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

    The whiners might need to click the link and find out - which - given there's no comment of anyone actually having done that - makes them CLUELESS, lazy, and incorrect, as usual.

    Would you like to fill in the blanks ?

    Oh wait, you dared not click it either.

    I gave it to the person WHO WAS REASONABLE in their commentary, as thus it will likely not have been wasted.

    I suspect you did click it, and viewed it, and saw how it shows what so many here do not want to believe.
  • kyuu - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Lol. That video you linked proves nothing at all and contradicts no ones' points. Are you for real?
  • Spunjji - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Unfortunately, Cerise is indeed for real.
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

    Unfortunately, you're all goofballs.
  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link

  • iwod - Wednesday, January 9, 2013 - link

    And we dont know the clock speed for 650M as well which could be lower.
  • usteg - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    then it would've been a GT640M/GT645M (since those are basically downclocked versions of the GT650M, though if that's the case its more likely to be a GT640M since there seems to be no GDDR5 version of the GT645M anywhere).

    I have no doubt that they compared it to the GT650M, but the previous commenter raised a valid point that the GT3 could've been running around 40fps+ in comparison to the GT650M
  • ImSpartacus - Friday, January 11, 2013 - link

    The "650M" in the rMBP15 runs clocks higher than a 660M.


    So the definition of a 650M is pretty messy. I expect that this is the DDR3 version, but perhaps with the GDDR5's lower core clocks? If Intel found such a weird 650M implementation, it would probably barely outperform a GK107 640M LE (the shittiest mobile GK107).
  • CeriseCogburn - Sunday, January 13, 2013 - link

    What a bunch of crap.

    650M ddr3 is a SCREAMER in a laptop and NO amd iGPU is close to it.
    Oh yeah, I know personally with hands on experience.

  • ImSpartacus - Sunday, January 13, 2013 - link

    Perhaps at 720p, but this is 1080p. The lack of memory bandwidth would cripple the 650M. Between Crystalwell and potentially overclocked RAM, it's clear that GT3e's numbers could be artificially inflated.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now