• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Arc Board Partners are Reportedly Stopping Production, Encountering Quality Issues

Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
3,998 (2.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5 6000 MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5, 1 TB Crucial P2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
Not really, when I had a 7900GTO and an 8800GTS G92 after I had driver issues quite a bit that I remember, but when I stepped to the AMD HD6950 it was smooth sailing.

Both companies seem to be on and off when it comes to drivers it you look at it objectively
Exactly. AMD drivers, just like Nvidia's, have been mostly OK. It's only in the Vega / RDNA 1 era when the "AMD drivers are crap" train really took off. Now, with RDNA 2, drivers are back to normal.

In fact, AMD's user interface is lightyears ahead of Nvidia's, and you don't have to register with your email address for a bunch of stuff like you do with GeForce Experience.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
756 (0.45/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi
Cooling Corsair Hydro H115i
Memory 16Gb CL14 Ripjaws V @3666MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX2070
Storage Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD
Display(s) Korean Unbadged
Case Cooler Master Cosmos
Audio Device(s) O2 USB Headphone AMP
Power Supply Corsair HX850i
Mouse Logitech G703
Keyboard Crap!
Did you expect 1st gen Arc to launch and give AMD and Nvidia a thorough beating right from the start? Come on...

1st gen RDNA didn't beat Nvidia, and had lots of driver and heat issues, but we needed AMD to come up with something to break the monopoly. And they did, and now, everyone is happy with RDNA 2.
I don't know anybody who thought that Intel were capable of delivering a graphics card that was capable of taking on a 3090Ti. I've never read that on any forum, or any tech site.

What people were expecting, was that Intel should be capable of creating a card which would maybe match the midrange cards from nVidia, at the top end.
What people were expecting, was lower prices than nVidia & AMD.
What people were expecting, was better availability of all graphics cards due to having another alternative on the market.
What people were expecting, was more competition for customers money, therefore reigniting the drive for new graphical features to differentiate between offerings from the 3 vendors.
What people were expecting, was having a 3rd player in the market would drive down prices overall.
What people were expecting, was that Intel should have had the experience and expertise to pull off a product launch with only minor issues, certainly not hardware ones. We all expected the drivers to be the weak point, as Intel simply does not know how to make them.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
3,998 (2.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5 6000 MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5, 1 TB Crucial P2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
I don't know anybody who thought that Intel were capable of delivering a graphics card that was capable of taking on a 3090Ti. I've never read that on any forum, or any tech site.

What people were expecting, was that Intel should be capable of creating a card which would maybe match the midrange cards from nVidia, at the top end.
What people were expecting, was lower prices than nVidia & AMD.
What people were expecting, was better availability of all graphics cards due to having another alternative on the market.
What people were expecting, was more competition for customers money, therefore reigniting the drive for new graphical features to differentiate between offerings from the 3 vendors.
What people were expecting, was having a 3rd player in the market would drive down prices overall.
What people were expecting, was that Intel should have had the experience and expertise to pull off a product launch with only minor issues, certainly not hardware ones. We all expected the drivers to be the weak point, as Intel simply does not know how to make them.
We can still expect all of this, as Arc hasn't been launched, yet. Like I said - wait and see. It's still too early to consider it dead.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
1,018 (0.73/day)
Location
UK, Leicester
System Name Main PC
Processor 9900k@4.8ghz 1.25v
Motherboard Asrock Fatality K6 Z370
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory 32 Gig 3200CL14
Video Card(s) 3080 RTX FE
Storage 980 PRO 1TB (OS, others not listed)
Display(s) LG 27GL850
Case Fractal Define R4
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2X
Power Supply Antec HCG 750 Gold
Sitting on stockpiles of AMD and Nvidia eh, who would have thought it haha.
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
3,791 (0.58/day)
Location
Ikenai borderline!
Did you expect 1st gen Arc to launch and give AMD and Nvidia a thorough beating right from the start? Come on...
I've never mentioned anything about Arc beating the incumbents anywhere in any of my posts on this topic, so kindly stop it with your strawman argument.
1st gen RDNA didn't beat Nvidia, and had lots of driver and heat issues, but we needed AMD to come up with something to break the monopoly. And they did, and now, everyone is happy with RDNA 2.
Arc being completely and fundamentally broken and uncompetitive as a completely new and low-end product against strong established competitors, is an absolutely, completely different scenario to AMD releasing a new product line that is competitive in all segments when their drivers work right.
I don't know anybody who thought that Intel were capable of delivering a graphics card that was capable of taking on a 3090Ti. I've never read that on any forum, or any tech site.

What people were expecting, was that Intel should be capable of creating a card which would maybe match the midrange cards from nVidia, at the top end.
What people were expecting, was lower prices than nVidia & AMD.
What people were expecting, was better availability of all graphics cards due to having another alternative on the market.
What people were expecting, was more competition for customers money, therefore reigniting the drive for new graphical features to differentiate between offerings from the 3 vendors.
What people were expecting, was having a 3rd player in the market would drive down prices overall.
What people were expecting, was that Intel should have had the experience and expertise to pull off a product launch with only minor issues, certainly not hardware ones. We all expected the drivers to be the weak point, as Intel simply does not know how to make them.
Thank you for demonstrating that you are also capable of logical thought.
We can still expect all of this, as Arc hasn't been launched, yet. Like I said - wait and see. It's still too early to consider it dead.
It has launched. In China. And it's shit. Try reading the review that was literally posted on this site.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eidairaman1

The Exiled Airman
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
37,610 (6.68/day)
Location
Republic of Texas (True Patriot)
System Name PCGOD
Processor AMD FX 8350@ 5.0GHz
Motherboard Asus TUF 990FX Sabertooth R2 2901 Bios
Cooling Scythe Ashura, 2×BitFenix 230mm Spectre Pro LED (Blue,Green), 2x BitFenix 140mm Spectre Pro LED
Memory 16 GB Gskill Ripjaws X 2133 (2400 OC, 10-10-12-20-20, 1T, 1.65V)
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon 290 Sapphire Vapor-X
Storage Samsung 840 Pro 256GB, WD Velociraptor 1TB
Display(s) NEC Multisync LCD 1700V (Display Port Adapter)
Case AeroCool Xpredator Evil Blue Edition
Audio Device(s) Creative Labs Sound Blaster ZxR
Power Supply Seasonic 1250 XM2 Series (XP3)
Mouse Roccat Kone XTD
Keyboard Roccat Ryos MK Pro
Software Windows 7 Pro 64
Well, this time it got further than larrabee
Still doa

Right? I know a lot of people have been pissed at the launch issues but honestly I don't know what everyone expected. This is a new industry they're launching in to, there's going to be some inevitable growing pains.

The problem for me is how wishy-washy they're being post-launch. They're absolutely destroying consumer goodwill with this sheepish response to the issues DG128 has. It makes them seem like they never really cared about it that much in the first place are being too willing to just abandon it. They either needed to be honest with their customers during the development process and make sure everybody knew this was a moonshot type launch and to brace for impact, or get the hype train rolling (like they did) and then when the launch didn't go the way they wanted it to, reassure everyone that they stand behind their promise and guarantee the product will improve and then actually DO it. Not, y'know, cut the entire damn AXG division.

I basically live next door to the site where Intel is set to build their new fabs in Ohio. People used to be absolutely hyped for it and the investment it would bring. Now the general sentiment is Intel is pulling an Amazon and is all talk about this grand new project but the delivery date might as well be 10 years out for all we know.
Um no it is not a new industry they are launching into, they had the i740 which flopped, then larabbee which was DOA, plus the igps over the decades, ARC is DOA at this rate.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
1,018 (0.73/day)
Location
UK, Leicester
System Name Main PC
Processor 9900k@4.8ghz 1.25v
Motherboard Asrock Fatality K6 Z370
Cooling Noctua NH-D15S
Memory 32 Gig 3200CL14
Video Card(s) 3080 RTX FE
Storage 980 PRO 1TB (OS, others not listed)
Display(s) LG 27GL850
Case Fractal Define R4
Audio Device(s) Asus Xonar D2X
Power Supply Antec HCG 750 Gold
If Intel abandon ARC from this first generation, that would show extreme short termism, they probably should have launched later when the drivers were at least functioning properly on a basic level, and the cards should have been much cheaper concentrating on building up a user base instead of profitability.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
17,577 (5.86/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Audio Device(s) Situational :)
Power Supply EVGA G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
that's not true, the 480 barely consumed more power then the 1060

And performed way worse at that power draw. Check your own review. 60 vs 52 fps 1% lows in GTAV 1080p isn't little, its the gap between framedrops and stable FPS on that game and overall there is a 15% perf gap.

This persists throughout a broad range of games:
1659810380266.png

So great, it uses the same amount of power. Its also a stuttery GPU. The above differences are night and day. Before we praise Polaris, look at how similar it performs to the 390X, in lows. Its just a minor update to GCN, not much else - and a good one, in relative sense: lows and averages definitely got closer together. But Nvidia was on a completely different level by then, being almost rock solid.

See this is the point really that was emerging as it always has in a few decades of seeing the battle Nvidia/AMD: power is everything. And that applies broadly. You need the graphical power, but you also need to run that at the lowest possible TDP. You need a stack that can scale and maintain efficiency.

As the node stalled at 28nm for a huge amount of time, that's when the efficiency battle was on in earnest: after all, how do you differentiate when you're all on the same silicon? You can't hide anything by saying 'we're behind' or 'we're ahead'. What we saw in the Kepler > Pascal generations was hot competition because architecture was everything. AMD was pushing an early success with GCN's 7950 & 7970 and basically rode that train until Hawaii XT, and then rebranded on the same chip even, still selling it because it was actually still competitive and by then super cheap.

AMD stayed on that train for far too long and then accumulated 2 years of falling behind on Nvidia. Its 2H2022 and they still haven't caught up. They might have performance parity with Nvidia, but that's with a lacking featureset. Luckily its a featureset that isn't a must have yet, but its only since a few months now that we have a solid DLSS alternative for example.

Now, apply this lens on Team Blue. Arc is releasing to compete with product performance we've had (more than?) two years ago in the upper midrange - and note: Turing was the first gen taking twice as long to release as we were used to, so in the 'normal' cadence of 1~1,5year gen upgrades the gap would have been bigger. It does so with a grossly inefficient architecture, and the node advantage doesn't cover the gap either. It uses a good 30-50% more power for the same workload as a competitor. Or it could use equal power, like your 1060 comparison, and then perform a whole lot less, dropping even further down the stack. On top of that, there is no history of driver support to trust on and no full support at launch.

Its literally repeating the same mistakes we've seen not very long ago, and we can't laugh at Intel in its face because they're such a potential competitor? There is no potential! There never was, and many people called it - simply because they/we know how effin' hard this race really is. We've seen the two giants struggle. We've seen Raja fall into the very same holes he did at AMD/RTG.

I can honestly see just one saving grace for Intel: The currently exploding TDP budgets. It means Intel can ride a solid arch for longer than one generation just by sizing it up. But... you need a solid arch first, and Arc is not it by design, because the primary product is Xe. As long as there is no absolute, near-fanatical devotion to a gaming GPU line, you can safely forget it. And this isn't news: Nvidia was chopping down their featureset towards pure gaming chips for a decade already; stacking one successful year upon another.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
3,998 (2.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5 6000 MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5, 1 TB Crucial P2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
I've never mentioned anything about Arc beating the incumbents anywhere in any of my posts on this topic, so kindly stop it with your strawman argument.
Please watch your tone. I never swore at you, so I think it'd be fair to expect the same from you.

Arc being completely and fundamentally broken and uncompetitive as a completely new and low-end product against strong established competitors, is an absolutely, completely different scenario to AMD releasing a new product line that is competitive in all segments when their drivers work right.
How do you know it's broken and uncompetitive? Do you have an A770 in your rig? Or are you basing your judgement on rumours and Gamer's Nexus's clickbait video on the A380?

It has launched. In China. And it's shit. Try reading the review that was literally posted on this site.
I did, and it didn't seem so bad. Also, it's the A380, which is the lowest of the low end. Don't judge the whole series based on a single contender. Or would it be fair to judge RDNA 2 based on the RX 6400?

I have to say it's stupid to form any opinion on an unreleased product. China doesn't count. When the rest of the Arc Alchemist series is released, and we can finally get our hands on one, we can see for ourselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,743 (0.89/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K
Motherboard ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock
Memory Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1600 MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB
Storage Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB
Display(s) Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24"
Case Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2
Audio Device(s) Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus
Power Supply Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard CM Storm QuickFire XT
Software Ubuntu
Now, apply this lens on Team Blue. Arc is releasing to compete with product performance we've had (more than?) two years ago in the upper midrange - and note: Turing was the first gen taking twice as long to release as we were used to, so in the 'normal' cadence of 1~1,5year gen upgrades the gap would have been bigger. It does so with a grossly inefficient architecture, and the node advantage doesn't cover the gap either. It uses a good 30-50% more power for the same workload as a competitor. Or it could use equal power, like your 1060 comparison, and then perform a whole lot less, dropping even further down the stack.
When someone have an inferior product, the right pricing can still make it a compelling product. Unfortunately for AMD with their RX 480 vs GTX 1060 situation, their production volume was too low (GTX 1060 typically had 10x the user base in the Steam survey back then), and combined with more VRAM and higher TDP, this made it hard for AMD to sell them cheaper.

As for Intel's ARC, providing Intel have a decent amount of fully working dies, Intel have the financial muscles to take a temporary loss for market penetration. If Intel have loads of dies which are not assembled on PCBs yet, they can even choose to use cheaper VRAM and other cost saving measures to make a budget card.
 

95Viper

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
11,404 (2.21/day)
Stay on the topic.
Do not insult other members.
Discuss the topic, not each other... and, be civil about it.
Post facts... not personal attacks!
 
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
1,923 (3.40/day)
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard B550 Elite
Cooling Hyperx 212
Memory 32GB Fury Beast DDR4 3200Mhz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte 3060 ti gaming oc pro
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 1TB, WD SN850x 1TB, plus some random HDDs
Display(s) LG 27gp850 1440p 165Hz 27''
Case Lian Li Lancool II performance
Power Supply MSI 750w
Mouse G502
And performed way worse at that power draw. Check your own review. 60 vs 52 fps 1% lows in GTAV 1080p isn't little, its the gap between framedrops and stable FPS on that game and overall there is a 15% perf gap.

This persists throughout a broad range of games:
View attachment 257181
So great, it uses the same amount of power. Its also a stuttery GPU. The above differences are night and day. Before we praise Polaris, look at how similar it performs to the 390X, in lows. Its just a minor update to GCN, not much else - and a good one, in relative sense: lows and averages definitely got closer together. But Nvidia was on a completely different level by then, being almost rock solid.

See this is the point really that was emerging as it always has in a few decades of seeing the battle Nvidia/AMD: power is everything. And that applies broadly. You need the graphical power, but you also need to run that at the lowest possible TDP. You need a stack that can scale and maintain efficiency.

As the node stalled at 28nm for a huge amount of time, that's when the efficiency battle was on in earnest: after all, how do you differentiate when you're all on the same silicon? You can't hide anything by saying 'we're behind' or 'we're ahead'. What we saw in the Kepler > Pascal generations was hot competition because architecture was everything. AMD was pushing an early success with GCN's 7950 & 7970 and basically rode that train until Hawaii XT, and then rebranded on the same chip even, still selling it because it was actually still competitive and by then super cheap.

AMD stayed on that train for far too long and then accumulated 2 years of falling behind on Nvidia. Its 2H2022 and they still haven't caught up. They might have performance parity with Nvidia, but that's with a lacking featureset. Luckily its a featureset that isn't a must have yet, but its only since a few months now that we have a solid DLSS alternative for example.

Now, apply this lens on Team Blue. Arc is releasing to compete with product performance we've had (more than?) two years ago in the upper midrange - and note: Turing was the first gen taking twice as long to release as we were used to, so in the 'normal' cadence of 1~1,5year gen upgrades the gap would have been bigger. It does so with a grossly inefficient architecture, and the node advantage doesn't cover the gap either. It uses a good 30-50% more power for the same workload as a competitor. Or it could use equal power, like your 1060 comparison, and then perform a whole lot less, dropping even further down the stack. On top of that, there is no history of driver support to trust on and no full support at launch.

Its literally repeating the same mistakes we've seen not very long ago, and we can't laugh at Intel in its face because they're such a potential competitor? There is no potential! There never was, and many people called it - simply because they/we know how effin' hard this race really is. We've seen the two giants struggle. We've seen Raja fall into the very same holes he did at AMD/RTG.

I can honestly see just one saving grace for Intel: The currently exploding TDP budgets. It means Intel can ride a solid arch for longer than one generation just by sizing it up. But... you need a solid arch first, and Arc is not it by design, because the primary product is Xe. As long as there is no absolute, near-fanatical devotion to a gaming GPU line, you can safely forget it. And this isn't news: Nvidia was chopping down their featureset towards pure gaming chips for a decade already; stacking one successful year upon another.

I literally owned them both, that's at release and we all know how shitty AMD is at drivers especially at launch, and most times way beyond that (rx 5700 was a mess). That reflects power draw, drivers don't change that, but it doesn't reflect the difference between them in performance later on
 

Mussels

Freshwater Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
55,498 (8.37/day)
Location
Oystralia
System Name Rainbow Sparkles (Power efficient, <350W gaming load)
Processor Ryzen R7 5800x3D (Undervolted, 4.45GHz all core)
Motherboard Asus x570 Gaming-F
Cooling Alphacool Apex UV - Alphacool Eisblock XPX Aurora + EK Quantum ARGB 3090 w/ active backplate
Memory 2x32GB DDR4 3600 Corsair Vengeance RGB @3866 C18-22-22-22-42 TRFC704 (1.4V, SoC 1.175V Hynix MJR)
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 3090 SG 24GB: Underclocked to 1700Mhz 0.737v (375W down to 250W))
Storage 2TB WD SN850 NVME + 1TB Sasmsung 970 Pro NVME + 1TB Intel 6000P NVME USB 3.2
Display(s) Kogan 32" 4K 70Hz + Gigabyte G32QC (1440p 165Hz) + Phillips 328m6fjrmb (1440p 144Hz)
Case Fractal Design R6
Audio Device(s) Logitech G560 | Corsair Void pro RGB |Blue Yeti mic
Power Supply Fractal Ion+ 2 860W (Platinum) (This thing is God-tier. Silent and TINY)
Mouse Logitech G Pro wireless + Steelseries Prisma XL
Keyboard Razer Huntsman TE (custom white and steel keycaps)
VR HMD Oculus Rift S + Quest 2
Software Windows 11 pro x64 (Yes, it's genuinely a good OS) OpenRGB - ditch the branded bloatware!
For what it's worth my Vega56 has aged like fine wine. Runs cool as a cucumber with an undervolt+ overclock and great driver support. Runs my 4k60 titles like a champ. The same can't be said of the 1070.
My 1070ti and 1080 both run amazing and cold, they just needed a repaste along the way
My 1080 was on water, and when it went back to air I prepared for the worst... to find out I cant hear it when gaming, and my issues years before were just bad stock TIM.

I still think we need to wait and see what this quality control issue was, as we have no evidence it was an intel supplied part
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2018
Messages
756 (0.45/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero WiFi
Cooling Corsair Hydro H115i
Memory 16Gb CL14 Ripjaws V @3666MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX2070
Storage Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD
Display(s) Korean Unbadged
Case Cooler Master Cosmos
Audio Device(s) O2 USB Headphone AMP
Power Supply Corsair HX850i
Mouse Logitech G703
Keyboard Crap!
If Intel abandon ARC from this first generation, that would show extreme short termism, they probably should have launched later when the drivers were at least functioning properly on a basic level, and the cards should have been much cheaper concentrating on building up a user base instead of profitability.
I agree, but from what I understand, the cards are already delayed more than 7 months now due to the driver team not being able to deliver. The strange thing about the drivers, is apparently, simple things like buttons in the driver control panel don't work, or work in unintended ways. It's like nobody is actually eating the dogfood the team is putting out...

If the drivers are in that kind of state, and basically need another 6-9 months in the oven, then by the time everything is ready, and they have spun a new PCB revision, then Intel will be competing with next gen cards from AMD & nVidia, and will be lucky for ARC to compete against even the lowest end cards, so Intel will be forced to slash prices. I think this first iteration of ARC is DOA, it's simply too late, too expensive and too underpowered to have any meaningful impact on the market by the time it's released.

I hope that Intel fix what is wrong, concentrate in the top two or three SKU's, release them as loss-leaders to be competitive, and get their asses working on the next gen as fast as they can. I would assume that the drivers will be based on the same foundation as the first gen, so they should be fairly stable by then.

I feel that Intel really should stick with ARC, and it would be short-sighted to completely cancel the discreet GPU project. I don't trust Intel not to simply align with the other two vendors and pricefix the market, but I at least hope that they actually do intend to be competitive, and keep the low to mid range prices sane, as I'm sure nVidia want to move the midrange to $800+ after what happened to the 3070.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
17,577 (5.86/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Audio Device(s) Situational :)
Power Supply EVGA G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
I literally owned them both, that's at release and we all know how shitty AMD is at drivers especially at launch, and most times way beyond that (rx 5700 was a mess). That reflects power draw, drivers don't change that, but it doesn't reflect the difference between them in performance later on
The RX480 is just almost a tier below a 1060... even not counting power. I don't really understand the comparison. RX480 competed with GTX970, realistically, but was too late for it. Polaris drivers weren't horrible at launch, were they?
 
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
1,923 (3.40/day)
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard B550 Elite
Cooling Hyperx 212
Memory 32GB Fury Beast DDR4 3200Mhz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte 3060 ti gaming oc pro
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 1TB, WD SN850x 1TB, plus some random HDDs
Display(s) LG 27gp850 1440p 165Hz 27''
Case Lian Li Lancool II performance
Power Supply MSI 750w
Mouse G502
The RX480 is just almost a tier below a 1060... even not counting power. I don't really understand the comparison. RX480 competed with GTX970, realistically, but was too late for it. Polaris drivers weren't horrible at launch, were they?

rx 470 (that i also owned one) was/his around 1050ti performance, rx480 was/his around 1060 6gb performance. Excluding bad drivers or the occasional AMD/Nvidia sponsored/optimised game.

No way the RX 480 was 1050ti performance, that makes no sense, i'm sorry
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
10,770 (2.32/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II/Trig
Processor Amd R5 5600G/ Intel 8750H/3800X
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus/crosshair hero 7
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire refference Rx vega 64 EK waterblocked/Rtx 2060/GTX 1060
Storage Silicon power 1TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dellshiter
Case Lianli p0-11 dynamic/strix scar2/aero cool shiter
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock /850 watt ?
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
The RX480 is just almost a tier below a 1060... even not counting power. I don't really understand the comparison. RX480 competed with GTX970, realistically, but was too late for it. Polaris drivers weren't horrible at launch, were they?
I own both still, used both extensively, that's rubbish they're about equal all told.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2020
Messages
61 (0.06/day)
Location
3rd world sh1thole, AKA italy
System Name AMDream v1.8.1
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 5600X+TechN AM4
Motherboard Asus Prime B550-Plus
Cooling CPU+GPU custom loop, 2x240 slim rads, 4xEK Vardar Evo RGB+1x Arctic P12 PWM fans
Memory 2x8GB Crucial Ballistix Red RGB DDR4 3600@3866 15-18-13-35-59 1T
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 reference+EK block, OC/UV: 1075mV core,1100MHz@800mV HBM
Storage 1TB Western Digital SN850+Eluteng NVMe heatsink
Display(s) LG 24ML600S+Dell VESA base
Case Aerocool Aero-800 White
Audio Device(s) Creative Inspire P380
Power Supply EVGA 650GQ
Mouse Steelseries Rival original (white), Steelseries Qck+ mousepad
Keyboard Arealer Roarer with white pudding keycaps (Long Hua blue switches)
Software Windows 11 Pro
Benchmark Scores 11150-1520 Cineb.R23, 4993 Superposition, 12230 Fire Strike Extreme
For what it's worth my Vega56 has aged like fine wine. Runs cool as a cucumber with an undervolt+ overclock and great driver support. Runs my 4k60 titles like a champ. The same can't be said of the 1070.
I’m still happily using my 64, bought the last week of Sept. 2017. Runs 1080p60 or 75 (my current entry-level monitor) ultra without any issue even on recent games (albeit I never installed any 2021-22 game for now, big backlog to finish first) and often 1440p VSR. Of course it’s OCed and UVed since day… five I believe?
I have a winter and a summer setting in Wattman. The winter one is around 15% faster than a stock with the fan at 83756857rpm (XD), but with only 10-20w more (as reported by GPU-Z) at 100% (HBM 1100MHz, 1.04v, stock frequency, +50%PL), and 20-30 less under 90%. It’s perfect since it helps heating the underside of my desk, since in my room during winter I rarely see more than 19°C (upper floor with a radiator, but the heater is controller by the lower floor which is always 2°C hotter than my room).
And the summer one is a super-efficient one, basically the same performance as a stock, air-cooled one (1395MHz, 0.9v, HBM 1095MHz) but with 70w less (again, by GPU-Z). It’s around a 1080 in both performance and efficiency.
The only driver issue I had was 3-4 years ago, there was a memory leak with Forza Horizon 3 that prevented its boot, promptly solved a week later with the next beta.

I always used Radeon GPUs, so that’s why I bought the 64 vs the 1080, and I’m going to buy a 7700XT-7800 (together with a 1440p144 27” IPS display) when they’ll be released.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,743 (0.89/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X ||| Intel Core i7-3930K
Motherboard ASUS ProArt B550-CREATOR ||| Asus P9X79 WS
Cooling Noctua NH-U14S ||| Be Quiet Pure Rock
Memory Crucial 2 x 16 GB 3200 MHz ||| Corsair 8 x 8 GB 1600 MHz
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1060 3GB ||| MSI GTX 680 4GB
Storage Samsung 970 PRO 512 GB + 1 TB ||| Intel 545s 512 GB + 256 GB
Display(s) Asus ROG Swift PG278QR 27" ||| Eizo EV2416W 24"
Case Fractal Design Define 7 XL x 2
Audio Device(s) Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus
Power Supply Seasonic Focus PX-850 x 2
Mouse Razer Abyssus
Keyboard CM Storm QuickFire XT
Software Ubuntu
Has anyone else been puzzled about the games which Intel showcased as tier 1 games performing the best for Arc?
F1 2021 - Isn't this game (and its predecessors) typically statistically outliers scaling very differently from most other games?
Cyberpunk 2077 - Big title, but not known as a particularly well made game.
Control - I'm not familiar, so no comment.
Borderlands 3 - An Unreal game, fairly popular but not impressive graphically or well scaling.
Fortnite - Another Unreal game, very popular but not known for good graphics scaling, as any Unreal game.

So, these are the games they claimed to be best "optimized", when at least two of them are using an "universal" game engine with just high-level rendering code written for those games, one is known to be bad and one is an outlier. I honestly think they were just grasping at straws to find any games where A750 outperformed RTX 3060, instead of finding the most cutting edge ones.
What's next, are they going to showcase the best new GPU for WoW, CS:GO and the Sims 4?

The strange thing about the drivers, is apparently, simple things like buttons in the driver control panel don't work, or work in unintended ways. It's like nobody is actually eating the dogfood the team is putting out...

If the drivers are in that kind of state, and basically need another 6-9 months in the oven…
I have a very good theory of how them managed to ship a such broken driver package, but I want to stress that it's speculation, other than the fact that their driver was fairly stable prior to adding additional "gaming features" and gimmicks. So my theory is that the driver was fairly good and QAed until they started merging in extra features and gimmicks. It's fairly common in large code projects to have multiple teams working on separate branches, and run into problems where branch A and B works fine by themselves, but introduces completely new bugs when combined. So whenever merging in a new feature, the entire software package needs a new round of QA, which is the reason for having a "feature freeze" long before a planned release, this is well known among software developers. Yet, many companies have team leaders or management who thinks merging features last-minute is a good thing.

The RX480 is just almost a tier below a 1060... even not counting power. I don't really understand the comparison. RX480 competed with GTX970, realistically, but was too late for it.
If you remember, back in those days RX 480 wasn't just compared to GTX 1060, many forum warriors claimed that RX 480 was significantly better than GTX 1060, that it was just a matter of some driver tweaks and voila, it should perform in the GTX 1070 ~ GTX 1080 range. They were siting the same old lies about the driver being "immature" and "games being optimized for Nvidia". So did RX 480 ever unlock that ~30-40+% extra performance with optimized drivers? No. And it's probably a matter of time before AMD drops driver support for it, as they have dropped 200/300 series already.

Pacal (Geforce 10 series) will probably remain as one of the "best" architectures and GPU investments in terms of how long the GPU is useful for gaming. Just look at GTX 1060, a card which 6 years later can almost compete with lower mid-range cards, and those who bought GTX 1080/1070 Ti can still game well, albeit not on the highest settings. Except for RT, Pascal has aged very well, much better than the generations before it, and likely better than Turing and Ampere will.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
3,998 (2.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5 6000 MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5, 1 TB Crucial P2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
Has anyone else been puzzled about the games which Intel showcased as tier 1 games performing the best for Arc?

F1 2021 - Isn't this game (and its predecessors) typically statistically outliers scaling very differently from most other games?
Cyberpunk 2077 - Big title, but not known as a particularly well made game.
Control - I'm not familiar, so no comment.
Borderlands 3 - An Unreal game, fairly popular but not impressive graphically or well scaling.
Fortnite - Another Unreal game, very popular but not known for good graphics scaling, as any Unreal game.

So, these are the games they claimed to be best "optimized", when at least two of them are using an "universal" game engine with just high-level rendering code written for those games, one is known to be bad and one is an outlier. I honestly think they were just grasping at straws to find any games where A750 outperformed RTX 3060, instead of finding the most cutting edge ones.
What's next, are they going to showcase the best new GPU for WoW, CS:GO and the Sims 4?
Interesting question. Since we're in theory-land now, my theory is this:

F1: It's a well-optimised game series that is historically known to run well on a potato without issues. At least none of my PC configurations (I change components quite often) ran the current iteration below 100 FPS.
Cyberpunk and Control: Based on the A380 review here at TPU, Arc seems to ray trace quite alright. Intel probably managed to find a combination of settings that plays to Arc's advantage with RT.
Borderlands and Fortnite: I don't play these games, but aren't these the kind of titles that run on a potato to make sure the intended audience (kids) can play it too?
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
2,333 (0.52/day)
Location
Marlow, ENGLAND
System Name Chachamaru-IV | Retro Battlestation
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X | Intel Pentium II 450MHz
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX X570-F Gaming | MSI MS-6116 (Intel 440BX chipset)
Cooling Noctua NH-D15 SE-AM4
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR4-3000 (16-20-20-38) | 512MB PC133 SDRAM
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 3070 GameRock OC | 3dfx Voodoo3 3000
Storage 1TB WD_Black SN850 NVME SSD (OS), Toshiba 3TB (Storage), Toshiba 3TB (Steam)
Display(s) Samsung Odyssey G5 27" @ 1440p144 & Dell P2312H @ 1080p60
Case SilverStone Seta A1 | Beige box
Audio Device(s) Creative Sound Blaster AE-7 (Speakers), Creative Zen Hybrid headset | Sound Blaster AWE64
Power Supply EVGA Supernova 750 G2 | 250W ASETEC
Mouse Razer DeathAdder V2 Pro | Microsoft Serial Mouse v2.0A
Keyboard Vortex Race3 | Dell AT102W
Software Microsoft Windows 11 Pro | Microsoft Windows 98SE
I never thought Borderlands was a game aimed at kids. And it's always been a relatively heavy hitter in terms of graphics performance, despite how it looks.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2019
Messages
3,998 (2.82/day)
Location
Midlands, UK
System Name Nebulon-B Mk. 4
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 7700X
Motherboard MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi
Cooling be quiet! Silent Loop 2 280 mm
Memory 2x 16 GB Corsair Vengeance EXPO DDR5 6000 MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT
Storage 1 TB Crucial P5, 1 TB Crucial P2
Display(s) Samsung C24F390, 7" Waveshare touchscreen
Case Kolink Citadel Mesh black
Power Supply Seasonic Prime GX-750
Mouse Cherry MW 8 Advanced
Keyboard MagicForce 68
Software Windows 10 Pro
I never thought Borderlands was a game aimed at kids. And it's always been a relatively heavy hitter in terms of graphics performance, despite how it looks.
I might have confused it with something else, then.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
17,577 (5.86/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Audio Device(s) Situational :)
Power Supply EVGA G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
I own both still, used both extensively, that's rubbish they're about equal all told.
Interesting, because benchmarks don't tell that story.

There is a 9-19% performance gap (on average FPS) between the two cards in current day benches and there was at launch, as pointed out by the link earlier.
Userbenchmark agrees - though I'm the last to take that as simple truth, I won't be able to defend 'its coincidental' that all those numbers point in the same direction.

The best case scenario for the RX480 is that it gets equal~ish FPS in select titles. But that's not counting the lows. This was not different from the situation at launch: look at the huge gap between averages and 1% lows and how it compares to any Pascal card.

Rubbish or not, the numbers don't lie. Some tinted glasses apply here, I'm sorry to break the dream.

I literally owned them both, that's at release and we all know how shitty AMD is at drivers especially at launch, and most times way beyond that (rx 5700 was a mess). That reflects power draw, drivers don't change that, but it doesn't reflect the difference between them in performance later on
Same applies to you.

The most interesting bit here is how this all works in our heads, I think. The numbers simply don't lie. But I recognize the sentiment. We're easily telling ourselves this is just as good because the 'differences are minor'. That's all your ego at work, not rationale.

In other words, don't take this as criticism, take it as a point of reflection. I get it, and I do it myself. I always compare my GTX 1080 to anything else to determine what's good or not. Its crazy how powerful the brain is in drawing our picture for us.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 17, 2021
Messages
1,923 (3.40/day)
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard B550 Elite
Cooling Hyperx 212
Memory 32GB Fury Beast DDR4 3200Mhz
Video Card(s) Gigabyte 3060 ti gaming oc pro
Storage Samsung 970 Evo 1TB, WD SN850x 1TB, plus some random HDDs
Display(s) LG 27gp850 1440p 165Hz 27''
Case Lian Li Lancool II performance
Power Supply MSI 750w
Mouse G502
Interesting, because benchmarks don't tell that story.

There is a 9-19% performance gap (on average FPS) between the two cards in current day benches and there was at launch, as pointed out by the link earlier.
Userbenchmark agrees - though I'm the last to take that as simple truth, I won't be able to defend 'its coincidental' that all those numbers point in the same direction.

The best case scenario for the RX480 is that it gets equal~ish FPS in select titles. But that's not counting the lows. This was not different from the situation at launch: look at the huge gap between averages and 1% lows and how it compares to any Pascal card.

Rubbish or not, the numbers don't lie. Some tinted glasses apply here, I'm sorry to break the dream.


Same applies to you.

The most interesting bit here is how this all works in our heads, I think. The numbers simply don't lie. But I recognize the sentiment. We're easily telling ourselves this is just as good because the 'differences are minor'. That's all your ego at work, not rationale.

when you use userbenchmark you're already losing the argument. You're in a website that does a much better job at it and you choose to ignore to go with userbenchmark. OK i guess.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
17,577 (5.86/day)
Location
The Washing Machine
Processor i7 8700k 4.6Ghz @ 1.24V
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Gigabyte G34QWC (3440x1440)
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Audio Device(s) Situational :)
Power Supply EVGA G2 750W
Mouse XTRFY M42
Keyboard Lenovo Thinkpad Trackpoint II
Software W10 x64
when you use userbenchmark you're already losing the argument. You're in a website that does a much better job at it and you choose to ignore to go with userbenchmark. OK i guess.
1659894631231.png


Suit yourself ;) I pointed out your own review link, userbenchmark, and now here we have another 10% which is not counting the 1% lows.
 
Top