There is nothing new about the A750.
Intel ARC GPUs, Xe Architecture for dGPUs [2018-2022]
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- intel
- Status
DavidGraham
Veteran
A full benchmark by GamersNexus for the A380 GPU from Intel, conclusion: in DX12/Vulkan games, the A380 is slower than the GTX 1650/RX 6400 and way slower than the GTX 1650 Super, in DX11 games it's even slower than the 1050Ti! Intel also has a huge problem related to optimizing their drivers for older games, which makes their GPUs highly experimental and inconsistent at the moment. Power is also out of wack, the A380 consumes 80w, compared to the RX 6400 which needs 50w, and the GTX 1650 which needs 70w.
As a refresher: the GTX 1650 is sandwiched between the old 1050Ti and 1060 GPUs, the 1060 is 25% faster than 1650, and the 1650 is 35% faster than 1050Ti.
An interesting tidbits, Intel REQUIRES Re-Bar to be enabled at all times for better performance, without it, the A380 is literally 30% slower!
As a refresher: the GTX 1650 is sandwiched between the old 1050Ti and 1060 GPUs, the 1060 is 25% faster than 1650, and the 1650 is 35% faster than 1050Ti.
An interesting tidbits, Intel REQUIRES Re-Bar to be enabled at all times for better performance, without it, the A380 is literally 30% slower!
Not watched it so it may put it in context.
But without knowing price points the comparisons quoted here doesn't mean much to me.
Is it matching the ones in it's group?
I have a feeling its not very competitive though.
I said it before, pipe cleaner.
Was hoping that they would've allowed XeSS to be used, now that review units are getting out there. So we could see how it holds up.
That's my only real intrest until battlemage now.
But without knowing price points the comparisons quoted here doesn't mean much to me.
Is it matching the ones in it's group?
I have a feeling its not very competitive though.
I said it before, pipe cleaner.
Was hoping that they would've allowed XeSS to be used, now that review units are getting out there. So we could see how it holds up.
That's my only real intrest until battlemage now.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It shouldn't be THAT surprising, after all the GTX 1630 which is probably the worst graphics card released in the past decade by a long shot (although it looks like Intel is going to one up that in the bad department with the ARC GPUs) didn't even warrant much of a blip compared to the 6500/6400 which are both significantly better and in the case of the 6400 either the same price or cheaper!
Basically, for whatever reason, the internet likes to dump on AMD while giving NV and to a lesser extent Intel a pass on bad products.
Regards,
Sb
People dumped on the 1630 too. I think there are a few reasons why the 6400 got it even worse. First Nvidia has successfully set expectations for x30 cards very low. Nobody expects to game on those things. Secondly the 1630 is based on 2 generation old architecture. The 6400 is based on AMD's latest. Expectations were just higher for the 6400.
Wait a sec, isn't GTX 1630 based on Turing (TU117), not Pascal?
Yes it is.
As pointed out above, it's last gen, not gen before that. Isn't it the same for AMD? even x50(0) have been questionable for gaming forever and x40(0) even less so.
DavidGraham
Veteran
A marketing slide from Intel is leaked, it details the positioning of Intel GPUs compared to NVIDIA and AMD, and it doesn't look good.
The highest Intel SKUs is going to be the A770, the full die, it will be slower than the 3060Ti in it's best case (optimzied games), using higher power draw, worse case scenario is unkwon at the moments, but I wouldn't be suprized if it becomes even slower than the regular 3060 in the loads of the other unoptimized games.
The med range SKU is going to be the A580, which will be slower than the 3050 (in it's best case), the low SKU is the A380 which is slower than the GTX 1650 by Intel's own admission.
The highest Intel SKUs is going to be the A770, the full die, it will be slower than the 3060Ti in it's best case (optimzied games), using higher power draw, worse case scenario is unkwon at the moments, but I wouldn't be suprized if it becomes even slower than the regular 3060 in the loads of the other unoptimized games.
The med range SKU is going to be the A580, which will be slower than the 3050 (in it's best case), the low SKU is the A380 which is slower than the GTX 1650 by Intel's own admission.
Assuming the slide is real, A580 is on level with 3050 in that, not under it like A770 is compared to 3060 Ti. For some reason the 3050 box is just a bit taller, it starts couple pixels under A380 and stops couple pixels above, which makes it level with A380.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Bit taller means faster in this scheme of presentation.
I don't buy this. It doesn't seems legit at all - or Intel have worst graphic designers (different fonts, different text colors, different rectangles size etc.)
Yes it’s based on Turing but not “RTX” Turing. So two generations old in my mind.
So Intel thinks 6650 XT is faster than 3060 Ti, too?
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That has got to be a fake or made by someone that is REALLY bad at making slides.
On the chart:
- RTX 3050 W 8 GB - er, phantom watts?
- Radeon 6400 53W - why is the wattage bolded for this one but no other card?
- Why are all the boxes around the graphics products seemingly random heights?
- Why black borders around the Intel products despite them still having white text just like the AMD and NV products? With the dark blue background, you often can't even easily tell there is a border around the Intel products.
SB
digitalwanderer
Legend
One quick correction, there's no black box around the A380. Not all the Intel ones have black boxes around them.
If it was real, then it's probably was rapidly changed multiple times due to bone headed instructions from higher ups.
I wonder if the one Leaked it was the people who were making that slide and got really annoyed with the higher ups
That's not power efficient at all. I'm sure if you boosted the amd and nvoda cards to 225w it'll be even faster
- Status
