Intel Arc A580 Hits AotS Benchmark Database, Roughly Matches RTX 3050

[btarunr]

Intel Arc A580 is an upcoming entry-mainstream desktop graphics card based on the Xe-HPG "Alchemist" graphics architecture, and positioned between the A380 and A750. Based on the larger 6 nm DG2-512 silicon than the one powering the A380, the A580 is endowed with 16 Xe Cores, or double the SIMD muscle of the A380, with 2,048 unified shaders. The card enjoys 8 GB of GDDR6 memory across a 128-bit bus, which at 16 Gbps data-rate produces 256 GB/s bandwidth.

A leaked Ashes of the Singularity benchmark database entry reveals that the A580 scores roughly 95 FPS at 1080p on average, with 110 FPS in the normal batch, around 102 FPS in the medium batch, and around 78 FPS in the heavy batch. The benchmark used the Vulkan API, and an unknown 16-thread Intel processor with 32 GB of memory. These scores put the A580 roughly at par with the GeForce RTX 3050 "Ampere" in this test, which would make it a reasonable solution for playing popular online games at 1080p with medium-high settings, or AAA games at medium settings.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

Drivers probably roughly match dumpster fire though.

 

[swirl09]

And only 1/3 more power to do so.
/clap

 

[Blaeza]

Intel, well done for trying. Sell your 25 - 35 units then make bleeding heart or whatever its called.

 

[Space Lynx]

And only 1/3 more power to do so.
/clap

I honestly was expecting better considering Intel does have world class engineers, I guess GPU's are much different beast even for that caliber of people... a shame... we really needed the extra competition.

 

[mama]

I am positive about a new player in the GPU space. It's a start.

 

[ixi]

If arc 5xx is entry-mainstream. What is then arc 3xx? Intel needs to launch this gpu at 150€ and lower price for a380 from 129€ to 99€. To survive the harsh reality.

 

[docnorth]

Actually Videocardz report that it is roughly on par with 3060, not 3050, although in theory A580 is positioned clearly below 3060 . Not that it really matters with this benchmark, just saying...

 

[Assimilator]

AotS is so rubbish they can't even round FPS numbers to a single decimal place.

 

[bug]

Did these get a proper release date? So we can have proper reviews (not to mention products), instead of leaks?

 

[Jimmy_]

Did these get a proper release date? So we can have proper reviews (not to mention products), instead of leaks?

That's quite impossible it seems , u can get the delayed news but no the release news from team blue

 

[Ravenmaster]

Oh look - a tumble weed

 

[medi01]

How does it compare to AMD GPU world?

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I honestly was expecting better considering Intel does have world class engineers, I guess GPU's are much different beast even for that caliber of people... a shame... we really needed the extra competition.

You expect anyone, even intel, to just whip up a GPU from scratch and have it be perfect? WTF? If it were that easy plenty of other companies would have already done it.

 

[ZoneDymo]

but who cares about the 580? its about the 750 or 770.

 

[Space Lynx]

You expect anyone, even intel, to just whip up a GPU from scratch and have it be perfect? WTF? If it were that easy plenty of other companies would have already done it.

I was expecting better than a $139 gpu that is 20 fps behind the RX 580 in most games. /shrug

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I was expecting better than a $139 gpu that is 20 fps behind the RX 580 in most games. /shrug

A $139 75w GPU being 20 FPS behind a $230 150w GPU isnt bad for a first attempt. Need we remember how badly AMD was dropping the ball trying to compete with nvidia's maxwell and pascal?

I think everyone thought that money = success in the GPU space, while discounting how much experience AMD/nvidia have in this arena already. Without their patents and engineers it's not as easy as one would think.

 

[Space Lynx]

A $139 75w GPU being 20 FPS behind a $230 150w GPU isnt bad for a first attempt. Need we remember how badly AMD was dropping the ball trying to compete with nvidia's maxwell and pascal?

I think everyone thought that money = success in the GPU space, while discounting how much experience AMD/nvidia have in this arena already. Without their patents and engineers it's not as easy as one would think.

That's fair I guess, I was referring the discrepancy in years though too, the RX 580 is very old.

Intel does have some of the best engineers and resources around, if not THE best, I just assumed they would come out swinging so to speak, I was wrong is all, no big deal.

Hopefully they can catch up in the coming years, but I am not confident anymore.

 

[delshay]

It looks like some settings in the game menu is set to low.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

That's fair I guess, I was referring the discrepancy in years though too, the RX 580 is very old.

Intel does have some of the best engineers and resources around, if not THE best, I just assumed they would come out swinging so to speak, I was wrong is all, no big deal.

Hopefully they can catch up in the coming years, but I am not confident anymore.

I mean, if you consider that the A380 is slightly faster then the RX 6400 that AMD shat out, for a lower price, technically intel already matches the industry standard on its first attempt. Once they get the drivers hammered out I think they'll perform much better. AMD get sa lot of credit for the performance of polaris but many forget how awful the drivers were for the first 2-3 years. Give intel 6 months post launch and we'll see if they've fixed these issues.

 

[Space Lynx]

I mean, if you consider that the A380 is slightly faster then the RX 6400 that AMD shat out, for a lower price, technically intel already matches the industry standard on its first attempt. Once they get the drivers hammered out I think they'll perform much better. AMD get sa lot of credit for the performance of polaris but many forget how awful the drivers were for the first 2-3 years. Give intel 6 months post launch and we'll see if they've fixed these issues.

That's a good way to keep it in perspective, well said. I am looking forward to seeing better competition, I hope they pull it off.

 

[Assimilator]

Once they get the drivers hammered out

They haven't managed to do that in literally decades for their iGPUs. Why would you think they'd be able to achieve it with a completely new product?

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

They haven't managed to do that in literally decades for their iGPUs. Why would you think they'd be able to achieve it with a completely new product?

This could have just as easily applied to AMD in 2016 with polaris. It takes them 2-3 years to hammer out their drivers. Why does everyone assume intel would do it immediately? $$$ =! experience.

 

[Assimilator]

This could have just as easily applied to AMD in 2016 with polaris. It takes them 2-3 years to hammer out their drivers. Why does everyone assume intel would do it immediately? $$$ =! experience.

Because Intel has built massive brand recognition based on quality and stability; Arc has neither of those things. Why should customers ever accept a third-rate product from a company that portrays its products as first-rate?

And please stop making that inane comparison to AMD's GPU woes over half a decade ago, or even with RDNA1. Intel is not attempting to compete with AMD in 2016 or 2019, they are attempting to compete with AMD and NVIDIA in 2022, and today both the latter companies are offering objectively better-performing products with objectively better drivers for objectively less money.

The market doesn't care how hard Intel is or isn't trying, or that Intel may or may not eventually deliver a decent product in a few months' or years' time. The market only cares whether Intel delivers a product that provides a compelling alternative to competitors right now. And Intel has completely failed at that, just like they failed with 10nm CPUs. In that case they had massive marketshare to fall back on, and still lost a significant amount of it to AMD; in Arc's case they have quite literally nothing to fall back on.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

Because Intel has built massive brand recognition based on quality and stability; Arc has neither of those things.

GPUs are entirely different beasts from CPUs. Previous generations of intel iGPU had driver issues for several months after release. Anyone who expected their new dGPU line to be flawless has no idea how complicated such a setup is.

Why should customers ever accept a third-rate product from a company that portrays its products as first-rate?

Because they are cheaper, and offer an alternative? See also: AMD vega, AMD GCN 2.0, Nvidia fermi, ece.

And please stop making that inane comparison to AMD's GPU woes over half a decade ago, or even with RDNA1.

No. Come up with a better argument.

Intel is not attempting to compete with AMD in 2016 or 2019, they are attempting to compete with AMD and NVIDIA in 2022, and today both the latter companies are offering objectively better-performing products with objectively better drivers for objectively less money.

So sucking for years on end is perfectly acceptable for AMD but not intel. Having competitors with more mature drivers is acceptable for AMD but not intel. I'm noticing a pattern here, as your argument again could easily apply to AMD's vega, or polaris, or rDNA1. Yet you dont want to make that comparsion, because that might mean you'd have to admit Intel could fix their situation.

The market doesn't care how hard Intel is or isn't trying, or that Intel may or may not eventually deliver a decent product in a few months' or years' time. The market only cares whether Intel delivers a product that provides a compelling alternative to competitors right now. And Intel has completely failed at that, just like they failed with 10nm CPUs. In that case they had massive marketshare to fall back on, and still lost a significant amount of it to AMD; in Arc's case they have quite literally nothing to fall back on.

All this, again, applied to AMD with their CPU and GPU lineups in the past. So why is it unacceptable for intel to be in the same spot?