Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,247
889
Could someone tell more how the Iris graphics on the retina Pro's compare with other GPU's as well as the overall Gflops. Thanks :) It's my first Macbook :)
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,147
18,872
It has peak 832GFLOPS; gaming performance is roughly comparable to a 650M with DDR3 memory (this is NOT the faster 650M with GDDR5 found in the 2012 MBPs).
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,411
104
He is talking about the Iris not the Iris Pro. There are other threads. Short story it is quite a bit behind an Iris Pro and a 650M in any configuration but it is quite good for an iGPU with that battery life.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91977.0.html
Click on the compare links to show it in relation to other cards at that level.
It is described at almost 640M performance in best case scenarios and about 620M performance in other cases. It is really limited by bandwitdh and clock speeds, the peak FLOPS mean absolutely nothing for its performance.
 

MartinAppleGuy

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Sep 27, 2013
2,247
889
He is talking about the Iris not the Iris Pro. There are other threads. Short story it is quite a bit behind an Iris Pro and a 650M in any configuration but it is quite good for an iGPU with that battery life.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91977.0.html
Click on the compare links to show it in relation to other cards at that level.
It is described at almost 640M performance in best case scenarios and about 620M performance in other cases. It is really limited by bandwitdh and clock speeds, the peak FLOPS mean absolutely nothing for its performance.

Will it be able to run GTA San Andreas, Dirt 2, Grid, Cod 4 max settings?
 

daudi81

macrumors regular
Oct 26, 2013
114
6
Well it's nothing compared to the 750m in the macbook pro. I got both machines (13" and 15") and messed around with both of them for a week or so. The 13" was just as smooth as quick when running regular stuff. As soon as you throw up a new-ish game there's a huge difference. The 13" bogs down quite a bit when you pump up the graphics, but you'll be fine with a less intensive game like civ 5, or even diablo 3 WITHOUT the graphics cranked to the max.

However, something to think about: with Thunderbolt 2 out, my guess is that external graphics card may make a bigger showing which will basically negate the graphics advantage of dedicated GPU laptops (unless you're on the go of course). The 750m is nothing compared to a desktop level card of the same generation.
 

dusk007

macrumors 68040
Dec 5, 2009
3,411
104
cod 4 should not be a problem either. All up to MW3 should run fine of the COD series. Ghost gets a new more demanding engine but it will still run though problem only on medium settings.
I don't know dirt 2 or grid.
San Andreas is really old.
 

T-Bob

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2013
673
363
Max settings would be full res with 16X AA etc. Would barely run on most of those games. 1366 x 768 at medium? Sure.
 

leman

macrumors Core
Oct 14, 2008
19,147
18,872
Max settings would be full res with 16X AA etc. Would barely run on most of those games. 1366 x 768 at medium? Sure.

You don't need any AA with a display of that density. And I think you are overestimating these games. They are all at least 4 years old. They should run just fine at 1680x1050 and high settings. Maybe even native resolution. Note: I am talking about Windows version of the games. The OS X ones will be slower, but still pretty much playable at high settings.
 

T-Bob

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2013
673
363
You don't need any AA with a display of that density. And I think you are overestimating these games. They are all at least 4 years old. They should run just fine at 1680x1050 and high settings. Maybe even native resolution. Note: I am talking about Windows version of the games. The OS X ones will be slower, but still pretty much playable at high settings.

He said max settings, so yes you would use full AA. If he had said good settings that is a different story.

I don't know about Grid, but Grid 2 is in the benchmarks and gets 12.5fps at 1080p on ultra settings. At 1366 x 768 medium settings it gets 34.8.
 

ab2013

macrumors member
May 5, 2013
32
0

OverpricedJunk

macrumors newbie
Oct 15, 2013
28
0
Iris sounds surprisingly weak compared to the 5000 in the MBA.

Came across this review on the 2013 MBA w/ an i7:

http://blog.laptopmag.com/core-i7-macbook-air-2013

It scored a 27.5 on Cinebench OpenGL! The rMBPs score a 20-21 on Cinebench OpenGL according to Macworld, which is about the same as the i5 MBA:

http://www.macworld.com/article/205...-boost-to-new-13-inch-retina-macbook-pro.html

Why is Iris doing so poorly in the benchmarks? Isn't the 5100 supposed to be better than the 5000? :confused:


Liekly, they were tested at different resolutions and therefore are not comparable.
 

ab2013

macrumors member
May 5, 2013
32
0
That doesn't seem very ... professional of them.

For some reason, I was thinking about whether the drivers for Iris aren't very optimized but that doesn't make sense.
 

smakdown61

macrumors regular
Aug 21, 2008
100
0
Iris sounds surprisingly weak compared to the 5000 in the MBA.

Came across this review on the 2013 MBA w/ an i7:

http://blog.laptopmag.com/core-i7-macbook-air-2013

It scored a 27.5 on Cinebench OpenGL! The rMBPs score a 20-21 on Cinebench OpenGL according to Macworld, which is about the same as the i5 MBA:

http://www.macworld.com/article/205...-boost-to-new-13-inch-retina-macbook-pro.html

Why is Iris doing so poorly in the benchmarks? Isn't the 5100 supposed to be better than the 5000? :confused:

Because it has to draw nearly twice the amount of pixels compared to the air. A proper test to compare just the graphics cards would be an off screen benchmark which are independent of screen resolution.
 

ab2013

macrumors member
May 5, 2013
32
0
According to notebook check,

the 1.3 i5 MBA scores a 1,035 on 3DMark11
the 1.7 i7 MBA scores a 1,070
and the 2.4 i5 rMBP scores a 1,164

That's barely a 10% gain in performance. And all of the tests were run at the same res (3dMark11 must have looked awful on the rMBP...)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.