Interesting test results (650m/Iris Pro)

[lJoSquaredl]

So I was gonna get an m370x refurb model, but they ran out the day before I was ready for purchase. At the very least, I figured i'd buy the 2014 Iris Pro base model to test it out and see if it was any kind of match or upgrade from my original 650m model. Considering the 650m is dedicated and i've heard so much about Intel's iGPU was still somewhat behind and around a 640m model, I figured they would be pretty even. Apparently the extra half gig of ram Iris Pro is allowed to use now, coupled with another 8gb of system ram does alot when using FCPX, cuz the results were alot better than I expected.

Bruce X Test - http://blog.alex4d.com/2013/10/30/brucex-a-new-fcpx-benchmark/
650m - 1:24 seconds
Iris Pro - 1:09

Layered EFX - 40 second 1080p clip with 2 transitions, CC, Underwater, Glow, Pan, Aged Film, & Focus
650m - 9:38
Iris Pro - 8:02

3D Atmosphere Title -10 seconds, same EFX used
650m - 11:00
Iris Pro - 6:24

CLG Trailer - simple trailer I did for fun, under 3 mins

650m - 8:34
Iris Pro - 5:49

At this point i'm wondering what upgrading to the m370x model will even do. The extra ram on both the system and iGPU, slightly faster CPU and better Open CL optimization seems to have done so much already. The system also seems to use the fans alot more. My 650m model seems to get really hot with the fans off more often, only cooling when it needs to, but the Iris Pro model seems to have the fans cranked alot more and keeping the system way cooler, albeit much louder.

Just figured i'd post these results since i'm always told integrated will take a far back seat to dGPUs, but they seem to have come a long way.

 

[fireedo]

thanks for the information, I need it, since I sold my early 2013 with nvidia GT650M and then bought a late 2013 with intel iris pro

 

[lJoSquaredl]

thanks for the information, I need it, since I sold my early 2013 with nvidia GT650M and then bought a late 2013 with intel iris pro

Just figured i'd throw it out there for anyone upgrading thru refurbs and on the fence about what to get. Obviously if you use CUDA it's a different story tho, 750m all day I would think.

 

[haodaybe]

i agree ,thanks for your sharing

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Just figured i'd throw it out there for anyone upgrading thru refurbs and on the fence about what to get. Obviously if you use CUDA it's a different story tho, 750m all day I would think.

Yep unless you have specific software needs or game it doesn't make much difference.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

I have the 2015 15" MBP with the M370X and Iris 5200 Pro with the 2.5GHz CPU and 16GB RAM. I don't have FCPX, but do have the most recent iMovie with El Capitan. Using gfxCardStatus, I did some side-by-side comparisons between the M370X and Iris 5200 Pro.

I rendered two videos using each graphics processor. The videos were older, and comprised primarily of 480p content. Regardless, they are long enough to show meaningful differences in rendering times.


Video 1 - 7 minutes 3 seconds of content, final rendered size 1.06GB
Iris 5200 Pro - 2 minutes 26 seconds to render; 7.3MB/s render rate
M370X - 1 minute, 24 seconds to render; 12.6MB/s render rate
The M370X reduced rendering time by 46% and had a 73% higher rendering rate

Video 2 - 10min 25 seconds of content, final rendered size 1.58GB
Iris 5200 Pro - 3 minutes 21 seconds to render; 7.9MB/s render rate
M370X - 1 minute 57 seconds to render; 13.5MB/s render rate
The M370X reduced rendering time by 42% and had a 72% higher rendering rate

I did a similar test in exporting images from Photos. I exported 138 JPEG photos (all of them with adjustments) for a total of 581MB of images . The Iris 5200 Pro took 48 seconds, the M370X maybe 2 seconds shorter. So not much gain in photos, but lots in videos.

 

[lJoSquaredl]

I have the 2015 15" MBP with the M370X and Iris 5200 Pro with the 2.5GHz CPU and 16GB RAM. I don't have FCPX, but do have the most recent iMovie with El Capitan. Using gfxCardStatus, I did some side-by-side comparisons between the M370X and Iris 5200 Pro.

I rendered two videos using each graphics processor. The videos were older, and comprised primarily of 480p content. Regardless, they are long enough to show meaningful differences in rendering times.


Video 1 - 7 minutes 3 seconds of content, final rendered size 1.06GB
Iris 5200 Pro - 2 minutes 26 seconds to render; 7.3MB/s render rate
M370X - 1 minute, 24 seconds to render; 12.6MB/s render rate
The M370X reduced rendering time by 46% and had a 73% higher rendering rate

Video 2 - 10min 25 seconds of content, final rendered size 1.58GB
Iris 5200 Pro - 3 minutes 21 seconds to render; 7.9MB/s render rate
M370X - 1 minute 57 seconds to render; 13.5MB/s render rate
The M370X reduced rendering time by 42% and had a 72% higher rendering rate

I did a similar test in exporting images from Photos. I exported 138 JPEG photos (all of them with adjustments) for a total of 581MB of images . The Iris 5200 Pro took 48 seconds, the M370X maybe 2 seconds shorter. So not much gain in photos, but lots in videos.

Hmm interesting, possibly even more of an increase going to FCPX. (I'd assume it's optimized better than iMovie anyways)

Guess I may still have to consider an m370x model. Still tho these Iris Pro graphics are impressive and good enough on their own IMO, but Apple is just REALLY tweaking OpenCL lately, and AMD takes full advantage of that in the end.

Thank you very much for taking the time to test some stuff btw. Really hard to find some decent testing and benchmarks of both the Iris Pro graphics and especially the m370x card in the rMBPs. Mostly comes down to 2 or 3 Lux benchmarks and some small chatter on message boards. Really not alot of info on the performance of these 2 systems sadly.

Edit: Just curious did ur rMBP get alot hotter when you rendered with the video card? Mine stays super cool when using the Iris Pro graphics.

 

[schwadorf]

Useful information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video

 

[lJoSquaredl]

Useful information:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quick_Sync_Video

If I remember correctly I did look at the CPU usage at one point and was boggled by how low it was.

Also I just ran across a post of yours on another forum lol

"Newer iGPU's, even though they are insufficient for gaming, work fine in FCPX thanks to Intel's Quicksync technology. Don't let the BruceX test fool you, I'm not sure if it's the best way to compare real-life performances of GPU's, even the creator of the test admits this.

My GTX 780 is ~1.5x times faster than Iris Pro 5200 in BruceX (45 seconds vs 65 seconds) but when exporting a proper, 12 minutes long, 1080p project, the Iris Pro actually wins by a quite huge margin. (3 minutes vs 7 minutes)"