What is the Intel Iris integrated graphics like an the New 13'' retina Macbook Pro's?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by MartinAppleGuy, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. MartinAppleGuy macrumors 68020

    MartinAppleGuy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    #1
    Could someone tell more how the Iris graphics on the retina Pro's compare with other GPU's as well as the overall Gflops. Thanks :) It's my first Macbook :)
     
  2. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #2
    It has peak 832GFLOPS; gaming performance is roughly comparable to a 650M with DDR3 memory (this is NOT the faster 650M with GDDR5 found in the 2012 MBPs).
     
  3. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #3
    He is talking about the Iris not the Iris Pro. There are other threads. Short story it is quite a bit behind an Iris Pro and a 650M in any configuration but it is quite good for an iGPU with that battery life.
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91977.0.html
    Click on the compare links to show it in relation to other cards at that level.
    It is described at almost 640M performance in best case scenarios and about 620M performance in other cases. It is really limited by bandwitdh and clock speeds, the peak FLOPS mean absolutely nothing for its performance.
     
  4. MartinAppleGuy thread starter macrumors 68020

    MartinAppleGuy

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    #4
    Will it be able to run GTA San Andreas, Dirt 2, Grid, Cod 4 max settings?
     
  5. T-Bob macrumors 6502

    T-Bob

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    #5
    Nope. Except for San Andreas!
     
  6. daudi81 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2013
    #6
    Well it's nothing compared to the 750m in the macbook pro. I got both machines (13" and 15") and messed around with both of them for a week or so. The 13" was just as smooth as quick when running regular stuff. As soon as you throw up a new-ish game there's a huge difference. The 13" bogs down quite a bit when you pump up the graphics, but you'll be fine with a less intensive game like civ 5, or even diablo 3 WITHOUT the graphics cranked to the max.

    However, something to think about: with Thunderbolt 2 out, my guess is that external graphics card may make a bigger showing which will basically negate the graphics advantage of dedicated GPU laptops (unless you're on the go of course). The 750m is nothing compared to a desktop level card of the same generation.
     
  7. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #7
    cod 4 should not be a problem either. All up to MW3 should run fine of the COD series. Ghost gets a new more demanding engine but it will still run though problem only on medium settings.
    I don't know dirt 2 or grid.
    San Andreas is really old.
     
  8. thebrick macrumors regular

    thebrick

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2010
    Location:
    GA, United States
    #8
    I've played CoD4 with any problems at all on my mid2010 with GT330M, which is crappier than HD5000 in benchmark score wise.
     
  9. T-Bob macrumors 6502

    T-Bob

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    #9
    Max settings would be full res with 16X AA etc. Would barely run on most of those games. 1366 x 768 at medium? Sure.
     
  10. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #10
    You don't need any AA with a display of that density. And I think you are overestimating these games. They are all at least 4 years old. They should run just fine at 1680x1050 and high settings. Maybe even native resolution. Note: I am talking about Windows version of the games. The OS X ones will be slower, but still pretty much playable at high settings.
     
  11. T-Bob macrumors 6502

    T-Bob

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    #11
    He said max settings, so yes you would use full AA. If he had said good settings that is a different story.

    I don't know about Grid, but Grid 2 is in the benchmarks and gets 12.5fps at 1080p on ultra settings. At 1366 x 768 medium settings it gets 34.8.
     
  12. ab2013 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    #12
  13. OverpricedJunk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2013
    #13

    Liekly, they were tested at different resolutions and therefore are not comparable.
     
  14. ab2013 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    #14
    That doesn't seem very ... professional of them.

    For some reason, I was thinking about whether the drivers for Iris aren't very optimized but that doesn't make sense.
     
  15. smakdown61 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2008
    #15
    Because it has to draw nearly twice the amount of pixels compared to the air. A proper test to compare just the graphics cards would be an off screen benchmark which are independent of screen resolution.
     
  16. ab2013 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2013
    #16
    According to notebook check,

    the 1.3 i5 MBA scores a 1,035 on 3DMark11
    the 1.7 i7 MBA scores a 1,070
    and the 2.4 i5 rMBP scores a 1,164

    That's barely a 10% gain in performance. And all of the tests were run at the same res (3dMark11 must have looked awful on the rMBP...)
     

Share This Page