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

[AlwaysHope]

....

Games are not optimized for specific hardware, at least not the way you think.
Doing so would require either 1) utilize very specific low-level hardware differences unique to one hardware maker or 2) utilize separate code paths and low-level APIs targeting each specific GPU-family to optimize for.
(1) is "never" done intentionally and 2) is only used in very specific cases).
Practically all game engines these days are using very bloated and abstracted engines. Most games today contain little to no low-level code at all, and quite often use an abstracted game engine (often third-party).

Of course they are not optimized for ONLY one specific hardware component line like Nvidia gpus for example. But have you ever played one of the most famous RPG games of the 2010s - Skyrim?
That game is optimized for Nivdia gpus, I had at first HD 7870 & then upgraded to R9 Nano back in the day, & AMD drivers were always struggling to keep gameplay smooth n' consistent everywhere in that AAA rated & supremely popular game. Now anyone can criticise how crappy the game engine was in the fist place, but that's getting into another argument not relevant for this thread.

 

[Minus Infinity]

6500 XT is a disaster you shouldn't buy.

True but the A380 is 6400 trash performance or worse. Raj is finished!

 

[AusWolf]

I am not an Intel fan at all (in fact, I got rid of my all my Intel CPU-powered computers after Meltdown etc) but I really do not get the people who are hating on this dGPU effort of theirs. People should be overjoyed that a new player is entering the market when consumers are getting shafted by ridiculous stunts such as the RX 6500 "XT" with x4 PCIe and no hardware encoding (when even my low-end Polaris card that I bought for $90 open box on eBay has that). Who cares if the initial gaming performance is a bit underwhelming? AMD had massive driver issues when they have been making dGPUs for literally decades (well, technically ATI). Even if it really does end up underperforming, Intel will simply cut the price because they can afford to do so to annoy AMD and Nvidia and then they *will* sell, just in a different performance tier. It is a practically a dream come true to see competition return to the low-end segment. Not everyone wants or can afford a mid or high end card, especially with the current ridiculous power consumption (combined with a global energy crisis). And as a Linux user I know that even if the Windows drivers end up not being the best, it will have very good Linux support (including OpenCL).

I would completely agree with you if I could see those Intel cards anywhere. To have competition, you have to sell something.

 

[bug]

I am not an Intel fan at all (in fact, I got rid of my all my Intel CPU-powered computers after Meltdown etc) but I really do not get the people who are hating on this dGPU effort of theirs. People should be overjoyed that a new player is entering the market when consumers are getting shafted by ridiculous stunts such as the RX 6500 "XT" with x4 PCIe and no hardware encoding (when even my low-end Polaris card that I bought for $90 open box on eBay has that). Who cares if the initial gaming performance is a bit underwhelming? AMD had massive driver issues when they have been making dGPUs for literally decades (well, technically ATI). Even if it really does end up underperforming, Intel will simply cut the price because they can afford to do so to annoy AMD and Nvidia and then they *will* sell, just in a different performance tier. It is a practically a dream come true to see competition return to the low-end segment. Not everyone wants or can afford a mid or high end card, especially with the current ridiculous power consumption (combined with a global energy crisis). And as a Linux user I know that even if the Windows drivers end up not being the best, it will have very good Linux support (including OpenCL).

I guess the only reason to keep an eye out for performance is to know how soon the 3rd player can apply pressure. Otherwise, yes, it's just a first iteration.
And there's those that will pick on everything as long as they can say something bad about Intel. But that's just childish.

 

[Bomby569]

True but the A380 is 6400 trash performance or worse. Raj is finished!

if the gap between real world games and synthetic benchmarks is this big i think that conclusion is flawed. Something must explain the difference, i think it's drivers.

 

[catulitechup]

if anyone dont have post this is a link for expressview review:

英特尔Arc A380独立显卡天梯榜首发评测：冲击千元级游戏卡市场的一把蓝戟 - 超能网

超能网（Expreview）专注于为主流科技产品提供全新视角的资讯，专注于100%高价值原创内容的创造，专注于最真实的体验式报道。

www.expreview.com

 

[Mpt]

It is about $270-280 with tax. Taxes are really high.

£148 is the cheapest 6500xt in the UK

 

[chrcoluk]

Remember we are an enthusiast forum, I feel the VRAM to Raster performance is a better balance, Nvidia in particular are lopsided, the intel cards also serve a market that Nvidia and AMD have almost abandoned. For people who play at 720p and 1080p 30/60fps it serves a purpose. Also the extra VRAM makes weird issues like textures not loading, texture streaming stutters etc. less likely over 4 gig cards. As well as increasingly likelihood can use better quality textures in games.

I personally can play games at 30fps and not consider it the end of the world, dont care about the latency nonsense, as is probably the case with millions of people.

If it sells well its a successful product, if it doesnt its a dud, thats all business will care about.

 

[laszlo]

synthetic benchmarks are&will be good !

if not than why we have the grain of salt, spoon...or hill....

 

[bug]

synthetic benchmarks are&will be good !

if not than why we have the grain of salt, spoon...or hill....

Synthetics were more useful back when GPUs were simpler beasts.

For example, it makes sense to measure height, width and depth to determine the volume of a room. The same "synthetics" are less useful when applied to something more complicated, like Sagrada Familia. Not meaningless, just less useful to give you an overall idea.

 

[efikkan]

Of course they are not optimized for ONLY one specific hardware component line like Nvidia gpus for example. But have you ever played one of the most famous RPG games of the 2010s - Skyrim?
That game is optimized for Nivdia gpus, I had at first HD 7870 & then upgraded to R9 Nano back in the day, & AMD drivers were always struggling to keep gameplay smooth n' consistent everywhere in that AAA rated & supremely popular game. Now anyone can criticise how crappy the game engine was in the fist place, but that's getting into another argument not relevant for this thread.

The fact that a piece of software scales better on one piece of hardware is not evidence of the software being optimized for that particular hardware.
There are basically two ways to optimize for specific hardware; (these principles hold true to CPUs as well)
1) Using hardware-specific low-level API calls or instructions. (the few examples in games you will find of this will be to give extra eye-candy, not to give better performance)
2) Writing code where the code is carefully crafted to give an edge to a specific class of hardware. You will struggle to find examples of this being done intentionally. And even attempting to write code this way would be stupid, as the resource advantages of current gen. GPUs are likely to change a lot 1-2 generations down the road, and the competition is likely going to respond to any such advantage. So writing code that would give e.g. Nvidia an advantage years from now will be very hard, and could just as easily backfire and do the opposite. For these reasons this is never done, and the few examples where you see a clear advantage it's probably the result of the opposite effect; un-optimized code running into a hardware bottleneck. And as mentioned, most games today use generic or abstracted game engines, have very little if any low-level code, and are generally not optimized at all.

As a good example, a while ago I got to test some code that I had optimized on Sandy Bridge/Haswell/Skylake hardware for years on a Zen 3, and to my delight the optimizations showed even greater gains on AMD hardware, with the greatest example showing roughly double performance on Zen 3 vs. 5-10% on Intel hardware.
So this would mean that I either have supernatural powers to optimize for hardware that I didn't yet have my hands on, or you just don't understand how software optimizations work at all!

In reality, games "optimized" for Nvidia or AMD is a myth.

 

[Assimilator]

Man, I hate quoting myself.

 

[rx6400_speed]

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.

It's a budget gaming GPU which has no equal in terms of gaming performance (in the price range). You can call it what you will, but the GPU can spit out frames, and provide excellent gaming experience on a budget.

It also tends to be reviewed possitively by the customers who bought the GPU. Personally I happen to like the rx6400 even better. Since it can be used on just the PCIE power. And again it has no equal in Nvidia nor Intel flavors. I feel like people miss this last part for some reason. Navi24 has no competition.

 

[mplayerMuPDF]

It's a budget gaming GPU which has no equal in terms of gaming performance (in the price range). You can call it what you will, but the GPU can spit out frames, and provide excellent gaming experience on a budget.

It also tends to be reviewed possitively by the customers who bought the GPU. Personally I happen to like the rx6400 even better. Since it can be used on just the PCIE power. And again it has no equal in Nvidia nor Intel flavors.

The RX6400 makes more sense than the RX 6500 "XT". At least it indeed runs purely on PCIe power and hopefully it will eventually be cheaper as well. It is almost as fast as the GTX 1650 according to TPU so if it is cheaper than that, it is decent value. However, keep in mind that the Arc A380 will have hardware encoding and even AV1 decoding. That will make it very interesting. An "XT" GPU that needs a power plug but that is crippled by x4 PCIe is just plain ridiculous, however.

 

[ravenhold]

Remember we are an enthusiast forum, I feel the VRAM to Raster performance is a better balance, Nvidia in particular are lopsided, the intel cards also serve a market that Nvidia and AMD have almost abandoned. For people who play at 720p and 1080p 30/60fps it serves a purpose. Also the extra VRAM makes weird issues like textures not loading, texture streaming stutters etc. less likely over 4 gig cards. As well as increasingly likelihood can use better quality textures in games.

I personally can play games at 30fps and not consider it the end of the world, dont care about the latency nonsense, as is probably the case with millions of people.

Generally, I haven't seen a budget GPU with 6500XT pricepoint with steady framerate at 30-35 and ray tracing on Ultra.

 

[rx6400_speed]

Generally, I haven't seen a budget GPU with 6500XT pricepoint with steady framerate at 30-35 and ray tracing on Ultra.

RT and Ultra on budget isn't really a thing though. And really we're still so early on the RT adoption curve that for the most part it's a corner case not many encounter.

 

[ThrashZone]

one person for sure:
View attachment 251943they may be others also...

Hi,
See I'm sure he's laughing all the way to the bank

More amazing is this thread was created yesterday and is on page 5

 

[AusWolf]

Generally, I haven't seen a budget GPU with 6500XT pricepoint with steady framerate at 30-35 and ray tracing on Ultra.

Why would you want RT Ultra with a budget graphics card? The Toyota Yaris 1.2 can't do 200 mph, what a surprise.

 

[ravenhold]

RT and Ultra on budget isn't really a thing though. And really we're still so early on the RT adoption curve that for the most part it's a corner case not many encounter.

When you're satisfied with that framerate but you want excellent image quality and effects.
Why wouldn't GPU vendors allow us to play at 30-35 frames at 1080p with Ultra ray tracing quality lighting and reflections ?

 

[Ripcord]

£148 is the cheapest 6500xt in the UK

£144.99 at Ebuyer for some reason cheaper than the 6400 the cheapest 6600 is double the price.

 

[AusWolf]

When you're satisfied with that framerate but you want excellent image quality and effects.
Why wouldn't GPU vendors allow us to play at 30-35 frames at 1080p with Ultra ray tracing quality lighting and reflections ?

Who said they don't allow us? Just buy a used 2060 and call it a day. The 6400 / 6500 XT pair are a different league. Even though they technically support RT, they're clearly not meant to do it.

 

[Dr. Dro]

It's a budget gaming GPU which has no equal in terms of gaming performance (in the price range). You can call it what you will, but the GPU can spit out frames, and provide excellent gaming experience on a budget.

It also tends to be reviewed possitively by the customers who bought the GPU. Personally I happen to like the rx6400 even better. Since it can be used on just the PCIE power. And again it has no equal in Nvidia nor Intel flavors. I feel like people miss this last part for some reason. Navi24 has no competition.

Disagree, it has a better in its own predecessor - the RX 5500 XT. The RX 6400 is glorified APU graphics on a desktop board, it's the exact same thing you'll get on a Rembrandt processor except with less memory - which makes the 6400 slower under some circumstances than even that integrated graphics solution. I don't call that impressive in the slightest, especially not for the money asked. They may be capable in their own right - but the 6500 XT should be sub-$150 and the 6400 should be an $99 GPU at best.

NVIDIA is about to release the GTX 1630 to compete at this ultra budget segment, and it has most of Navi 24's issues rectified, namely, poor media handling (and no encoding capabilities). They can also tap the GA107 processor used only in laptops if needed. The RTX 3050's mobile variant is an incredibly capable GPU, I might add.

 

[mplayerMuPDF]

Disagree, it has a better in its own predecessor - the RX 5500 XT. The RX 6400 is glorified APU graphics on a desktop board, it's the exact same thing you'll get on a Rembrandt processor except with less memory - which makes the 6400 slower under some circumstances than even that integrated graphics solution. I don't call that impressive in the slightest, especially not for the money asked.

NVIDIA is about to release the GTX 1630 to compete at this ultra budget segment, and it has most of Navi 24's issues rectified, namely, poor media handling (and no encoding capabilities). They can also tap the GA107 processor used only in laptops if needed.

If appropriately priced RX 6400s appear, it will be pretty good for people who do not have APUs though (i.e. 2600, 3600 and their octacore versions as well as Threadrippers). It can be a decent card depending on the pricing. The RX 6500 "XT" (yes, I will continue using those quotation marks forever because they are 100% deserved), however, will always be a complete joke because it does not even work with only PCIe power unlike my GTX 1050 (sold), for example, which is probably still laughing at the RX 6500 "XT" in someone's SFF PC. And don't forget that the APUs (at least the older ones) do sacrifice L3 cache to save die space for the iGPU, so you are bleeding some CPU performance (and that is without considering thermals).

 

[AusWolf]

Disagree, it has a better in its own predecessor - the RX 5500 XT. The RX 6400 is glorified APU graphics on a desktop board, it's the exact same thing you'll get on a Rembrandt processor except with less memory - which makes the 6400 slower under some circumstances than even that integrated graphics solution. I don't call that impressive in the slightest, especially not for the money asked. They may be capable in their own right - but the 6500 XT should be sub-$150 and the 6400 should be an $99 GPU at best.

Except that they are available. The 5500 XT is not.

NVIDIA is about to release the GTX 1630 to compete at this ultra budget segment, and it has most of Navi 24's issues rectified, namely, poor media handling (and no encoding capabilities). They can also tap the GA107 processor used only in laptops if needed. The RTX 3050's mobile variant is an incredibly capable GPU, I might add.

Desktop GA107 would be awesome! I don't know why we can't have it. Production / yield issues, maybe?

If appropriately priced RX 6400s appear, it will be pretty good for people who do not have APUs though (i.e. 2600, 3600 and their octacore versions as well as Threadrippers). It can be a decent card depending on the pricing. The RX 6500 "XT" (yes, I will continue using those quotation marks forever because they are 100% deserved), however, will always be a complete joke because it does not even work with only PCIe power unlike my GTX 1050 (sold), for example, which is probably still laughing at the RX 6500 "XT" in someone's SFF PC. And don't forget that the APUs (at least the older ones) do sacrifice L3 cache to save die space for the iGPU, so you are bleeding some CPU performance (and that is without considering thermals).

Except that the 6500 XT is at least 2x faster than the 1050 Ti in every scenario. I know, I've tested it. Even the 6400 in a PCI-e 3.0 board is faster than the 1050 Ti. If low profile versions of the 1650 were widely available (not only on ebay for ridiculous prices), those would be a worthy competitor. The 1050 Ti is not.

 

[mplayerMuPDF]

I would completely agree with you if I could see those Intel cards anywhere. To have competition, you have to sell something.

They will be available in the West eventually. According to Wikipedia these Arc cards were supposed to launch in Q2 *or* Q3, so they are doing just fine. For some reason Intel has decided to launch in China first. I am sure that they have strategic reasons for that. Perhaps they figure that the Chinese market will be more receptive to a new dGPU player or more interested in low-end cards or Intel has stronger brand recognition there compared to AMD and Nvidia. It does not really matter, we can hate Intel for any number of reasons but I don't think that they are strategically incompetent despite what some (IMO ignorant) people may think. Same applies for the people saying Raja Koduri does not know what he is doing, e.g. because GCN was not good enough for gaming or something like that. Well, maybe gaming was not their main focus? Maybe they were making a ton of money selling cards for compute in datacenters? Some people struggle to look beyond their own perspective, which I frankly find hard to understand at this point. It should have dawned on people by now that enthusiast/gamer desktop users are not the most important market for these large corporations after the mobile and server markets have been prioritized time and time again.

Except that they are available. The 5500 XT is not.


Desktop GA107 would be awesome! I don't know why we can't have it. Production / yield issues, maybe?


Except that the 6500 XT is at least 2x faster than the 1050 Ti in every scenario. I know, I've tested it. Even the 6400 in a PCI-e 3.0 board is faster than the 1050 Ti. If low profile versions of the 1650 were widely available (not only on ebay for ridiculous prices), those would be a worthy competitor. The 1050 Ti is not.

I must admit I am surprised by that. Note that my GTX 1050 was a non-Ti though (often people seem to forget those even existed). Still, my GTX 1050 at least had hardware encoding, unlike the RX 6500 "XT". My GTX 1050 was an EVGA low-profile, single-slot card (it was used in a used M92p ThinkCentre). I am not knocking the RX 6400, just the RX 6500 XT.