MacBook Pro with an i7 Haswell benched!

[devilcm3]

If you're going for a quad core haswell, you won't be getting high end Iris graphics this time around I suspect.

The benchmark shows the 15" rMBP is equipped with IrisPro 5200.

 

[throAU]

The benchmark shows the 15" rMBP is equipped with IrisPro 5200.

Hmmm didn't think intel had released quad cores with Iris 5200.

Didn't see a link to the benchmark stuff, if that's true then it's good news!

Whilst my current MBP can run games and stuff, the fans go nuts, and the heat is the most annoying thing about the machine (CPU + GPU it consumes more power than the 85 watt power supply can provide at full noise - the battery drains slowly).

Replacing both of them with even a single 45 watt part would be a massive win - if I could maintain similar performance to the current AMD 6750M

 

[Stetrain]

Hmmm didn't think intel had released quad cores with Iris 5200.

The only Haswell mobile CPUs with Iris Pro HD 5200 are quad core 47W parts.

 

[Lunfai]

The only Haswell mobile CPUs with Iris Pro HD 5200 are quad core 47W parts.

I think he missed 'the' out of the sentence. Anyway, yeah it was suprisely released on 1st of July, not many sites covered this information.

 

[jcpb]

this would be a great hit to the graphics performance.
honestly? Intel graphics is as good as nothing for serious rendering tasks.

Most laughable is having the 13" last year with dual-core and no dGPU.

Your Nvidias and Radeons have nothing on mobile Quadros.

 

[bill-p]

Most laughable is having the 13" last year with dual-core and no dGPU.

Your Nvidias and Radeons have nothing on mobile Quadros.

Quadro's are nVidia's... I take it you meant GeForce?

GeForce and Quadro are actually IDENTICAL in performance.

And yeah, that's true NOW.

What the hell, right!?

Here's a good read: http://doc-ok.org/?p=304

nVidia purposefully crippled the drivers. But there should be no performance difference between them.

I haven't worked that much with AMD/ATI graphics cards (simply because their drivers had had very poor OpenGL compatibility for a long while), but people would laugh if you are a developer and you say Quadro's are faster than GeForce. Granted, Quadro drivers are not crippled, so it still makes sense to buy them if you don't want to have to fiddle with your codes to get the same performance out of GeForce. But still...

 

[dusk007]

If the drivers are crippled, why how is it that there are no performance differences. Intel may have the worse drivers but at least they don't cripple one line for the sake of another.
In any case that driver crippling shouldn't be as big a thing in OSX nor how bad Intel drivers are. It is down to Apple to at least a significant degree. They came usually late to the party with API support anyway. I don't know if anybody ever bothers with actually comparing the pro performance in OSX with serious benchmarks.
The Windows side only say what it can or should be. Difference between Intel and Nvidia drivers in OSX might be much different. For the HD 3000 drivers I think the OSX drivers were better than the Windows ones.
In pure raw power the Intel HD 5200 is probably a match for a 650M and especially in pro software having that lower latency memory access with the big L4 Cache might sometimes be worth a lot. If the drivers are good I think that GPU should be capable of quite a bit.

 

[jcpb]

the world is so unfair!

first world problems

 

[bill-p]

If the drivers are crippled, why how is it that there are no performance differences.

There is a performance difference if you run the stock configuration. But the truth is... there shouldn't be a performance difference.

first world problems

Yep!