Quick Sync Performance

The 128MB eDRAM has a substantial impact on QuickSync performance. At a much lower TDP/clock speed, the i7-4950HQ is able to pretty much equal the performance of the i7-4770K. Running Haswell's new better quality transcode mode, the 4950HQ is actually 30% faster than the fastest desktop Haswell. This is just one of many reasons that we need Crystalwell on a K-series socketed desktop part.

CyberLink Media Espresso 6.5 - Harry Potter 8 Transcode

CPU Performance

I spent most of the week wrestling with Iris Pro and gaming comparisons, but I did get a chance to run some comparison numbers between the i7-4950HQ CRB and the 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display running Windows 8 in Boot Camp. In this case the 15-inch rMBP was running a 2.6GHz Core i7-3720QM with 3.6GHz max turbo. Other than the base clock (the i7-4950HQ features a 2.4GHz base clock), the two parts are very comparable as they have the same max turbo frequencies. I paid attention to turbo speeds while running all of the benchmarks and for the most part found the two systems were running at the same frequencies, for the same duration.

To put the results in perspective I threw in i7-3770K vs. i7-4770K results. The theory is that whatever gains the 4770K shows over the 3770K should be mirrored in the i7-4950HQ vs. i7-3720QM comparison. Any situations where the 4950HQ exceeds the 4770K's margin of victory over Ivy Bridge are likely due to the large 128MB L4 cache.

Peak Theoretical GPU Performance
  Cinebench 11.5 (ST) Cinebench 11.5 (MT) POV-Ray 3.7RC7 (ST) POV-Ray 3.7RC7 (MT) 7-Zip Benchmark 7-Zip Benchmark (Small) x264 HD - 1st Pass x264 HD - 2nd Pass
Intel Core i7-4770K 1.78 8.07 - 1541.3 23101 - 79.1 16.5
Intel Core i7-3770K 1.66 7.61 - 1363.6 22810 - 74.8 14.6
Haswell Advantage 7.2% 6.0% - 13.0% 1.3% - 5.7% 13.0%
Intel Core i7-4950HQ 1.61 7.38 271.7 1340.9 21022 14360 73.9 14.0
Intel Core i7-3720QM 1.49 6.39 339.1 1178.3 19749 12670 66.2 12.9
Haswell Advantage 8.1% 15.5% 24.8% 13.8% 6.4% 13.3% 11.6% 8.5%
Crystalwell Advantage 0.9% 9.5% - 0.8% 5.1% - 5.9% -4.5%

I didn't have a ton of time to go hunting for performance gains, but a couple of these numbers looked promising. Intel claims that with the right workload, you could see huge double digit gains. After I get back from Computex I plan on poking around a bit more to see if I can find exactly what those workloads might be.

Compute Performance Pricing
POST A COMMENT

174 Comments

View All Comments

  • Elitehacker - Tuesday, September 24, 2013 - link

    Even for a given power usage the 650M isn't even to on the top of the list for highest end discrete GPU.... The top at the moment for lowest wattage to power ratio would be the 765M, even the Radeon HD 7750 has less wattage and a tad more power than the 650M. Clearly someone did not do their researching before opening their mouth.

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that vFunct is one of those Apple fanboys that knows nothing about performance. You can get a PC laptop in the same size and have better performance than any Macbook available for $500 less. Hell you can even get a Tablet with an i7 and 640M that'll spec out close to the 650M for less than a Macbook Pro with 650M.
    Reply
  • Eric S - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - link

    The Iris Pro 5200 would be ideal for both machines. Pro users would benefit from ECC memory for the GPU. The Iris chip uses ECC memory making it ideal for OpenCL workloads in Adobe CS6 or Final Cut X. Discrete mobile chips may produce errors in the OpenCL output. Gamers would probably prefer a discrete chip, but that isn't the target for these machines. Reply
  • Eric S - Monday, July 01, 2013 - link

    I think Apple cares more about the OpenCL performance which is excellent on the Iris. I doubt the 15" will have a discrete GPU. There isn't one fast enough to warrant it over the Iris 5200. If they do ever put a discrete chip back in, I hope they go with ECC GDDR memory. My guess is space savings will be used for more battery. It is also possible they may try to reduce the display bezel. Reply
  • emptythought - Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - link

    It's never had the highest end chip, just the best "upper midrange" one. Above the 8600m GT was the 8800m GTX and GTS, and above the 650m there was the 660, a couple 670 versions, the 675 versions, and the 680.

    They chose the highest performance part that hit a specific TDP, stretching a bit from time to time. It was generally the case that anything which outperformed the MBP was either a thick brick, or had perpetual overheating issues.
    Reply
  • CyberJ - Sunday, July 27, 2014 - link

    Not even close, but whatever floats you boat. Reply
  • emptythought - Tuesday, October 01, 2013 - link

    It wouldn't surprise me if the 15in just had the "beefed up" iris pro honestly. They might even get their own, special even more overclocked than 55w version.

    Mainly, because it wouldn't be without precedent. Remember when the 2009 15in macbook pro had a 9400m still? Or when they dropped the 320m for the hd3000 even though it was slightly slower?

    They sometimes make lateral, or even slightly backwards moves when there are other motives at play.
    Reply
  • chipped - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    That's just crazy talk, they want drop dedicated graphics. The difference is still too big, plus you can't sell a $2000 laptop without a dedicated GFX. Reply
  • shiznit - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    considering Apple specifically asked for eDRAM and since there is no dual core version yet for the 13", I'd say there is very good chance. Reply
  • mavere - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    "The difference is still too big"

    The difference in what?

    Something tells me Apple and its core market is more concerned with rendering/compute performance more than Crysis 3 performance...
    Reply
  • iSayuSay - Wednesday, June 05, 2013 - link

    If it plays Crysis 3 well, it can render/compute/do whatever intensive fine. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now