Don't know about the "low-end" versions, but high-end SKUs are even more expensive than that:
Haswell vs Kaveri
- Thread starter AnarchX
- Start date
Don't know about the "low-end" versions, but high-end SKUs are even more expensive than that:
Anand is trying to tell us that it's $90 but if so why the huge difference between the 4950HQ and 4800MQ?
Fact is Intel puts a lot of value on higher cpu performance. That $90 difference also gets you a much slower cpu so what's the "real" value Intel is putting on GT3e?
Will be interesting to see the price of the 4750, that might salvage something from it I guess, but performance is just going to fall even further from discrete due to the lower cpu clocks.
Fact is Intel puts a lot of value on higher cpu performance. That $90 difference also gets you a much slower cpu so what's the "real" value Intel is putting on GT3e?
Will be interesting to see the price of the 4750, that might salvage something from it I guess, but performance is just going to fall even further from discrete due to the lower cpu clocks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some more news (this is even worse as now Intel has even less reason to try harder) - http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...aps2c-shows-28nm-kaveri-for-socket-fm22b.aspx
BSN says no GDDR5 for Kaveri. I can't decide if Intel or AMD is underwhelming me most.
BSN says no GDDR5 for Kaveri. I can't decide if Intel or AMD is underwhelming me most.
Hmm, no GDDR5 and no 3 module CPU for Kaveri. Well that just got a whole lot less interesting didn't it? Sounds like it will get it's ass handed to it by Haswell GT3e, and the Haswell has it beat to market by almost 6 months.
How things change.
How things change.
Yeah AMD are surely kicking themselves at losing out in the lucrative "nobody wants to pay $400 for an IGP" market. This was their big chance to make inroads there, they really need to up their game fast.
Did you even read the review or begin to comprehend the market segment for this btw? The competition was supposed to be Nvidia's entry-midrange but they've failed so badly they've actually helped Nvidia get more design wins than usual for Haswell.
There is no point in designing something that is too slow and expensive for the targeted market, and the OEM's have made that clear.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/19
Intel has failed utterly to make a compelling argument over Nvidia in this space, and they were never under threat from AMD anyway. Again I ask - what was the point in this part?
Last edited by a moderator:
for mobile sure, for desktops I think Kaveri is going to be a bit faster, considering how the GT 640 can beat the GT3e with 1700MHz DDR3, if desktop Kaveri runs at 800-900MHz + DDR3 2133, it shouldn't have any problems to open a decent advantage over GT3e.
considering how fast the 7750 DDR3 (1600) is compared to the GT 640 with DDR3 (1800)
http://www.hardware.fr/focus/76/amd-radeon-hd-7750-ddr3-test-cape-verde-etouffe.html
but again, I don't see AMD selling dual module CPUs for $350 anyway... so they are not really competing... Kaveri will compete mostly with dual core haswell with GT2... and nothing has changed I guess, slower CPU, faster GPU for this comparison I would expect.
The CPU alone is 55W, what use is better power draw when the laptop would only last a matter of minutes while gaming?
This is discrete-power graphics with embedded DRAM at discrete-level prices, and once again Anand fails to show its real power usage.
The CPU Anand tested has a TDP of 47w. That covers both CPU and GPU. A discrete solution offering likely no more than 25% more performance would likely double that TDP in combination with a comparable CPU.
The argument for Iris Pro seems pretty obvious to me.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/5
I'd go for closer to 69W, for sure.
Can I hear it? I'm sure I'd love to argue this point with you. :smile:
Is it, more money than brains? Iris pro is priced too high to be compelling imo.
What are you talking about? The part tested in that review was a 47w part. There may be versions were OEM's choose to increase the TDP as simu;lated by Anand but the performance will obviously be higher. And even then the TDP will still be well below a discrete graphics solution.
I already told you, it's obvious. It's BY FAR the highest performing solution in the 50w TDP range. That means laptops that want to operate near to that TDP range can now have much higher graphics performance, or laptops that want to contain that level of graphics performance can now do so at a much lower TDP.
Sure there's an additional cost that comes with that but I'm not arguing whether or not that's good value, merely that there is a clear part of the market that can benefit from Iris Pro.
There's a mobile market for Iris Pro levels of graphics performance. If there weren't then the 640m wouldn't exist. Now that market can get the same level of performance with longer battery life (for an additional cost).
I'm not seeing your problem with this.
The main problem is the cost clearly, and the performance level for that cost.
You can't do any worthwhile gaming on the move on a laptop of this power level so it leaves the part as simply slower and more expensive. If you're plugged into the wall you get 40% better performance out of the 650M at similar cost.
In the end the OEM's have clearly voted for discrete and this has already failed.
You can't do any worthwhile gaming on the move on a laptop of this power level so it leaves the part as simply slower and more expensive. If you're plugged into the wall you get 40% better performance out of the 650M at similar cost.
In the end the OEM's have clearly voted for discrete and this has already failed.
Yeah, there's definitely a market for this level of graphics performance in notebooks. But in notebooks with $500 CPUs? I'm not so sure.
Tell that to NV and AMD who produce mobile discrete graphics parts at that performance level. Mobile being the operative word here, they are designed to be able to be used off the mains otherwise they wouldn't sacrifice performance for TDP. There's a market for it. Fact.
Now that market has longer battery life - at a cost. I'm not interested in arguing the value of that increased battery life with you, because value isn't something either of us can determine, it's personal to each individual.
Not according to the OEM's who have given it a massive thumbs down, and that is a Fact.