Wednesday, June 22nd 2022
Intel Arc A380 Desktop GPU Does Worse in Actual Gaming than Synthetic Benchmarks
Intel's Arc A380 desktop graphics card is generally available in China, and real-world gaming benchmarks of the cards by independent media paint a vastly different picture than what we've been led on by synthetic benchmarks. The entry-mainstream graphics card, being sold under the equivalent of $160 in China, is shown beating the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT and RX 6400 in 3DMark Port Royal and Time Spy benchmarks by a significant margin. The gaming results see it lose to even the RX 6400 in each of the six games tested by the source.
The tests in the graph below are in the order: League of Legends, PUBG, GTA V, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Forza Horizon 5, and Red Dead Redemption 2. We see that in the first three tests that are based on DirectX 11, the A380 is 22 to 26 percent slower than an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, and Radeon RX 6400. The gap narrows in DirectX 12 titles SoTR and Forza 5, where it's within 10% slower than the two cards. The card's best showing, is in the Vulkan-powered RDR 2, where it's 7% slower than the GTX 1650, and 9% behind the RX 6400. The RX 6500 XT would perform in a different league. With these numbers, and given that GPU prices are cooling down in the wake of the cryptocalypse 2022, we're not entirely sure what Intel is trying to sell at $160.
Sources:
Shenmedounengce (Bilibili), VideoCardz
The tests in the graph below are in the order: League of Legends, PUBG, GTA V, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Forza Horizon 5, and Red Dead Redemption 2. We see that in the first three tests that are based on DirectX 11, the A380 is 22 to 26 percent slower than an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650, and Radeon RX 6400. The gap narrows in DirectX 12 titles SoTR and Forza 5, where it's within 10% slower than the two cards. The card's best showing, is in the Vulkan-powered RDR 2, where it's 7% slower than the GTX 1650, and 9% behind the RX 6400. The RX 6500 XT would perform in a different league. With these numbers, and given that GPU prices are cooling down in the wake of the cryptocalypse 2022, we're not entirely sure what Intel is trying to sell at $160.
190 Comments on Intel Arc A380 Desktop GPU Does Worse in Actual Gaming than Synthetic Benchmarks
nice looking card tho . . .
In any case Intel will be selling millions of those to OEMs, to be used in their prebuild systems, meaning that cards like Nvidia's MX line and AMD's RX 6400/6500XT are out of Intel based systems. And that's what Intel cares about. Those 3DMark scores are enough to convince consumers that they are getting a fast card.
Now if only someone could clear up things about ARC's hardware compatibility, that would be nice. Let's hope that Intel doesn't starts a new trend with cards being incompatible with some systems. If they start that kind of trend, then I wish they NEVER had reentered the market and competely fail.
Immature drivers might help a little, but it seems just as likely the drivers have been " optimized " for synthetic benchmarks and it won't ever perform on 1650 level even.
Who is intel kidding really. At least the local supermarket can maybe flog this in their OEM's but that's about it.
Cards aren't available, perfs are missing and the next gen is coming.
I'm sure cryptos drop is putting more pressure than this intel ghost
how freaking hard can it be....come on.....jeez
They should have sold them as mining card 5 months ago, cashed in and moved on........
IF the A780 is 300$ and is her in 14 days i guess thats a thing then........ but i don't think that is going to happen.
NEXT.....
Intel planned release for this generation almost two years ago. After two years of delays they released just one model in a limited market in a very limited numbers.
I don't think it will improve in a short amount of time. And I don't think it's just immature drivers, since ALL the games trail so much compared to the potential shown in synthetic benchmarks.
I think it's more of a benchmark-focussed architecture. And that's OK, I believe there will be plenty of influencers, reviewers who will still find a way to spin this as a good thing, and focus on high benchmark scores.
For Arc to work, Intel needed something competitive and, to some degree, revolutionary. Larrabee was their prior effort which showed their lack of understanding of the GPU market. They thought throwing x86 cores at it would make a GPU. Never even got off the ground. Again, another reason why they brought on the Radeon guy.
Trouble is, Raja was not great at innovation in the Radeon area. In fact, Radeon development stagnated rather often under his watch. Especially since the HD3000 series. Intel picking him up was not that great of a move. They'd have been better absorbing a phone GPU maker.
Intel may have the resources and the talent to throw at stuff but, they have a lot of trouble getting that going. 800lb gorilla analogy. It takes time but once it does get going, it's near unstoppable until it gets lazy. Which is how AMD beat them with Ryzen. Intel got lazy. FX was a failure and for some reason they never thought Keller would turn AMD around with Ryzen. Which is the biggest boggle of the mind to me. Keller is a legend and Intel just ignored it and got caught with their pants down for at least a gen or two.