Haswell isn't expected to launch until the beginning of June in desktops and quad-core notebooks, but Intel is beginning to talk performance. Intel used a mobile customer reference board in a desktop chassis featuring Haswell GT3 with embedded DRAM (the fastest Haswell GPU configuration that Intel will ship) and compared it to an ASUS UX15 with on-board NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M. 

Despite the chassis difference, Intel claims it will be able to deliver the same performance from the demo today in an identical UX15 chassis by the time Haswell ships.

The video below shows Dirt 3 running at 1080p on both systems, with identical detail settings (High Quality presets, no AA, vsync off). Intel wouldn't let us report performance numbers, but subjectively the two looked to deliver very similar performance. Note that I confirmed all settings myself and ran both games myself independently of the demo. You can be the judge using the video below:

Intel wouldn't let us confirm clock speeds on Haswell vs. the Core i7 (Ivy Bridge) system, but it claimed that the Haswell part was the immediate successor to its Ivy Bridge comparison point. 

As proof of Haswell's ability to fit in a notebook chassis, it did have another demo using older Haswell silicon running Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 in a notebook chassis. 

Haswell GT3e's performance looked great for processor graphics. I would assume that overall platform power would be reduced since you wouldn't have a discrete GPU inside, however there's also the question of the cost of the solution. I do expect that NVIDIA will continue to drive discrete GPU performance up, but as a solution for some of the thinner/space constrained form factors (think 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display, maybe 11-inch Ultrabook/MacBook Air?) Haswell could be a revolutionary step forward.

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • CeriseCogburn - Sunday, January 13, 2013 - link

    Oh well, if you had actually been following along you'd know the answer to your own Q.

    Here's a constructive comment for Spunjji -

    EXPECT FAR BELOW 15 FPS for a minimum frame rate dip on MUCH HIGHER desktop hardware.
  • CeriseCogburn - Sunday, January 13, 2013 - link

    Yes that's exactly what they said and are saying - that Anand is full of it, and or a duped idiot, and a liar right up there in the article.
    Which I wouldn't mind if they actually had a point, read the article, and used their brain to think for a few minutes before doing that...

    When they are eventually proven wrong, there will be no apology forthcoming.
  • Spunjji - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    I have never said any of that. I have said that I don't feel the article and the video provided give me a good enough indication to make *any* judgement beyond that this could be potentially promising *if the hardware performs just the same as this in a thermally constrained environment*.

    Is that clear enough for you now?
  • CeriseCogburn - Tuesday, January 15, 2013 - link

    You said "tested each independently from the demo" meant "did not play".

    That's what you said jerkoff.
  • Spunjji - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    "subjectively the two looked to deliver very similar performance"

    I'm making my assumptions based on that. I would bold the word SUBJECTIVELY if I could, but here it is in caps instead. You're making your assumptions based on... what?
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Have a look idiot

  • ironargonaut - Tuesday, January 15, 2013 - link

    you assume I am commenting on that comment, the suggestion is and has been that the whole comparison is "worthless" because the framerate was/is not known by Anand. The word subjective would lead one to believe this may be true. But, why assume? You are commenting on an article written by Anand on Anandtech. Ask the man.
    I asked a clarifying question. To be honest a rheotorical one to emphasis that I believe Anand to be intelligent. What "assumption" did you assume I made?
  • dragonsqrrl - Wednesday, January 9, 2013 - link

    The game was clearly running in real time. The comment I responded to claimed it wasn't. You raise a good argument that may very well be true, but I don't see how it's relevant to the point I was making.
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, January 11, 2013 - link

  • dragonsqrrl - Friday, January 11, 2013 - link

    Might need to get a little less ambiguous there pro.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now