3DMarks & GFXBenchmark

We don't use 3DMark to draw GPU performance conclusions but it does make for a great optimization target. Given what we've seen thus far, and Intel's relative inexperience in the performance GPU space, I wondered if Iris Pro might perform any differently here than in the games we tested.

It turns out, Iris Pro does incredibly well in all of the 3DMarks. Ranging from tying the GT 650M to outperforming it. Obviously none of this has any real world impact, but it is very interesting. Is Intel's performance here the result of all of these benchmarks being lighter on Intel's weaknesses, or is this an indication of what's possible with more driver optimization?

3DMark: Ice Storm

3DMark: Ice Storm Extreme

3DMark: Cloud Gate

3DMark: Fire Strike

3DMark: Fire Strike Extreme

3DMark 11 - Performance Defaults

3DMark 06

I also included GFXBenchmark 2.7 (formerly GL/DXBenchmark) as another datapoint for measuring the impact of MSAA on Iris Pro:

GFXBenchmark 2.7 T-Rex HD

GFXBenchmark 2.7 T-Rex HD - 4X MSAA

Iris Pro goes from performance competitive with the GT 650M to nearly half its speed once you enable 4X MSAA. Given the level of performance Iris Pro offers, I don't see many situations where AA will be enabled, but it's clear that this is a weak point of the microarchitecture.

Synthetics Compute Performance
POST A COMMENT

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. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Saturday, June 1, 2013 - link

    Noted and fixed. Thank you. Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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 Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now