News - Intel’s best Haswell IGP called “Iris” is on a par with a GT640

Quote:

---

An Intel slide leaked by VRZone shows comparisons with rival GPUs.

---

Read more.

Good marketing by Intel, desktop and laptop manufacturers won't take much convincing and will be laughing all the way to the bank as the vast majority of their models can be made cheaper with a single chip.

Is it safe to assume that the 4770K will be the unlocked version with a weaker IGP but the R will be a locked version with a better IGP?

Quote:

---

Several mobile and desktop Haswell CPUs will be equipped with the top performing GT3e chip. On the desktop side of things CPUs packing the GT3e will be suffixed with an “R”. Tom’s Hardware informs us these will be the Core i7-4770R, Core i5-4670R and Core i5-4570R. These are all quad-core processors, with a TDP of 65W.

---

So let me get this straight ... they (might) be offering a reasonably powerful quad-core (/octa-thread) processor with graphics perhaps good enough to play CoD4 at a decent frame rate and only with a 65W TDP? :drool:

That said, the cynic in me thinks "yes, but that'll be done for some crazy price though". Got a dedicated graphics card at the moment, but I really like the idea of that low TDP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caveman

Is it safe to assume that the 4770K will be the unlocked version with a weaker IGP but the R will be a locked version with a better IGP?

---

Correct.

It'll probably be possible for enthusiasts and gamers to get same/better performance for less outlay with a lower end CPU and dedicated PCI-E GPU. Might not be great on TDP and will require larger case of course...

This is excellent for small form factors and low power applications where a PCI-E card can't fit, very good to see Intel making an effort. They key really is how well it compares to AMD Fusion APUs. Haswell will undoubtedly murder Fusion on per-core CPU performance so if Intel can get close on graphics and keep the whole chip at a comparable cost or significantly lower TDP then AMD have a huge problem.

Well I think Intel would be OK if they were still competing vs Trinity, but Richland will be out in June as well.

Although I doubt this is a significant market for Intel. It would worry AMD though if they lost graphics supremacy.

latest rumour mill says AMD will be marketing something similar to the PS4 APU in desktop - along with an on die GDDR5 package.

Oh sigh, I can see the benefits of this for mainstream PCs, laptops/notebooks/netbooks etc, but this constant talk about graphics performance feels like a massive kick in the teeth for us enthusiasts. We have our dedicated graphics cards for gaming, or we want to REALLY push that CPU and have no need for the extra bells and whistles taking up space, cost and thermal envelope.
As a result, CPU processing power isn't really advancing at anywhere near the rate it did for the last 20 years any more, and that's a shame.

Not to mention the price of these high end chips is INSANE considering the only modest speed improvements over 2+ year old hardware.

I'm not impressed by the direction that AMD has led Intel in. I guess it was inevitable after the leaps and bounds Intel made with Core processors compared with their AMD rivals at that time, and AMD needed to find a way to compete...

But do you think the lack of progress is linked to the increase in graphics power?

I think progress was always going to tail off eventually.
If progress has been slowed due to business reasons then I would blame many other factors first, e.g.
- Lack of need for more CPU power from software/users
- AMD not challenging Intel at the top end
- GPGPU taking over at the supercomputer level.

Apparently R-suffixed chips might be soldered to the board, as they use GDDR5 for the GPU component, meaning either the boards will be super expensive or they'll be OEM only.

Its time to upgrade Sandy Bridge to Haswell. worth it or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roobubba

Oh sigh, I can see the benefits of this for mainstream PCs, laptops/notebooks/netbooks etc, but this constant talk about graphics performance feels like a massive kick in the teeth for us enthusiasts. We have our dedicated graphics cards for gaming, or we want to REALLY push that CPU and have no need for the extra bells and whistles taking up space, cost and thermal envelope.
As a result, CPU processing power isn't really advancing at anywhere near the rate it did for the last 20 years any more, and that's a shame.

---

I know what you mean. However, I think it could be good in other ways. Firstly, CPU power nowadays is really huge. Yes, even for gamers. Whilst integrated graphics have never been for enthusiasts, by putting the horsepower in a bunch of laptops and nettops etc., many more semi-serious gamers will be able to play a lot more mainstream games. And that's a great thing because it will help keep developers programming for the PC and with Steam for linux and big picture etc etc it will all help keep the platform competitive against its console rivals.

So I for one am happy with this direction. Especially as I used to think I'd want a monster gaming laptop just to play *any* game but didn't want the bulk, noise and garish lights. Now I think I'd be very happy with the power of a GT640 in a normal/thin laptop and happily able to play most games, especially slightly older stuff like counterstrike, TF2 etc, newer stuff on moderate settings, and still reserve the desktop for when serious gaming is required...

From a non-gaming perspective, this should unlock massive speed improvements in a lot of areas. If all modern systems have relatively powerful GPUs and CPUs there is much more incentive for developers to add GPU acceleration to their software. So the CPU part of the package doesn't need to be a huge bump in speed to show a good jump in performance for most poeple... providing the software is there of course :)