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

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