Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
On a side note, the GT 750M is no slouch either.

Battlefield 4, 1680x1050, mix of high and ultra, 16xAF and FXAA, and I get an average of 47-50 fps, with the lowest being 35 fps and easily getting 60 fps in quite a number of situations.

do you mean that you have played the mentioned games on your rMBP 13" with iris graphics?
:rolleyes:
 
If you can play it at those settings Iris Pro isn't far behind.
Even at unplayable settings 1080p ultra it is has 2/3 performance of the 750M. That is enough to be easily playable with slight setting adjustments.
On any more reasonable settings which are far lower than what you claim they are far closer in performance.

Iris (13" rMBP) is obviously a very different story not even reaching half the performance of Iris Pro in that game and definitely falling into unplayable category.

Look for the BF 4 benches.
With the 750M the highest results are the GDDR5 results but they also are of a higher clocked version than the non turbo 925Mhz Apple uses.
http://www.notebookcheck.com/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-750M.90228.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Intel-Iris-Pro-Graphics-5200.90972.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91974.0.html

Besides the 750M is a slouch compared to the 850M (which is twice as fast, much bigger difference than Iris Pro to 750M) which really should be sold in a notebook selling today.
 
On a side note, the GT 750M is no slouch either.

Battlefield 4, 1680x1050, mix of high and ultra, 16xAF and FXAA, and I get an average of 47-50 fps, with the lowest being 35 fps and easily getting 60 fps in quite a number of situations.


To be honest dude, GT 750 is actually a slouch by todays standards.
Even a weak version of the 900m series, like a future GT 950m would most likely be more than 100% faster than the outdated GT 750m.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.