Intel Iris Pro 5200 Graphics Review: Core i7-4950HQ Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 1, 2013 10:01 AM EST
The Prelude
As Intel got into the chipset business it quickly found itself faced with an interesting problem. As the number of supported IO interfaces increased (back then we were talking about things like AGP, FSB), the size of the North Bridge die had to increase in order to accommodate all of the external facing IO. Eventually Intel ended up in a situation where IO dictated a minimum die area for the chipset, but the actual controllers driving that IO didn’t need all of that die area. Intel effectively had some free space on its North Bridge die to do whatever it wanted with. In the late 90s Micron saw this problem and contemplating throwing some L3 cache onto its North Bridges. Intel’s solution was to give graphics away for free.
The budget for Intel graphics was always whatever free space remained once all other necessary controllers in the North Bridge were accounted for. As a result, Intel’s integrated graphics was never particularly good. Intel didn’t care about graphics, it just had some free space on a necessary piece of silicon and decided to do something with it. High performance GPUs need lots of transistors, something Intel would never give its graphics architects - they only got the bare minimum. It also didn’t make sense to focus on things like driver optimizations and image quality. Investing in people and infrastructure to support something you’re giving away for free never made a lot of sense.
Intel hired some very passionate graphics engineers, who always petitioned Intel management to give them more die area to work with, but the answer always came back no. Intel was a pure blooded CPU company, and the GPU industry wasn’t interesting enough at the time. Intel’s GPU leadership needed another approach.
A few years ago they got that break. Once again, it had to do with IO demands on chipset die area. Intel’s chipsets were always built on a n-1 or n-2 process. If Intel was building a 45nm CPU, the chipset would be built on 65nm or 90nm. This waterfall effect allowed Intel to help get more mileage out of its older fabs, which made the accountants at Intel quite happy as those $2 - $3B buildings are painfully useless once obsolete. As the PC industry grew, so did shipments of Intel chipsets. Each Intel CPU sold needed at least one other Intel chip built on a previous generation node. Interface widths as well as the number of IOs required on chipsets continued to increase, driving chipset die areas up once again. This time however, the problem wasn’t as easy to deal with as giving the graphics guys more die area to work with. Looking at demand for Intel chipsets, and the increasing die area, it became clear that one of two things had to happen: Intel would either have to build more fabs on older process nodes to keep up with demand, or Intel would have to integrate parts of the chipset into the CPU.
Not wanting to invest in older fab technology, Intel management green-lit the second option: to move the Graphics and Memory Controller Hub onto the CPU die. All that would remain off-die would be a lightweight IO controller for things like SATA and USB. PCIe, the memory controller, and graphics would all move onto the CPU package, and then eventually share the same die with the CPU cores.
Pure economics and an unwillingness to invest in older fabs made the GPU a first class citizen in Intel silicon terms, but Intel management still didn’t have the motivation to dedicate more die area to the GPU. That encouragement would come externally, from Apple.
Looking at the past few years of Apple products, you’ll recognize one common thread: Apple as a company values GPU performance. As a small customer of Intel’s, Apple’s GPU desires didn’t really matter, but as Apple grew, so did its influence within Intel. With every microprocessor generation, Intel talks to its major customers and uses their input to help shape the designs. There’s no sense in building silicon that no one wants to buy, so Intel engages its customers and rolls their feedback into silicon. Apple eventually got to the point where it was buying enough high-margin Intel silicon to influence Intel’s roadmap. That’s how we got Intel’s HD 3000. And that’s how we got here.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
TheJian - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
This is useless at anything above 1366x768 for games (and even that is questionable as I don't think you were posting minimum fps here). It will also be facing richland shortly not AMD's aging trinity. And the claims of catching a 650M...ROFL. Whatever Intel. I wouldn't touch a device today with less than 1600x900 and want to be able to output it to at least a 1080p when in house (if not higher, 22in or 24in). Discrete is here to stay clearly. I have an Dell i9300 (Geforce 6800) from ~2005 that is more potent and runs 1600x900 stuff fine, I think it has 256MB of memory. My dad has an i9200 (radeon 9700pro with 128mb I think) that this IRIS would have trouble with. Intel has a ways to go before they can claim to take out even the low-end discrete cards. You are NOT going to game on this crap and enjoy it never mind trying to use HDMI/DVI out to a higher res monitor at home. Good for perhaps the NICHE road warrior market, not much more.But hey, at least it plays quite a bit of the GOG games catalog now...LOL. Icewind Dale and Baldur's gate should run fine :)
wizfactor - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
Shimpi's guess as to what will go into the 15-inch rMBP is interesting, but I have a gut feeling that it will not be the case. Despite the huge gains that Iris Pro has over the existing HD 4000, it is still a step back from last year's GT 650M. I doubt Apple will be able to convince its customers to spend $2199 on a computer that has less graphics performance than last year's (now discounted) model. Despite its visual similarity to an Air, the rMBP still has performance as a priority, so my guess is that Apple will stick to discrete for the time-being.That being said, I think Iris Pro opens up a huge opportunity to the 15-inch rMBP lineup, mainly a lower entry model that finally undercuts the $2000 barrier. In other words, while the $2199 price point may be too high to switch entirely to iGPU, Apple might be able to pull it off at $1799. Want a 15-inch Retina Display? Here's a more affordable model with decent performance. Want a discrete GPU? You can get that with the existing $2199 price point.
As far as the 13-inch version is concerned, my guesses are rather murky. I would agree with the others that a quad-core Haswell with Iris Pro is the best-case scenario for the 13-inch model, but it might be too high an expectation for Apple engineers to live up to. I think Apple's minimum target with the 13-inch rMBP should be dual-core Haswell with Iris 5100. This way, Apple can stick to a lower TDP via dual-core, and while Iris isn't as strong as Iris Pro, its gain over HD 4000 is enough to justify the upgrade. Of course, there's always the chance that Apple has temporary exclusivity on an unannounced dual-core Haswell with Iris Pro, the same way it had exclusivity with ULV Core 2 Duo years ago with MBA, but I prefer not to make Haswell models out of thin air.
BSMonitor - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link
You are assuming that the next MBP will have the same chasis size. If thin is in, the dGPU-less Iris Pro is EXTREMELY attractive for heat/power considerations..More likely is the end of the thicker MBP and separate thin MBAir lines. Almost certainly, starting in two weeks we have just one line, MBP all with retina, all the thickness of MBAir. 11" up to 15"..
TheJian - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
As far as encoding goes, why do you guys ignore cuda?http://www.extremetech.com/computing/128681-the-wr...
Extremetech's last comment:
"Avoid MediaEspresso entirely."
So the one you pick is the worst of the bunch to show GPU power....jeez. You guys clearly have a CS6 suite lic so why not run Adobe Premiere which uses Cuda and run it vs the same vid render you use in Sony's Vegas? Surely you can rip the same vid in both to find out why you'd seek a CUDA enabled app to rip with. Handbrake looks like they're working on supporting Cuda also shortly. Or heck, try FREEMAKE (yes free with CUDA). Anything besides ignoring CUDA and acting like this is what a user would get at home. If I owned an NV card (and I don't in my desktop) I'd seek cuda for everything I did that I could find. Freemake just put out another update 5/29 a few days ago.
http://www.tested.com/tech/windows/1574-handbrake-...
2.5yrs ago it was equal, my guess is they've improved Cuda use by now. You've gotta love Adam and Jamie... :) Glad they branched out past just the Mythbusters show.
xrror - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
I have a bad suspicion one of the reasons why you won't see a desktop Haswell part with eDRAM is that it would pretty much euthanize socket 2011 on the spot.IF Intel does actually release a "K" part with it enabled, I wonder how restrictive or flexible the frequency ratios on the eDRAM will be?
Speaking of socket 2011, I wonder if/when Intel will ever refresh it from Sandy-E?
wizfactor - Sunday, June 2, 2013 - link
I wouldn't call myself an expert on computer hardware, but isn't it possible that Iris Pro's bottleneck at 1600x900 resolutions could be attributed to insufficient video memory? Sure, that eDRAM is a screamer as far as latency is concerned, but if the game is running on higher resolutions and utilising HD textures, that 128MB would fill up really quickly, and the chip would be forced to swap often. Better to not have to keep loading and unloading stuff in memory, right?Others note the similarity between Crystalwell and the Xbox One's 32MB Cache, but let's not forget that the Xbox One has its own video memory; Iris Pro does not, or put another way, it's only got 128 MB of it. In a time where PC games demand at least 512 MB of video RAM or more, shouldn't the bottleneck that would affect Iris Pro be obvious? 128 MB of RAM is sure as hell a lot more than 0, but if games demand at least four times as much memory, then wouldn't Iris Pro be forced to use regular RAM to compensate, still? This sounds to me like what's causing Iris Pro to choke at higher resolutions.
If I am at least right about Crystalwell, it is still very impressive that Iris Pro was able to get in reach of the GT 650M with so little memory to work with. It could also explain why Iris Pro does so much better in Crysis: Warhead, where the minimum requirements are more lenient with video memory (256 MB minimum). If I am wrong, however, somebody please correct me, and I would love to have more discussion on this matter.
BSMonitor - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link
Me thinks thou not know what thou talking about ;)F_A - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link
The video memory is stored in main memory being it 4GB and above...(so minspecs of crysis are clearly met)... the point is bandwidtht.The article is telling there are roughly 50GB/s when the cachè is run with 1.6 Ghz.
So ramping it up in füture makes the new Iris 5300 i suppose.
glugglug - Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - link
Video cards may have 512MB to 1GB of video memory for marketing purposes, but you would be hard pressed to find a single game title that makes use of more than 128.tipoo - Wednesday, January 21, 2015 - link
Uhh, what? Games can use far more than that, seeing them push past 2GB is common. But what matters is how much of that memory needs high bandwidth, and that's where 128MB of cache can be a good enough solution for most games.