Page 2:Iris Pro Graphics 6200
Page 3:How We Tested
Page 4:Power And Temperature In Detail
Page 5:Power Consumption Overview
Page 6:Iris Pro Graphics 6200: Gaming
Page 7:Iris Pro Graphics 6200: Workstation
Page 8:Desktop Publishing And Multimedia
Page 9:Office Productivity
Page 10:Rendering, Encoding, Compression, Arithmetic
Page 11:Workstation Applications
Iris Pro Graphics 6200: Workstation
AutoCAD 2015 2D and 3D Performance
AutoCAD is a popular application from Autodesk. First, we’re testing its "2D" performance with Cadalyst 2015. Quotes are used there because AutoCAD deals with 2D the same way many other applications do nowadays: through DirectX's D3D interface. This way of implementing 2D is worth testing since there really hasn't been any hardware acceleration for 2D through the kernel-mode driver since Windows Vista. Graphics cards with unified shader architectures don’t have dedicated 2D units anymore, either.
Consequently, this benchmark adds value to our review, since most of the 2D calculations are executed via the CPU these days. This means that they’re more dependent on host processing than the graphics card. This carries through to our results, which heavily favor the higher-clocked Haswell-based CPUs.
The picture changes as soon as 3D performance is involved. Intel's Broadwell architecture leads, and AMD’s APUs don’t stand a chance due to their weaker x86 cores.
Maya 2013 (OpenGL)
The SPECviewperf software suite uses OpenGL exclusively for Maya, manipulating a model made up of 727,500 vertices.
Graphics processing limits this benchmark's performance, since the CPU load isn't particularly demanding. Intel’s new Core i7-5770C with Iris Pro 6200 provides up to 36 percent more performance than AMD’s Radeon R7 on the A10-7560K. Ouch.
Showcase 2013 (DirectX)
The next benchmark is based on DirectX. Autodesk might be alone in the field of large application vendors, but many smaller companies are making the move to DirectX as well. The benchmark for Showcase 2013 uses eight million vertices and, among others, shading, projected shadows and self-shadowing.
Based on those weak frame rates, it's pretty clear that integrated graphics isn't the way to go for an optimal experience. Still, Iris Pro 6200 comes out a whopping 109 percent ahead, even if that’s not enough to provide usable results.
Cinebench R15 (OpenGL)
Cinebench R15’s integrated OpenGL graphics benchmark places a bit more emphasis on the CPU, which becomes apparent when looking at the GeForce GTX 980’s different frame rate results. If you're only using processor graphics, however, then that becomes your bottleneck.
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200
- How We Tested
- Power And Temperature In Detail
- Power Consumption Overview
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200: Gaming
- Iris Pro Graphics 6200: Workstation
- Desktop Publishing And Multimedia
- Office Productivity
- Rendering, Encoding, Compression, Arithmetic
- Workstation Applications