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.

POST A COMMENT

253 Comments

View All Comments

  • CeriseCogburn - Monday, January 14, 2013 - link


    For not assuming ? What else can it mean you idiot.
    Reply
  • DigitalFreak - Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - link

    "Until a third party can report the numbers and do their own tests as far as i'm concerned this was two videos and not the actual game engines."

    Moron

    "Note that I confirmed all settings myself and ran both games myself independently of the demo."
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Yes, but the amd fanboys and haters cannot grasp true reality, THEIR sourpussed idiocy is all that really counts.
    LOL

    It is actually AMAZING how much the stupid are willing to share.
    Reply
  • Spunjji - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    Blah blah blah blah blah. Reply
  • dragonsqrrl - Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - link

    Did you even read the article? The game was without a doubt running in real time. The only question is the actual frame rate and more precise performance measurements, which Intel wouldn't allow. Reply
  • madmilk - Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - link

    The inclusion of the GT 650M in this comparison is meaningless without precise data though. The GT 650M has no trouble exceeding 60fps on Dirt 3 for 1080p, High, and no AA. Haswell might be 1/2 of the performance, 40fps, and it would still look perfectly OK to most human viewers as long as the minimum frame rate isn't too bad. Reply
  • Spunjji - Wednesday, January 09, 2013 - link

    Bang on. Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, January 10, 2013 - link

    You've banged your head too much. Reply
  • Spunjji - Friday, January 11, 2013 - link

    Please be constructive. If you can point out what was wrong with the preceding comment that I agreed with, I'll happily hear it. Reply
  • ironargonaut - Friday, January 11, 2013 - link

    So, you're saying Anand wasn't smart enough to check the FPS? Anand said he couldn't report the numbers, he never said he didn't see them. Perhaps you should ask instead of assume. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now