3DMark and GFXBench

Although we don't draw any conclusions based on 3DMark and GFXBench, I ran this data on Richland as well since I had Trinity, Ivy Bridge and Haswell comparison points.

3DMark: Ice Storm

3DMark: Ice Storm Extreme

3DMark: Cloud Gate

3DMark: Fire Strike

3DMark: Fire Strike Extreme

3DMark 11 - Performance Defaults

3DMark 06

GFXBenchmark 2.7 T-Rex HD

GFXBenchmark 2.7 T-Rex HD - 4X MSAA

Compute Performance Final Words


View All Comments

  • FriendlyUser - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    Indeed, there is a $468 part. You can still fit a decent dGPU and a decent CPU on that budget for, once again, vastly superior performance. And you don't need crossfire but you do lose on power consumption, which is the only point the Iris has for it. Reply
  • iwod - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    I wonder how much discount do OEM generally gets from Intel. 30% off Tray $440 @ $308/chip ? If the CPU used to cost them $200 and $100 for the GPU, i guess the space saving of 2in1 solution, less power usage, while giving similar performance is going to be attractive enough. Reply
  • testbug00 - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    My desktop costed less than that... Mine probably is a little slower even with 1.1Ghz GPU and 4.4 CPU (my A10-5800K w/ 1866 OCed to 2133) Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    Yah, for me, the only consideration for a system with on-die CPU graphics is if I buy a low-end notebook that I want to do a little gaming on, and the chips with Iris price themselves out of that market. I've recommended AMD for that kind of product to my friends before, and I don't see any reason to change that. Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    What does Crossfire have to do with it? Using on-die graphics with an added discrete card doesn't have anything to do with Crossfire. Reply
  • max1001 - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    Because AMD like to call APU+GPU combo Hybird Crossfire. Reply
  • Spunjji - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    Who said anything about Crossfire?! Reply
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    No, Crystalwell also makes sense on any high-performance part. Be it the topmost dekstop K-series or the Xeons. That cache can add ~10% performance in quite a few applications, which equals 300 - 500 MHz more CPU clock. And at 300$ there'd easily be enough margin left for Intel. But no need to push such chips... Reply
  • Gigaplex - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    There isn't a single K-series part with Crystalwell. Reply
  • mdular - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    As others have already pointed out it's not the "most important information" at all. Crystalwell isn't available on a regular desktop socket.

    Most importantly though, that is also for a good reason: Who would buy it? At the price point of the Crystalwell equipped CPUs you would get hugely better gaming performance with an i3/i5/FX and a dedicated GPU. You can build an entire system from scratch for the same amount and game away with decent quality settings, often high - in full HD.

    There is a point to make for HTPCs, gaming laptops/laplets, but i would assume that they don't sell a lot of them at the Crystalwell performance target.

    Since the article is about Desktops however, and considering all of the above, Crystalwell is pretty irrelevant in this comparison. If you seek the info on Crystalwell performance i guess you will know where to find it.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now