The 128 EU part has an estimated 3.1TFLOPS of SP compute power. The RX 470 has 4.9, as per their official specs. The RX 470 hovers anywhere between 2.1x-2.7x faster than the 96 EU unit. Now using Intel's current 96 EU XE part, we can safely add on 25% performance for the extra 33% EU's (it's obviously not a 1:1 ratio). Even if you give the 128EU DG2 the benefit of the doubt and say it boosts to 2.2ghz (very unlikely), and that the dedicated GDDR6 memory (on a sad 64-bit bus) would even add another 50% performance, the performance per TFLOP of the DG series is already sad. We also have no idea how intel's dedicated parts scale in terms of TDP. Just because it's on the same 6nm process doesn't mean they will have linear power curves.
Having said all this, TFLOP/performance ratio is a pretty crappy way to evaluate performance since each companies shader cores are different, therefore making the number almost irrelevant outside of inter-architectural comparisons. TMU's, ROP's, and by proxy, texture fill and pixel fill rates, are much more accurate ways to evaluate performance. Even still, it varies pretty wildly sometimes.
Also, comparing TFLOPS is useless with Nvidia now because they base their numbers on using FP and INT calculations at the same time -- which doesn't happen in gaming or general use scenarios. For example, the 2070 super has about 9-10TFLOPS of compute vs the RTX 3050's 9TFLOPS. If you cut the 3050's in half however, you get a closer comparison to traditional TFLOP calculations based on standard FP32 calculations. That would peg the 3050 at 4.5tflops with roughly performance around a 1660 ti.
To bring this all home, those numbers are not safe realistically because they are based on numbers that don't matter. The 512 EU GPU, with 4096 SP's, Will probably be matched by the 3060 ti, a card with 4864 shader cores (but cut that roughly in half) and 16 TFLOPS (again, roughly cut that in half). So Intel's highest end part will most likely match, or barely beat, a 2432 shader core part with 8TFLOPS of true fp32 computational power. If it can do it in the same TGP or TDP, then that's really all that matters. But it still shows that Nvidia and AMD's architecture are so far ahead at this point, Intel won't catch up anytime soon.
This isn't a personal attack or anything. It's just trying to explain that the math doesn't always equal expected results when taken at face value. I want intel to compete as much as anyone else but unfortunately I think we are going to see some pretty lackluster parts. Their ace-in-the-hole has to be pricing and feature-set. If XeSS is as good as it looks, and their media engine is also as good, it could be a pretty nice card at the right price.
Or it could end up sucking complete ass and having us wonder why we were excited at all. That's the fun.
