Intel Announces 'Iris' as Top Tier Graphics for Haswell

News
By
Published

Intel has its eye on better graphics performance for Haswell.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Marcus Yam
Marcus Yam
Marcus Yam served as Tom's Hardware News Director during 2008-2014. He entered tech media in the late 90s and fondly remembers the days when an overclocked Celeron 300A and Voodoo2 SLI comprised a gaming rig with the ultimate street cred.
56 Comments Comment from the forums
  • acktionhank
    To me it seems to be just past the level of an A10-5800k.
    Looks like intel is becoming more competitive in integrated graphics, this isn't good news for AMD.
    Reply
  • CarolKarine
    well, the A10 is a bit outdated when compared to haswell. let's wait and see for AMD's next gen APUs. also, don't forget about AMD's HUMA technology, which will speed up graphics on APUs considerably.
    Reply
  • vmem
    hmm, the "R" series for desktop seems a bit strange to me. the default "Iris graphics" should be sufficient for professional workstations as it supports upto 4k resolution and Display port 1.2 if anyone actually wants to play games with it, these iGPUs won't hold a candle to a serious discrete GPU.
    seems like a cheap excuse for OEMs to cut costs, and just put the intel BGA into their machines and sell it as is. Intel is just trying to cut out Nvidia and AMD -_-
    Reply
  • Bill Campbell
    Nobody buys a CPU for the integrated graphics capabilities; EVER. I disable it on every CPU/Motherboard it's implemented on. An $80 PCI-Express x16 graphics card would blow this away. Why do they waste their time, and the end user's money? (R&D costs the end user in the end)
    Reply
  • tului
    I did just use the iGPU on an i5 3570K when my AMD 7970 took a crap until I could get a replacement card. Luckily other than Skyrim(which still ran in low mediocre quality) most of my games are lo-res. Almost all are from Paradox Interactive.
    Reply
  • jezus53
    Because, Bill Campbell, some of us don't want to buy a graphics card if we do not have to. Some of us do not exactly need 1337 graphics because we aren't gaming. I personally used the HD graphics on my i7-3770K because i just need it to display documents for school on two screens. No need for cutting edge gpus, just enough to get it to show computations on the screen.
    Reply
  • theLiminator
    The iGPU is actually really freaking useful on certain laptops. When they reach the point where they're powerful enough to play most games at medium settings, it will be a huge success for laptops. Heck, they'd suit the needs of nearly all users, it's just most people on toms are more heavy duty users than the average. I can imagine how useful fairly powerful integrated graphics would be on an ultrabook.
    Reply
  • theLiminator
    The iGPU is actually really freaking useful on certain laptops. When they reach the point where they're powerful enough to play most games at medium settings, it will be a huge success for laptops. Heck, they'd suit the needs of nearly all users, it's just most people on toms are more heavy duty users than the average. I can imagine how useful fairly powerful integrated graphics would be on an ultrabook.
    Reply
  • smeezekitty
    But remember AMD has all of the radeon series at its disposal. It could streamline a higher end card and stick it in the APU and catch up.
    Reply
  • juan83
    Nice to see notebooks decent graphic performance with low power consumption.. but intel: don't be an ass.. don't put the best graphic engine on an i7 desktop, there surely may be a discrete graphic card.. you better place this engine on a notebook i3-i5 cpu.. where discrete graphic doesn't make sense to buyers.. that will be great.. also putting more preasure to AMD, prices go down and everybody are happier!
    Reply