the pics show single 8pin power connector
the power draw is 92W and dual 8pin would be far too much of an overkill.

China exclusive brand? Never seen this name.

I can't shake off this feeling that the shroud is 3D printed, like there's something off about it.

"Released" in what meaning of the word?

Wait, no announcement from Intel on this? Does Intel even know?:rolleyes:

These Arc updates were getting old 6 months ago...its well beyond time for something legit.

Bwaze"Released" in what meaning of the word?

Looks like a paper launch at this point.

Aliexpress link to buy it?

If I can't buy/order one from my usual vendor here in the US, it's still v.A.p.O.r.W.a.R.e.Z IMHO, therefore...

y/A/w/N........

joan16vAliexpress link to buy it?

Youll get a gts 450 disguised as an arc from there

"Into The". What?

Wouldn't this be a issue ?, would it not course uneven mounting(pressure\stress ) or some issue down the road with it being offset.

I hope 92W not to be an indication for A380 requirements.
If there are slot powered versions even at reference frequencies everything is fine, but the 75W official TDP, doesn't Inspire much confidence.
After the RX480->RX580 transition that we went from "150W" with "compatibility" drivers for the reference model (6pin) , to 185W (8pin) for just a 6-7% performance boost (was it Raja's proposition?) and the positive reviews that RX580 got in relation with RX480, it seems that the industry got a message that most of the people is fine with a 23% increase in power as long as we get a misly 6%- 7% increase in performance, which i think is wrong (just look how much more popular is RX6400 vs RX6500XT, in Europe they are selling with only 10€ difference with one reason being that RX6400 being slot powered opens up a whole market that the higher powered RX6500XT just can't reach)

ZeppMan217I can't shake off this feeling that the shroud is 3D printed, like there's something off about it.

The lines in the bottom part do give some 3D printed vibes but looks fine to me, it's a simple design, way less off-putting than what MSI/Asus/Gigabyte usually put out.

I like they went with 8pin instead of 6pin power connector, no 2 extra pins hanging off of the cable. The heatsink though doesn't seem particularly nice, looks to be a simpler and cheap metal piece with some fins formed instead of a cold plate+heatpipes+fins design

Is that the legendary pownage biostar cooler? :D

AsRock

Wouldn't this be a issue ?, would it not course uneven mounting(pressure\stress ) or some issue down the road with it being offset.

Uh, Intel and AMD have been doing offset dies on their processor packages for years now. It's completely normal...

From left to right:
Ryzen 5, Tiger Lake laptop, Intel NUC

Bwaze"Released" in what meaning of the word?

They made a drawing of it. Seems most Intel releases are that way in 2022.

Chrispy_Uh, Intel and AMD have been doing offset dies on their processor packages for years now. It's completely normal...

From left to right:
Ryzen 5, Tiger Lake laptop, Intel NUC

Yes but those have support or even a ih on them, will see when we actually get some real pics.

AsRockYes but those have support or even a ih on them, will see when we actually get some real pics.

It's actually pretty centered, the packaging is just misleading

trsttteIt's actually pretty centered, the packaging is just misleading

That's my point ( i think that would put more presure on one side of the pcb), but maybe they will have support like nVidia\amd chips do or done like CPU's are today.

It's a crappy picture anyways, should of known not to said any thing.

AsRockThat's my point ( i think that would put more presure on one side of the pcb), but maybe they will have support like nVidia\amd chips do or done like CPU's are today.

It's a crappy picture anyways, should of known not to said any thing.

The package is soldered to the board, I don't think it will move anywhere

rusTORK"Into The". What?

It can't be unseen. My guess is void. :D

ModEl4I hope 92W not to be an indication for A380 requirements.
If there are slot powered versions even at reference frequencies everything is fine, but the 75W official TDP, doesn't Inspire much confidence.
After the RX480->RX580 transition that we went from "150W" with "compatibility" drivers for the reference model (6pin) , to 185W (8pin) for just a 6-7% performance boost (was it Raja's proposition?) and the positive reviews that RX580 got in relation with RX480, it seems that the industry got a message that most of the people is fine with a 23% increase in power as long as we get a misly 6%- 7% increase in performance, which i think is wrong (just look how much more popular is RX6400 vs RX6500XT, in Europe they are selling with only 10€ difference with one reason being that RX6400 being slot powered opens up a whole market that the higher powered RX6500XT just can't reach)

The RX580 was'nt released on purpose. It's more like TSMC optimizes the proces or wafers and simply shoves that under the nose of AMD. You get either xx w less power at same clocks or you get higher performance at the expensive of the initial gains. So it's rebranded into a RX580 model. Bit higher clocks and a bit more power.

For the 480/580 to compete clocks had to be turned up. It was going against the 1060 and for 200 to 250$ it was the best 1080p card you could get.

Now as for intel; the performance just did'nt match the initial goal. It's simple as that. I see left and right more and more that compute is perhaps equal to a Geforce or Radeon but in real life scenarios it lacks punch. It's another Vega, computational card ported to function as a graphics card.

This generation of Arc's will simply flop, fail, not just on hardware level but also on software level. There's so many games it just does'nt function properly, check the changelog here of the latest drivers:

videocardz.com/driver/intel-arc-graphics-driver-30-0-101-1736

Or here: videocardz.com/newz/intel-arc-desktop-gpus-may-be-slower-than-previously-expected-a-new-performance-prediction-for-the-whole-series-suggests

Here's your graph for the Arc 380:



It will be simular to a RX6400. To put that into perspective: www.techspot.com/review/2456-amd-radeon-6400/

A RX580 or 1060 will beat that quite easily. It's raja all over again. Unable to deliver.

trsttteThe package is soldered to the board, I don't think it will move anywhere

..........

JismThe RX580 was'nt released on purpose. It's more like TSMC optimizes the proces or wafers and simply shoves that under the nose of AMD. You get either xx w less power at same clocks or you get higher performance at the expensive of the initial gains. So it's rebranded into a RX580 model. Bit higher clocks and a bit more power.

For the 480/580 to compete clocks had to be turned up. It was going against the 1060 and for 200 to 250$ it was the best 1080p card you could get.

Now as for intel; the performance just did'nt match the initial goal. It's simple as that. I see left and right more and more that compute is perhaps equal to a Geforce or Radeon but in real life scenarios it lacks punch. It's another Vega, computational card ported to function as a graphics card.

This generation of Arc's will simply flop, fail, not just on hardware level but also on software level. There's so many games it just does'nt function properly, check the changelog here of the latest drivers:

videocardz.com/driver/intel-arc-graphics-driver-30-0-101-1736

Or here: videocardz.com/newz/intel-arc-desktop-gpus-may-be-slower-than-previously-expected-a-new-performance-prediction-for-the-whole-series-suggests

Here's your graph for the Arc 380:



It will be simular to a RX6400. To put that into perspective: www.techspot.com/review/2456-amd-radeon-6400/

A RX580 or 1060 will beat that quite easily. It's raja all over again. Unable to deliver.

What do you mean «The RX580 was'nt released on purpose», what's the alternative, by chance, accidentally, unintentionally?
Even if TSMC improved after 9months the node, why do you think «TSMC shoved that under the nose of AMD».
Anyway it was a conscious business decision by AMD that in the end paid off, because RX480 although great offer, it lost in performance/W vs GTX 1060, it had the TDP 150W fiasco, the frequency just shy of what it would need to come on top of GTX 1060, so at launch was also slower than GTX 1060, after 9 months with higher TBP, frequency and with a little bit more mature drivers plus the reviewers added after 9 months some more newer games, it managed to overcome GTX 1060 performance, so at least in one metric it was better and the power consumption although worst it required just one 8pin for most of the OC models so it wasn't really a deal breaker for most people.
But the RX480-RX580 example was just to indicate that the industry seems that took the wrong message with all the positive RX580 reviews and I think sometimes it's better to lower a bit the frequency if it gives you access to a whole new market like RX6500XT-RX6400 case, that's what Intel should have done with A380 imo.
About the rest a have my own prediction (slightly worse than VideoCardz) , I really don't care about Videocardz's prediction anyway.
But let's take the one you quoted:
ARC A780 16GB:
Slightly worse than RTX 3060Ti, so faster or a lot faster than reference RX6650XT in QHD right?

ARC ARC A750 12GB:
Slightly worse than RTX 3060 so faster or equal to RX 6600 in QHD then.
ARC A580 8GB:
Slightly worse than RTX 3050 in 1080p so a lot faster than RX6500XT:

ARC A380 6GB:
At RX6400 FHD performance level.
So according to the performance you quoted if we compare them to AMD's offers and we assume that Intel is willing to drop prices a day before Navi33 is on the shelves, then I find the below prices quite competitive with AMD's (both of them abysmal offers...)

ARC A770 8GB $379 since it's between RTX 3060 and RTX 3060Ti, I went with just a +7-9% of 3060's QHD performance which gives equal or better than RX 6600XT QHD performance...
ARC A780 16GB at least +$50 ($429) since it will be better than RX6650 and sporting double the memory.
ARC A750 12GB $319 since it's slightly worse than RTX 3060 according to the performance you quoted, so I hypothesize that RTX 3060 is at best 10% faster in QHD which gives RX6600 performance level
ARC A580 8GB $239 since it will supposedly by slightly worse than 3050 so a lot faster than RX6500XT in 1080p.
ARC A380 6GB $169 (slot powered) since it matches RX6400, has 6GB of memory and better media engine or $159 if it's not slot powered.
That's according to the performance you quoted, like I said mine is a little bit more pessimistic.(and prices lower than the above)
Sure there will be problems in older titles, many of us said it in the past but in time things will get better as drivers mature and new games added, so whoever buys desktop ARC at launch (thinking that the offer/price was competitive enough, otherwise why buy it after all?) chances are that it time things will get better and better.