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

177 Comments

View All Comments

  • 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
  • HunkoAmazio - Monday, May 26, 2014 - link

    Wow I cant believe I understood this, My computer archieture class paid off... except I got lost when they were talking about n1 n2 nodes.... that must have been a post 2005 feature in CPU N bridge S Bridge Technology Reply
  • systemBuilder - Tuesday, August 5, 2014 - link

    I don't think you understand the difference between DRAM circuitry and arithmetic circuitry. A DRAM foundry process is tuned for high capacitance so that the memory lasts longer before refresh. High capacitance is DEATH to high-speed circuitry for arithmetic execution, that circuitry is tuned for very low capacitance, ergo, tuned for speed. By using DRAM instead of SRAM (which could have been built on-chip with low-capacitance foundry processes), Intel enlarged the cache by 4x+, since an SRAM cell is about 4x+ larger than a DRAM cell. Reply
  • Fingalad - Friday, September 12, 2014 - link

    CHEAP SLI! They should make a cheap IRIS pro graphics card and do a new board where you can add that board for SLI. Reply
  • P39Airacobra - Thursday, January 8, 2015 - link

    Not a bad GPU at all, On a small laptop screen you can game just fine, But it should be paired with a lower CPU, And the i3, i5, i7 should have Nvidia or AMD solutions. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now