Wednesday, June 22nd 2022

Intel Arc A380 Desktop GPU Does Worse in Actual Gaming than Synthetic Benchmarks

by
btarunr
 Discuss (190 Comments)
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

Related News

Add your own comment

190 Comments on Intel Arc A380 Desktop GPU Does Worse in Actual Gaming than Synthetic Benchmarks

#51
Unregistered
Synthetic benchmark are just to check the stability of hardware, using it for comparing performance is useless.
#52
ARF
This information umbrella means only one thing - Intel is scared to release it publicly in order to try to save its reputation - no one would be impressed by such a low-end Intel product.
Posted on Reply
#53
medi01
I find the statement misleading.

If anything, it is 3050's syntetic benchmark that is absolutely NOT reflecting its real game performance.
Posted on Reply
#54
ARF
Xex360Synthetic benchmark are just to check the stability of hardware, using it for comparing performance is useless.
Synthetic benchmarks are very easy to be manipulated since their frames flow is always the same.

Nvidia accused of cheating in 3DMark 03 - GameSpot
Posted on Reply
#55
bug
ARFThis information umbrella means only one thing - Intel is scared to release it publicly in order to try to save its reputation - no one would be impressed by such a low-end Intel product.
I don't think Intel ever bet its reputation on Arc, so that's not it.
But yes, this level of performance from your top SKU is not what you want on the front pages everywhere. Still, withholding cards from a couple dozen websites does little when people can just go out and buy the cards for themselves.
Posted on Reply
#56
medi01
Crackong40% more in synthetic but 20% less in realistic
Cough.


Posted on Reply
#57
ARF
bugI don't think Intel ever bet its reputation on Arc, so that's not it.
But yes, this level of performance from your top SKU is not what you want on the front pages everywhere. Still, withholding cards from a couple dozen websites does little when people can just go out and buy the cards for themselves.
I mean that they don't want to be called the producers of mediocre graphics - that would potentially harm their CPU business, too, because the combo Radeon + Ryzen would look much better.
Posted on Reply
#58
bug
ARFI mean that they don't want to be called the producers of mediocre graphics - that would potentially harm their CPU business, too, because the combo Radeon + Ryzen would look much better.
They couldn't care less about that. They're not known for GPUs, there's no name to tarnish in that area.
Worst case scenario for Intel, they sign a deal with HP and still sell a few million Arc GPUs.
Posted on Reply
#59
catulitechup
ARFThis information umbrella means only one thing - Intel is scared to release it publicly in order to try to save its reputation - no one would be impressed by such a low-end Intel product.
And dont want launch at lower prices but if them out with lower prices maybe give users feedback for improve drivers

In my case still have interested because buying intel arc go to hell amd/nvidia and with things like gpu manufacturers could obtain gains around 15.000 million dollar (maybe more than that) with crypto situation

:)
Posted on Reply
#60
Bomby569
Vayra86And yet their dGPU is built / iterated from their IGP Execution Units.

This company is FAR from new to GPU. The reality is they have been 'working on' their graphics solution for decades now, and they always did the least necessary to keep their CPUs in the market. That principle is hurting them now, when they have to show their money's worth.

I mean you can flood the chain with these shitty Arcs but that won't be doing you any good. The main difference for Intel is therefore not just the fact its a discrete product, but the fact its not automagically bundled with a CPU so it has to count for something. Its for that exact reason they start on mobile: customers don't buy their product, they buy a laptop.

For a giant like Intel there aren't any excuses here. They're blundering ahead; still no chiplet CPU. Still no competitive dGPU stack. Still securing stuff for a future we're about to get, but not now, tomorrow! The only optimism I can find with Intel is the fact their big.little idea is actually working out for them, in a limited way. But even with that 'design win' they're still trailing competition on CPU, and the competition can easily incorporate it within its own design win, while Intel can't return the favor just yet.
You don't get optimized igpu drivers, you get drivers. It's a new game, it's not an excuse, it's reality. How long as AMD doing GPU's? they still mess up the drivers.
CPU is another story, we all know the previous management were a disgracee. They were the 1st to get the new EUV machines from ASML. It doesn't make them better at what they do, but they are doing things differently now.
Posted on Reply
#61
defaultluser
RH92You could buy anything that exists except for the 6500XT ....
Which is why in-store prices have all dropped 20% since launch day, wile the 3050 is still hard to find at msrp. (not impossible, but only on EVGA's site):

www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=08G-P5-3551-KR

it's going to be a bit before the 3050 sates all this pent-up mid-range demand. Intel s not helping here!
Posted on Reply
#62
Octavean
Well you could always think of it as a collectors item (got catch ‘em alllllll, Pokémon!!!)

Oh Intel, you stepped on your own D!(k again.
Posted on Reply
#63
Robin Seina
regs6500 XT is a disaster you shouldn't buy.
Why? I see that the price for 6500 XT is around 155-190 USD, while RTX 3050 is over 300 USD. GTX1650 begins about same or 10% above 6500XT, with most models over 200USD. And as can be seen on screenshots above in this thread, 6500XT a winner performance/USD category (of roughly same priced cards)
Posted on Reply
#64
mechtech
Well it’s cheaper than 6500xt and roughly
Same to a bit better performance so that’s a win. I guess
Posted on Reply
#65
Robin Seina
mechtechWell it’s cheaper than 6500xt and roughly
Same to a bit better performance so that’s a win. I guess
Does not make since you have not written what you compare 6500XT with.
Posted on Reply
#66
samum
Another release from Raja "Mr. Disappointment" Koduri. He can make compute/mining chips, but sucks at gaming applications. Maybe that's what Intel wants.

AMD's CDNA is still based on Raja's GCN/Vega architecture, but RDNA ditching the GCN baggage was a huge boost for gaming.
Posted on Reply
#67
mechtech
Robin SeinaDoes not make since you have not written what you compare 6500XT with.
Ya. I see that post didn’t turn out. Joys of trying to post from a phone.
Posted on Reply
#68
Mac the Geek
The important part here is that someone not named AMD or Nvidia has entered the discrete GPU market.

It doesn't really matter just how inferior the card is. Intel (presumably) isn't surprised by the results, and (also presumably) already has a roadmap for improvements.

Intel can afford to restrict the new cards to underserved markets, and can afford to take a revenue hit. The money is a secondary concern at this point; iterating and improving the next generation is what matters.

If W1zzard does manage to get hold of an Arc GPU for testing, I hope that it doesn't get the standard review. I'm most interested in "which older GPU does the A380 most closely compete with?" AMD and Nvidia have both had decades to build their institutional knowledge base; I'm curious to see how many "generations behind" Intel is right now.

Intel's first discrete GPU is out there. That's the starting point. The true tale will be in whether Intel can catch up to the other two in future generations.
Posted on Reply
#69
chrcoluk
looks to beat the 1650 performance per $.
Posted on Reply
#70
Lew Zealand
bugTbh I was hoping for pressure on the 6700/3060Ti segment. This level of performance isn't doing anybody any good.

A review would be nice. One that looks at die size and such, to put things in the proper perspective.
The A380 doesn't compete in that segment, Intel has higher core parts for that (though those may as underwhelming as this low-end one).

Intel A380 - 1024 cores
AMD 6700 - 2560 cores
Nvidia 3060Ti - 4864 cores

This competes in cores with the 1650/super RX6400/6500. And loses.
Posted on Reply
#71
Dr. Dro
WeeRabAll this nonsense about Drivers. Intel has almost inexhaustible resources to write proper drivers. They've had years to fix it. Kodouri and his team should be ashamed of this card.
This makes the RX6500 look like screamingly-fast bargain.
Not even inexhaustible resources can conjure high quality graphics drivers out of nowhere. AMD's newest OpenGL venture (as seen by the public on the Windows Insider driver) shows that nobody has perfect software. Add that to the patent minefield Intel likely has to work around, and it'll be some time until their own technology is perfected. I expected no more of this card at launch, it's going to be an entry/basic product, and the top-end Arc will fall in line with the RTX 2060 super/70 at first, maybe end their life cycle around the same performance of TU104 as drivers mature (2080/2080 super).
Posted on Reply
#72
Ripcord
Robin SeinaWhy? I see that the price for 6500 XT is around 155-190 USD, while RTX 3050 is over 300 USD. GTX1650 begins about same or 10% above 6500XT, with most models over 200USD. And as can be seen on screenshots above in this thread, 6500XT a winner performance/USD category (of roughly same priced cards)
Ignore them, they don't have the card and don't know what they are talking about. Simple fact is the rx6500xt has no real competition in its price bracket. its a solid performer. AMD released a good product at a good price
Posted on Reply
#73
ixi
WeeRabAll this nonsense about Drivers. Intel has almost inexhaustible resources to write proper drivers. They've had years to fix it. Kodouri and his team should be ashamed of this card.
This makes the RX6500 look like screamingly-fast bargain.
Since when 6500xt was slow?
bugTbh I was hoping for pressure on the 6700/3060Ti segment. This level of performance isn't doing anybody any good.

A review would be nice. One that looks at die size and such, to put things in the proper perspective.
It is doing good as third player have entered the market. There is not anymore AMD or crapgreedia. If intel will not have anything to put up against strongest amd ot crapgreedia they will be made to lower price than others otherwise they gonna lose income and clients.
Posted on Reply
#74
Dr. Dro
RipcordIgnore them, they don't have the card and don't know what they are talking about. Simple fact is the rx6500xt has no real competition in its price bracket. its a solid performer. AMD released a good product at a good price
I have a seriously hard time calling the RX 6500 XT a solid performer and a good product, especially given it's a 4 GB/64-bit GPU without video encoding hardware that doesn't exactly beat even its own predecessor (RX 5500 XT), in a market where MSRP has no real value, you'll find the 6500 XT anywhere from $180 to $350 in most parts of the world, still. It's not a very good deal for what you get, in most cases you're way better served by simply buying an RX 6600 instead. Or the RTX 3050.
Posted on Reply
#75
r9
ZoneDymoreally dont get this, I mean how could it possible be a driver issue...Intel employs so many gawd damn people and you get can a team of...idk 10 or so to just optimise drivers for a single (populair) game so that runs as well is it can and then move on to the next?

how freaking hard can it be....come on.....jeez
Their CEO gave himself a 100mil for continuously running the company in the ground and they bought a GPU company that haven't produced anything but a vaporware for 25 years. With this in mind are you really surprised of the GPU outcome ?
Basically you need smart people in the key roles that can recognize and hire other smart people.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 10th, 2024 05:55 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts