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

Iris Pro performance

Z

Zmyslony

macrumors newbie
Original poster
May 15, 2014
7
0
Hi there, I've already read like a thousand or more topics about Intel Iris Pro in rMBP 15 but none has really answered the question if the Iris Pro model is better than early 2013 rMBP with 650M. I mean bootcamp gaming. All of those benchmarks mean nothing to me, so how is it? I would really appreciate opinion of someone who has the Iris Pro rMBP or 650M version.

I wonder if it will run star wars the old republic and upcoming witcher 3. In my country the decision is hard to make cause price of 650M is much higher than the Iris one. Albo I wonder if the discrete graphics are worth a thing, the 750M version is out of my league.
 
Incidentally I recently was comparing the Iris Pro, 750M and 650M models. All of my data came from notebookcheck.net, which is a great website for CPU and GPU comparisons.

I randomly selected 7 computer games from the past couple years (ones that were benchmarked on all 3 graphic cards) and calculated average FPS:
650M - 55 fps
Iris Pro - 58 fps
750M - 62 fps

I was quite surprised that the 750M wasn't that far ahead and that the Iris Pro was actually ahead of the 650M, but a meager sample of 7 games isn't really statistically accurate. The games tested were:
Metro: Last Light (37/35/31)
Battlefield 4 (30/34/45)
SimCity 2013 (25/34/29)
Bioshock Infinite (56/40/57)
Counter-Strike (136/181/170)
Company of Heroes (20/22/24)
GRID-2 (82/62/77)

First number is 650M, second is Iris Pro, third is 750M. No, I did not accidentally reverse numbers with Metro: Last Light.

I have no experience with the actual computers, but the difference between the 650M and Iris Pro is quite small. In an overview by Anandtech, the 650M actually performed better in many games than the Iris Pro; it really depends on the game. Use Notebookcheck for details.

In the 3D Mark 11 benchmark, the results are a bit different - the Iris Pro got 1957 compared to 2112 for the GT 650M.

Together with the better processor and battery life, the difference between the two models isn't really enough to justify a price difference - I'd only consider it if it were the 650M model that were lower-priced. Also note that in Windows if you have the 650M, you will not be able to use integrated graphics to save power, which will drain power very fast if not plugged in.
 
Thanks, i've already checked those tests but they didn't always use the same computer specs so the notebookcheck is pretty inaccurate to me. That's what i'm asking if the intel iris pro is in Real life better than 650M. Those tests does not mean anything. The tests you're reffering used iMac version of iris pro so the differences in memory, SSD and cpu might make some fps drops.

From what i've heard latest 750m drivers fixed everything and its now a lot better in benchmarks than the other two. But like I said it's too expensive.
 
No, Iris Pro is not better at games than 650M, its actually substantially worse. Star Wars the Old Republic is not a demanding game and will run adequately on both 650M and Iris Pro. The Wither series were always quite demanding games and if the tendency continues, I would think that even 750M will struggle with it.
 
Teuthos said:
Incidentally I recently was comparing the Iris Pro, 750M and 650M models. All of my data came from notebookcheck.net, which is a great website for CPU and GPU comparisons.

I randomly selected 7 computer games from the past couple years (ones that were benchmarked on all 3 graphic cards) and calculated average FPS:
650M - 55 fps
Iris Pro - 58 fps
750M - 62 fps

I was quite surprised that the 750M wasn't that far ahead and that the Iris Pro was actually ahead of the 650M, but a meager sample of 7 games isn't really statistically accurate. The games tested were:
Metro: Last Light (37/35/31)
Battlefield 4 (30/34/45)
SimCity 2013 (25/34/29)
Bioshock Infinite (56/40/57)
Counter-Strike (136/181/170)
Company of Heroes (20/22/24)
GRID-2 (82/62/77)

First number is 650M, second is Iris Pro, third is 750M. No, I did not accidentally reverse numbers with Metro: Last Light.

I have no experience with the actual computers, but the difference between the 650M and Iris Pro is quite small. In an overview by Anandtech, the 650M actually performed better in many games than the Iris Pro; it really depends on the game. Use Notebookcheck for details.

In the 3D Mark 11 benchmark, the results are a bit different - the Iris Pro got 1957 compared to 2112 for the GT 650M.

Together with the better processor and battery life, the difference between the two models isn't really enough to justify a price difference - I'd only consider it if it were the 650M model that were lower-priced. Also note that in Windows if you have the 650M, you will not be able to use integrated graphics to save power, which will drain power very fast if not plugged in.
Click to expand...

You can't use those numbers because very old drivers were used. The 750m performs much faster with the latest NVIDIA drivers. Also the rMBP uses GDDR5 VRAM.
 
Last edited:
UBS28 said:
You can't use those numbers because very old drivers were used. The 750m performs much faster with the latest NVIDIA drivers. Also the rMBP uses GDDR5 VRAM.
Click to expand...

I can second that. The GDDR5 variant of the GT750M even outperforms the GTX660M.

On my 15" rMBP (2.6/16/1TB/750M), I can play BF4 at a mix of high and ultra, 1680x1050, FXAA and 16xAF and get 47-50 fps, with the lowest being 35 fps and easily shooting past 60 fps in quite a number of situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back