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

171 Comments

View All Comments

  • tipoo - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    ? Reply
  • velatra - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    On page 4 of the article there 's a word "presantive" which should probably be "representative." Reply
  • jabber - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    May I ask why The Sims is never featured in your reviews on such GPU setups?

    Why? Well in my line of business, fixing and servicing lots of laptops with the integrated chips the one game group that crops up over and over again is The Sims!

    Never had a laptop in from the real world that had any of the games you benchmarked here. But lots of them get The Sims played on them.
    Reply
  • JDG1980 - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    Agreed. The benchmark list is curiously disconnected from what these kind of systems are actually used to do in the real world. Seldom does anyone use a laptop of any kind to play "Triple-A" hardcore games. Usually it's stuff like The Sims and WoW. I think those should be included as benchmarks for integrated graphics, laptop chipsets, and low-end HTPC-focused graphics cards. Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    Because the Sims is much easier to run than most of these. Just because people tried running it on GMA graphics and wondered why it didn't work doesn't mean it's a demanding workload. Reply
  • jabber - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    Yes but the point is the games tested are pretty much pointless. How many here would bother to play them on such equipped laptops?

    Pretty much none.

    But plenty 'normal' folks who would buy such equipment will play plenty of lesser games. In my job looking after 'normal' folks thats quite important when parents ask me about buying a laptop for their kid that wants to play a few games on it.

    The world and sites such as Anandtech shouldnt just revolve around the whims of 'gamer dudes' especially as it appears the IT world is generally moving away from gamers.

    It's a general computing world in future, rather than a enthusiast computing world like it was 10 years ago. I think some folks need to re-align their expectations going forward.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Sunday, June 02, 2013 - link

    I mean, if it can run something like Infinite or even Crysis 3 fairly well, you can assume it would run the Sims well. Reply
  • Quizzical - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    It would help immensely if you would say what you were comparing it to. As you are surely aware, a system that includes an A10-5800K but cripples it by leaving a memory channel vacant and running the other at 1333 MHz won't perform at all similarly to a properly built system with the same A10-5800K with two 4 GB modules of 1866 MHz DDR3 in properly matched channels.

    That should be an easy fix by adding a few sentences to page 5, but without it, the numbers don't mean much, as you're basically considering Intel graphics in isolation without a meaningful AMD comparison.
    Reply
  • Quizzical - Saturday, June 01, 2013 - link

    Ah, it looks like the memory clock speeds have been added. Thanks for that. Reply
  • 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now