@neatfeatguy @Cutechri The reason why so many of us are so negative about Intel's prospects is not because we don't want competition, it's because Intel's track record with GPUs is woeful at best. Every GPU they've ever produced, integrated or discrete, has performed well below their claims and consistently below the lowest-end products of the Big Two. On top of that their GPU drivers have also been absymal - so that even if they could produce competitive hardware, the likelihood is that said hardware would be crippled.
That Intel hired Raja Koduri from AMD to head up their GPU division, is also not a particularly auspicious omen. Raja was not and is not the second coming of Jesus that many have made him out to be; he was responsible for overseeing the launch of Vega, a GPU that can charitably be called poor and itself suffered from driver issues (aka "fine wine"). And this almost-failure occurred despite all the experienced GPU engineers at AMD; Intel doesn't have that depth of GPU experience, so having Raja lead their GPU team strikes many as the partially-sighted leading the blind.
And then there's the fact that historically, Intel's marketing department output has been inversely proportional to the quality of the actual product being marketed. In other words, when Intel has a product they know is a stinker, they cover that up by marketing and hyping it to the hilt... and Arc has been marketed and hyped to the hilt.
Finally, I simply have very little patience for marketing and seeing a "new" Intel Arc blurb every damn week, when I know full well there's no product yet to review and benchmark, pisses me off to no end. Put up or shut up, Intel.
I would absolutely love for Intel Arc to be competitive with NVIDIA and AMD, but honestly? Realistically? There's very little chance of that happening given what we know now.
