Crysis Warhead

Up next is our legacy title for 2013, Crysis: Warhead. The stand-alone expansion to 2007’s Crysis, at over 4 years old Crysis: Warhead can still beat most systems down. Crysis was intended to be future-looking as far as performance and visual quality goes, and it has clearly achieved that. We’ve only finally reached the point where high-end single-GPU cards have come out that can hit 60fps at 1920 with 4xAA, while low-end GPUs are just now hitting 60fps at lower quality settings and resolutions.

Crysis: Warhead

I can't believe it. An Intel integrated solution actually beats out an NVIDIA discrete GPU in a Crysis title. The 5200 does well here, outperforming the 650M by 12% in its highest TDP configuration. I couldn't run any of the AMD parts here as Bulldozer based parts seem to have a problem with our Crysis benchmark for some reason.

Crysis: Warhead is likely one of the simpler tests we have in our suite here, which helps explain Intel's performance a bit. It's also possible that older titles have been Intel optimization targets for longer.

Crysis: Warhead

Ramping up the res kills the gap between the highest end Iris Pro and the GT 650M.

Crysis: Warhead

Moving to higher settings and at a higher resolution gives NVIDIA the win once more. The margin of victory isn't huge, but the added special effects definitely stress whatever Intel is lacking within its GPU architecture.

Crysis 3 GRID 2
Comments Locked

177 Comments

View All Comments

  • Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer - Monday, June 3, 2013 - link

    The performance isn't earth-shattering, but if Intel manages to put out good open-source Linux drivers for Iris Pro, I can't help but feel like this would be a great chip for that; it isn't like you'll be playing Crysis in Ubuntu anytime soon. I kind of want that CRB (or something like it), actually.
  • tviceman - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    I'll bet notebooks with mid-range quad core CPU's and gt 750m discrete graphics will be cheaper than notebooks with Iris Pro enabled iGPU graphics as well. The only benefit would be a slightly slimmer chassis and battery life. Anyone who still wants to game on a notebook is noticeably better off with a mid-range discrete GPU over this.
  • esterhasz - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    On page four, the ominous launch partner is not "keen" rather than "key", I guess. I'd be very keen on having that rMBP 13" with IP5200, though.
  • Ryan Smith - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    Noted and fixed. Thank you.
  • tipoo - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    I'm very much in that boat too, a quad core 13" rMBP with Iris Pro would put it over the top.
  • MattVincent - Wednesday, June 12, 2013 - link

    totally agree. I wonder if apple will actually put a quad core in the 13" though. I bet they would rather sell more 15" rmbp's
  • jeffkibuule - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    Would a 47W chip be able to fit into a normal 13" Ultrabook-like chassis like the 13" MacBook Pro with Retina Display? Only an extra 12W TDP to deal with.
  • esterhasz - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    This would be awesome and we have to remember that the 47W TDP includes voltage regulation moving off the MB, so the gap is maybe only 8W. The 47 TDP also refers to both CPU and GPU running at full speed, which is an extremely rare scenario - in gaming, the CPU load will probably hover at 50% only.

    In any case, if the tested model goes into a rMBP 13" I'm going to buy it before Tim Cook has left the stage.
  • nofumble62 - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    Thinking to buy a Ivybridge Mac Book Pro for my wife, I guess she will have wait a little longer for this baby. I wish they could fit in a Mac Book Air.
  • jeffkibuule - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    Look at the price of those chips though, you're going to be dropping at least $2000 on such a laptop when the CPU alone is $478.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now