cd000 :
GTA V obviously not stressing the GPU at those settings if even a lowly 440gt can pull 55fps. How about suing some realistic settings?
For some people having 60 FPS is the highest priority... Which means that dips below 60 (which will occur even when the AVERAGE framerate is even much, much higher) can often be unacceptable. And yes, sometimes these people work within constraints to where a pair of Titan X cards isn't an option.
cd000 :
1) They didn't test Titanfall
That's because
Titanfall itself is an ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE game to use for a benchmark:
- It has a hard cap on the framerate that can't be bypassed.
- It has no benchmark tool of its own, so you have to improvise.
- It's online-multiplayer only, which also means it's effectively impossible to even get a fully consistent "improvised" benchmark.
As
Half-Life 2: Lost Coast was made as a form of tech demo, it is exceptionally suited as a benchmark of the Source engine. And while the tech demo ITSELF may no longer be particularly strenuous, a performance comparison made using that will show a trend that will hold true to OTHER Source engine games... Including
Titanfall. (E.g, if a GPU performs twice as well as another at Lost Coast, it will perform very close to the same margin in
Titanfall)
InvalidError :
The i3 already sells quite well on its own at $130 and Iris 6200 competes with $80-90 discrete GPUs. If Intel released an i3 with Iris 6200, I would expect it to sell reasonably well at $170-180.
I am pretty sure the CrystalWell chip on the i5/i7 costs Intel considerably more to put on there than the extra $20 Intel tacked on the price tag. With the lower margins on i3, they cannot afford cutting as deep in their profits. Same goes for the hypothetical Iris 6200 Pentium.
I actually HEAVILY doubt that the cost of Crystalwell is even close to $20, let alone above it: most of the silicon is used for eDRAM, which, cost-wise, is pretty close to any other DRAM. (And current spot prices for even 256MB DRAM stays consistently below $2) I'd probably peg a maximum actual cost to them at $5, maybe $10 at most...
...Enough that I do feel that an Iris Pro-equipped Pentium would, on its own, still maintain quite a substantial profit margin, even if the price WASN'T changed... And to be honest, they could still boost the price without noticably dropping demand; anywhere from $99-119 (a price jump of, say, $30-50 over the 3258) would likely still see staggering demand that the i3 has never seen.
Granted, there's one possibility, in that Intel may be afraid that such an attractive low-end option may drive too much demand away from their (definitely more profitable) Core i5 lines; a lot of people would quite willingly settle for less: sure, all us enthusiasts know that pairing a 4690K and anything from a GTX 750 Ti or 260X and up is a shocking amount of power for the price, but for a lot, being budget-minded does mean that if there's a cheap option that still delivers impressive (or possibly more) bang for the buck, it's what is to go for.