CAD4466HK
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,690
What a disappointment...
For those wondering, Intel did not select Guru3D as a review partner for the new ARC graphics cards. They do not have enough samples available to even seed enough tier 1 media. Here's what we got back from them:
With regards Arc sampling, we’ve received an extremely limited number of sample kits in EMEA ahead of launch, which has meant we’ve had to make some difficult decisions in this first round of sampling. I sincerely apologize that we’ve not been able to get you a kit straight away, this is a less than ideal situation that we’re having to work around - Intel
After A380 reviews absolutely no one 🥱who expected them to emphatically trounce Nv/AMD cards day 1? Not me...
Raja gonna Raja...I expected worse. But I am not impressed especially after the Intel hype. They really over did it.
Don't buy Nvidia. Crying about it doesn't do a thing.I just hope they stick with it long enough to actually have some mature drivers and acknowledge that AMD also makes video cards. I'm not expecting a high end competitor any time soon, but it would be nice if there was someone else in 3-4 years. Otherwise we have Nvidia cranking up prices and pushing proprietary tech.
At the $300 price point it is kinda disposable after a couple of years use.Ive taken apart a few annoying video cards, but that really takes the cake. That is pure nightmare to just replace the fans, and it looks like the card was more designed to be disposable than repairable.
Don't buy Nvidia. Crying about it doesn't do a thing.
My take on the data in the reviews is way more positive than the actual reviewers.
Great price/perf in DX12/Vulkan and select optimized DX11 titles, some driver glitches.
Even the unoptimized titles looked playable in 1080p/1440p and a lot of those will improve with driver updates.
I hope they sell. We need a 3rd player. Intel really needs to get to work on the drivers though.
Also as well, I expect drivers will dramatically improve performance. Seems like the API compilation stage, copy operations to card for ARC in the drivers is holding it back severely, the actual hardware pixel processing power is like double that of the 3060, just held back by the drivers. One reason seeing the 1440p results climbing the ladder against the competition. Anyways Raja Kudure explained this in this video:My take on the data in the reviews is way more positive than the actual reviewers.
Great price/perf in DX12/Vulkan and select optimized DX11 titles, some driver glitches.
Even the unoptimized titles looked playable in 1080p/1440p and a lot of those will improve with driver updates.
I hope they sell. We need a 3rd player. Intel really needs to get to work on the drivers though.
I don’t buy at that low of a tier and I wasn’t speaking in aggregate performance.what price /perf? Assuming you can even find on in retail this month , this is 30% faster for 10% more money:
https://www.newegg.com/asrock-radeon-rx-6700-xt-rx6700xt-cld-12g/p/N82E16814930056
And then add this additional 25 % performance hit without resizable BAR (or if you cant get it working, they are stilt buggy years later,)
View attachment 516607
and suddenly you're giving up a shitload of performance just to be a first-gen bragging rights fool!
I am baffled that anyone is crapping on Intel for this attempt.
Intel A770 | Rough performance delta vs RTX 3060 |
---|---|
Control | +20% FPS; -20% frame pacing |
Witcher | == |
TF2 | == |
Satisfactory | == |
HL2 | == |
Valheim | == |
Elden Ring | == (60fps locked) |
Skyrim | == (60fps locked) |
Doom Eternal | -10% FPS |
Cities Skylines | -20% FPS |
Destiny 2 | -20% FPS |
Anno 1800 | -30% FPS |
GTA V | -30% FPS |
Crysis | -40% FPS |
Rocket League | -40% FPS |
Minecraft | -50% FPS (or worse?) |
Battlefield V | -50% FPS (unplayable pacing) |
Halo MCC | -60% FPS (unplayable pacing) |
BeamNG | -70% FPS |
Descenders | -70% FPS (unplayable pacing) |
Forza Horizon 5 | CTD |
Fallout 4 | (N/A) (Bethesda is terrible...) |
I am baffled that anyone is crapping on Intel for this attempt. Sure it's clear by the size and power draw they were gunning for the 3070. They examined their efforts and realized they had to pivot. For the money these aren't great but we NEED Intel in the market. We need another player with deep pockets to take shots on Nvidia.
For sure, they need to price it accordingly for wide adoption.I'd also much prefer another competitor in the market. However, since I've been beaten to death with the "companies are not charities"-argument every time they do something shitty (or don't do something nice for a change) I will now gladly return the favor: if intel wants to release a sub-beta product, they'd better provide pricing that takes that into account. After all, it's intel that is one of the bigger multibillion dollar companies to ever exist, not me.
Where is the A790? I can see the drivers handicaps not only the A750, more so the A770 where some games the two are almost identical, that the A790 would show no real significant performance increase with the current drivers. Once Intel, if they ever do get it better as in much better with the drivers, the A790 may come out. Otherwise they would be better to just downgrade the A790 into a LE 16gb A770.
The drivers have to compile the games shader code into what the hardware understands which Intel is way behind AMD/Nvidia there. Plus game developers did not optimize yet for ARC, older games will probably never be except a very slight few and even newer games for the next couple of years.
Oh my god, I guess Intel doesn't care about the cost to manufacture and assemble every card. These could probably be sold for $50 cheaper if they simplified the design.
I'd also imagine that the partner boards will be built better as well.
Do they have any?
They are supposedly coming...