premium. That $90 gives you twice the number of graphics EUs as well as the 128MB of eDRAM. Both adders are likely similar in terms of die area, putting the value of both at $45 a piece. Now you are giving up a bit on the CPU frequency side, so the actual cost could be closer to $50 or so for each. Either way, Iris Pro 5200 doesn't come cheap - especially compared to Intel's HD 4600.

From talking to OEMs, NVIDIA seems to offer better performance at equivalent pricing with their GT 740M/750M solutions, which is why many PC OEMs have decided to go that route for their Haswell launch platforms. What Intel hopes however is that the power savings by going to a single 47W part will win over OEMs in the long run, after all, we are talking about notebooks here.

 

Quick Sync & CPU Performance Final Words
POST A COMMENT

171 Comments

View All Comments

  • n13L5 - Tuesday, June 11, 2013 - link

    " An Ultrabook SKU with Crystalwell would make a ton of sense, but given where Ultrabooks are headed (price-wise) I’m not sure Intel could get any takers."

    They sure seem to be going up in price, rather than down at the moment...
    Reply
  • anandfan86 - Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - link

    Intel has once again made their naming so confusing that even their own marketing weasels can't get it right. Notice that the Intel slide titled "4th Gen Intel Core Processors H-Processors Line" calls the graphics in the i7-4950HQ and i7-4850HQ "Intel HD Graphics 5200" instead of the correct name which is "Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200". This slide calls the graphics in the i7-4750HQ "Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200" which indicates that the slide was made after the creation of that name. It is little wonder that most media outlets are acting as if the biggest tech news of the month is the new pastel color scheme in iOS 7. Reply
  • Myoozak - Wednesday, June 26, 2013 - link

    The peak theoretical GPU performance calculations shown are wrong for Intel's GFLOPS numbers. Correct numbers are half of what is shown. The reason is that Intel's execution units are made of of an integer vec4 processor and a floating-point vec4 processor. This article correctly states it has a 2xvec4 SIMD, but does not point out that half is integer and half is floating-point. For a GFLOPS computation, one should only include the floating-point operations, which means only half of that execution unit's silicon is getting used. The reported computation performance would only be correct if you had an algorithm with a perfect mix of integer & float math that could be co-issued. To compare apples to apples, you need to stick to GFLOPS numbers, and divide all the Intel numbers in the table by 2. For example, peak FP ops on the Intel HD4000 would be 8, not 16. Compared this way, Intel is not stomping all over AMD & nVidia for compute performance, but it does appear they are catching up. Reply
  • alexcyn - Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - link

    I heard that Intel 22nm process equals TSMS 26nm, so the difference is not that much. Reply
  • alexcyn - Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - link

    I heard that Intel 22nm process equals TSMC 26nm, so the difference is not that big. Reply
  • Doughboy(^_^) - Friday, August 09, 2013 - link

    I think Intel could push their yield way up by offering 32MB and 64MB versions of Crystalwell for i3 and i5 processors. They could charge the same markup for the 128, but sell the 32/64 for cheaper. It would cost Intel less and probably let them take even further market share from low-end dGPUs. Reply
  • krr711 - Monday, February 10, 2014 - link

    It is funny how a non-PC company changed the course of Intel forever for the good. I hope that Intel is wise enough to use this to spring-board the PC industry to a new, grand future. No more tick-tock nonsense arranged around sucking as many dollars out of the customer as possible, but give the world the processing power it craves and needs to solve the problems of tomorrow. Let this be your heritage and your profits will grow to unforeseen heights. Surprise us! Reply
  • s2z.domain@gmail.com - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    I wonder where this is going. Yes the multi core and cache on hand and graphics may be goody, ta.
    But human interaction in actual products?
    I weigh in at 46kg but think nothing of running with a Bergen/burden of 20kg so a big heavy laptop with ingratiated 10hr battery and 18.3" would be efficacious.
    What is all this current affinity with small screens?
    I could barely discern the vignette of the feathers of a water fowl at no more than 130m yesterday, morning run in the Clyde Valley woodlands.
    For the "laptop", > 17" screen, desktop 2*27", all discernible pixels, every one of them to be a prisoner. 4 core or 8 core and I bore the poor little devils with my incompetence with DSP and the Julia language. And spice etc.

    P.S. Can still average 11mph @ 50+ years of age. Some things one does wish to change. And thanks to the Jackdaws yesterday morning whilst I was fertilizing a Douglas Fir, took the boredom out of a another wise perilous predicament.
    Reply
  • johncaldwell - Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - link

    Hello,
    Look, 99% of all the comments here are out of my league. Could you answer a question for me please? I use an open source 3d computer animation and modeling program called Blender3d. The users of this program say that the GTX 650 is the best GPU for this program, siting that it works best for calculating cpu intensive tasks such as rendering with HDR and fluids and other particle effects, and they say that other cards that work great for gaming and video fall short for that program. Could you tell me how this Intel Iris Pro would do in a case such as this? Would your test made here be relevant to this case?
    Reply
  • jadhav333 - Friday, July 11, 2014 - link

    Same here johncaldwell. I would like to know the same.

    I am a Blender 3d user and work on cycles render which also uses the GPU to process its renders. I am planning to invest in a new workstation.. either a custome built hardware for a linux box or the latest Macbook Pro from Apple. In case of latter, how useful will it be, in terms of performance for GPU rendering on Blender.

    Anyone care to comment on this, please.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now