Would the MacBook Pro retina 15" base late 2013 with 8Gb of RAM and Intel Iris graphics run Deus Ex Human Revolution, Minecraft, Dirt 2, Grid 2, CoD 4, Bioshock 2, infinite, all in OS X?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Gaming Benchmarks - Iris Pro Only
- Thread starter actuallyinaus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Would the MacBook Pro retina 15" base late 2013 with 8Gb of RAM and Intel Iris graphics run Deus Ex Human Revolution, Minecraft, Dirt 2, Grid 2, CoD 4, Bioshock 2, infinite, all in OS X?
Hmm, I came across this recently on another page: "The Intel processors used in Macs are designed to automatically shut down to prevent damage if they truly overheat. CPU Tjmax = 105C (221F), GPU Tjmax = 100C (212F) on i3, i5, i7 processors." I tried though to look up these Crystalwell packages as I'm curious to how close this processor will come to it's max temp before shutting down. Anyone know where I can find the specific information for these chips?
Also, the 90 oC, is that the steady-state temperature?
For the BF4 lovers: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-5200.90965.0.html
Compare that to the gt750m version: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html
Iris pro wins!!
Compare that to the gt750m version: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90245.0.html
Iris pro wins!!
Well look at the low setting. I think that's where most peeps will be playing...One obviously cannot game at ultra settings on BF4 on a laptop....
Another thing I wanna bring to your attention is that while Iris pro chokes on higher resolutions it gives you better fps on the minimum side....(example 45fps max and 23fps min)
Either way, the fact that Iris can tie or even exceed at this bleeding edge game is a major feat IMO.
Low settings: 63(IP) vs 67(750)
The 750 benchmark does not state the minimum
I'm not saying that being able to tie with a 750 is a small feat for an integrated gpu, but "Iris Pro wins" is clearly a fallacy.
Iris does quite well in BF4 but still the comparison to those 750Ms is not really fair as all of them run of DDR3. The 660M does a bit better (though not a game changer) and a 750M with GDDR5 would come in somewhere above a 660M. With Boost 2.0 working well it should be quite a bit above a 660M.
I think you can play medium with some higher settings sprinkled in if you keep res low and stay clear of AA. Depends though on the scene and which they tested. There is usually quite a bit of variation in games with this much action.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Benchmarkcheck-Battlefield-4.104966.0.html
I think you can play medium with some higher settings sprinkled in if you keep res low and stay clear of AA. Depends though on the scene and which they tested. There is usually quite a bit of variation in games with this much action.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Benchmarkcheck-Battlefield-4.104966.0.html
I hate to be Negative Nancy but I'm not that impressed. For an iGPU, sure they're not bad numbers at all. But you have to consider what was being given up.
The base 15" Pro gave up discrete graphics for this. Last year, base 15": Underestimated 650M that could eat any game you throw at it with high settings/max settings at 1080p without budging.
Base 15" Now? Iris Pro which has to be lowered to essentially 720p to put out good framerates. For the 13", this is impressive, but the base 15" Retina is dead in the water. In every other aspect, the Haswell is a vast improvement but gamers will be sorely disappointed.
Iris Pro final thoughts:
For 13" : Great, welcome upgrade, improvement over HD4000 in a lot of ways.
For 15" : You guys got the shaft.
Here's the REAL idea of what Battlefield is like on Iris Pro vs the 650m from last year:
Here's an even bigger picture:
I mean yeah, as I said before, it smokes the HD4000. But is it worthy of being in a 15" Pro alone? I don't think so at all. I think it's a clear downgrade from the 650m.
The base 15" Pro gave up discrete graphics for this. Last year, base 15": Underestimated 650M that could eat any game you throw at it with high settings/max settings at 1080p without budging.
Base 15" Now? Iris Pro which has to be lowered to essentially 720p to put out good framerates. For the 13", this is impressive, but the base 15" Retina is dead in the water. In every other aspect, the Haswell is a vast improvement but gamers will be sorely disappointed.
Iris Pro final thoughts:
For 13" : Great, welcome upgrade, improvement over HD4000 in a lot of ways.
For 15" : You guys got the shaft.
Here's the REAL idea of what Battlefield is like on Iris Pro vs the 650m from last year:
Here's an even bigger picture:
I mean yeah, as I said before, it smokes the HD4000. But is it worthy of being in a 15" Pro alone? I don't think so at all. I think it's a clear downgrade from the 650m.
Last edited:
good to know
yes that is exactly what i mean, i've never seen a game run faster under osx
yes it would be able to run them all, the question is at what framerates/resolutions, all of them should be fine except infinite which you'd probably need to play at 720p (no idea about deus ex yet)
so on windows when on these power settings:
balanced: hovers around 89C-92C
high performance: hovers aroun 98C-99C
i've only used one program to measure the temps so far (this)
you've probably already been here but:
intel's list of crystal well cpu's: http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/51802/Crystal-Well
4750HQ, data sheets might have even more details
yes they were done under windows 8.1 with latest intel drivers, nothing else open, power on high performance
i believe those tests were done at 1366x768, see my post further down for details
just be aware that notebook check takes benchmarks from a variety of laptops (meaning we don't know what cpu's and such they had that could be affecting the results)
it all depends who you are man, for some people its 'you have to consider what you are gaining', such as:
- all i play is dota2/csgo witch it funs fine so why spend the extra money,
- no need to worry about graphics card switching (annoying under linux),
- better graphics performance under linux if you decide igpu only
- better battery life under windows (as dgpu is not always running),
- cooler machine under load as two fans are dissipating 95W not 75W+75W
i completely agree that the dgpu's are currently more powerful however some people dont need or care about that power. there are people with legit needs for a 15" machine with a powerful quad core but no need for intense graphics (its not simply "if you don't need a dgpu, you should be buying an air")
(in a few years time the igpu will be good enough for most people to do casual gaming) i hope they continue offering an igpu only option and a dgpu option (for those with real needs i.e maya...), however it would be nice for them to price the machines better
Last edited:
90% of the computers they test will not have specs as good as the rMBPs except for their GPUs. You can see full specs if you click on the fps they list.
well their cpu's would actually be exactly the same or better, because the 4750hq is the worst cpu with iris pro
ok so all those diablo 3 tests were done by the same machine: link Intel Core i7 4750HQ 2GHz, 16384MB RAM, 1920x1080 Iris Pro Graphics 5200 (200 - 1200MHz)(800MHz) 128 MB eDRAM
the notebook check page for that laptop (here), shows the exact settings they used to test metro ll, bioshock infinite, coh2, and they were all 1024x768 or 1366x768, and you can see these fps numbers copied into the table of results and on the iris pro page, making me think that their diablo 3 test was also 1366x768
Last edited:
Hey...
So this page has been great so far...
I'm slightly stuck between 13" top end model (2.6/8/512) or just getting 15" (2.0/8/512)...
I know you posted some static shots of what the fps was like, but any chance someone can record what gameplay is like on just the iris pro? Don't of course want full HD ultra settings, but I do dabble in games from time to time so it's nice to be able ot see if it can just handle it for a little...
Much appreciated if anyone can post a video or forward me to a youtube video of just the iris pro on macbook pro. Thanks!
So this page has been great so far...
I'm slightly stuck between 13" top end model (2.6/8/512) or just getting 15" (2.0/8/512)...
I know you posted some static shots of what the fps was like, but any chance someone can record what gameplay is like on just the iris pro? Don't of course want full HD ultra settings, but I do dabble in games from time to time so it's nice to be able ot see if it can just handle it for a little...
Much appreciated if anyone can post a video or forward me to a youtube video of just the iris pro on macbook pro. Thanks!
Yes, they did some of the review-highlighted tests at 1024x768 and 1366x768 resolutions. However, they did many more benchmarks, and all of them are presented at the same review page a little below. All of those benchmarks are precisely presented at this page:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-5200.90965.0.html
Thus said, both pages contain the benchmarks for Diablo 3, including 1080p highest settings. And the fps for that settings under 5200 Iris Pro was around 40, while you have below 20 at the same time. That what's I've been talking about and that's what concerns me, since the only game I do play and will play in the future is D3.
Quick correction, 13" MacBooks do not have Iris Pro. They've got Iris if I'm correct. Less powerful than the Iris Pro obviously but still good.
ok by going to this page specifically http://www.notebookcheck.net/Diablo-III-Benchmarked.74918.0.html it lists:
Low Setting: 1024 x 768, Low / Off
Low Setting: 1024 x 768, Low / Off
Medium Setting: 1366 x 768, Medium / Low
Medium Setting: 1366 x 768, Medium / Low
High Setting: 1366 x 768, High, Anti-Aliasing on
High Setting: 1366 x 768, High, Anti-Aliasing on
Ultra Setting: 1920 x 1080, High, Anti-Aliasing on
(ultra would kinda imply they set everything to higher than high, but they don't they just keep them at high, it's super weird that they change the resolution along with their tests rather than doing all combinations at say 1080p and 768p.. ehh)
so now i have reason to believe my tests were somehow wrong.
so i quickly reinstalled the intel drivers, ran 'Scan and Repair' on diablo 3 using the battle.net launcher, set windows resolution to 1920x1080 (before i left it at 2880x1800 and set resolution in-game), launched diablo 3 and set the settings to the same as notebook check, closed diablo 3 and re launched it (some games state a relaunch is necessary but diablo 3 doesn't say so but i did anyway just in case), used the fraps fps counter again and went to the same location and now this time i am getting 48 (45 at 1920x1200) standing on the waypoint vs the 19 i was getting before
so i don't know what was wrong last time as my other benches all seem fine, i'll re run the diablo 3 benches tomorrow after my exam and get back to you, sorry to all the people this affected & decisions they may have made about purchases
in case it was blizzards fault I have decided to re do the starcraft 2 tests also
I'd like to see how League of Legends runs. I don't even stress it I run it on all very low at 900p to 1050p, but i've been hearing it's having terrible issues on certain retina Macbook Pros, as well as ones running Mavericks. Don't know if they've fixed the bug yet, kinda curious what it's all about. But if it can still run it at all very low on 900p to 1050p than I can at least get my Mavericks on
The 750M tested by them is most likely the DDR3 version. The rMBP uses the GDDR5 version.
May I just check -
What is SetresX and is there any need for it on the latest MBP with Retina display + 750m?
I run dota and its pretty blurry/pixelated at any resolution, and I would love to get it crisp like its running in your images.
How do I do that!?
I don't know Dota but maybe it has a Quality setting like Call of Duty. That slider goes from low, to high, to native. Only the last is actually the resolution you select while all the others are lower res that are only upscaled. I am guessing Dota does the same, so you just have to tell it to run on native resolution which should be the one selected.
It is kind of cheating and funny when people report they can run CoD on 100fps at 2880x1800, while they obviously aren't running it on native and if you select high, it doesn't matter whatsoever which resolution is set in game.
It is kind of cheating and funny when people report they can run CoD on 100fps at 2880x1800, while they obviously aren't running it on native and if you select high, it doesn't matter whatsoever which resolution is set in game.
1) run this program setresx version 2 (or backup is switchresx)
2) click on the icon it makes in the menubar at the top right
3) pick 2880x1800 (or 2560x1600 if you have 13")
4) play dota
5) after playing dota close the setresx program, and use the apple settings to pick your desired resolution (aka don't pick 1440x900 with setresx, that will look crap)
true but that's not the problem here, what's happening is "If you set Dota 2 to use 2880x1800 on Mac before we implement Retina support, it'll render at 2880x1800, downscale to 1440x900 (because that's what the OS tells us the window size is), and then upscale to 2880x1800" from thier github repo link
check out these two images of the game with the exact same settings: imagea imageb
actuallyinaus, thanks for doing all that stuff man! Waiting for news from you, though I don't worry anymore
I guess, an exam didn't go well
ahaha, so sorry, i screwed up the partitions on my laptop totally my fault
actuallyinaus, thanks for doing all that stuff man! Waiting for news from you, though I don't worry anymore
i did it
i did it
awesome, man!
could you check one more setting for me, since I'm planning to buy an iMac with Iris Pro? I'll leave you alone after that, I promise
its 1080p textures=high, shadows=off, clutter=off, physics=low, lowfx=on, aa=off.