Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Arc Graphics A380: Compelling For Open-Source Enthusiasts & Developers At ~$139

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Gamer's Nexus's review of their drivers really showed just how embarrassing and incompetent this product is. https://youtu.be/MjYSeT-T5uk
    It's borderline non-functional.
    Which I guess is normal for Intel.

    Comment


    • #12
      I wouldn't exactly call it compelling... "Not terrible" would be more like it. I'd like this level of performance in a low budget laptop and not much else. Even then though the power draw makes it somewhat unappealing for that use case too.

      Comment


      • #13
        The only interesting benchmark here is L2D2 and Portal 2, those benchmarks show where the potential is - in Vulkan.

        It's painfully obvious OpenGL driver is simply suboptimal, but likely noone will play Quake 2 on this. People will try running Windows games via DXVK, and that's where we can see surprising performance, especially compared to dx9-dx11 games running on Windows.

        But hey, why take time and effort to benchmark something that may put both A380 and gaming on Linux in a good light, when you can just scrap together automated benchmarks of stuff noone uses.

        Comment


        • #14
          One thing that I didn't see in the article Michael if you would be so kind, what is the frame pacing like with the Linux drivers?

          Comment


          • #15
            > In fact, setting up the Intel Compute-Runtime was one of the easiest experiences getting OpenCL 3.0 working on Linux.
            this is big plus for me, I hope they make NUC with this. it will be good for mini dev server

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by unic0rn View Post
              The only interesting benchmark here is L2D2 and Portal 2, those benchmarks show where the potential is - in Vulkan.

              It's painfully obvious OpenGL driver is simply suboptimal, but likely noone will play Quake 2 on this. People will try running Windows games via DXVK, and that's where we can see surprising performance, especially compared to dx9-dx11 games running on Windows.

              But hey, why take time and effort to benchmark something that may put both A380 and gaming on Linux in a good light, when you can just scrap together automated benchmarks of stuff noone uses.
              I'm not so sure about that, if you look at the zink benchmark you'll notice it generally performed much worse than the opengl driver did, it's probably not as black and white as you're thinking. If the opengl driiver was really so bad then zink would have outperformed it, or at the very least matched it more often than not.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by numacross View Post
                A 75W card having an 8-pin external power supply doesn't sound like the TBP is realistic. Intel's CPU TDP definition (only at base clocks) isn't realistic either.
                TPU tested the A380 and found that it's using 94W at maximum load with 102W spikes:
                power-consumption.png
                The desktop power usage is higher than expected for a card this small.

                Edit: Interestingly GTX 1060 peaks at 125W while being ~25% faster, so that doesn't look really good for A380 considering that 1060 is a 5-year old GPU made in a 16nm process.
                I believe it's targeting the new ATX12VO 2 psu specs. But if not, it's still occupies a fairly specific power-performance-cost niche that might overlap with some NUC thing or something we're not aware of.

                Either way, you need to consider performance, cost and power in all of this.

                Comment


                • #18
                  For $140 this seems like an okay card. Everyone shitting on it seems to forget: this is the FIRST generation, it's not surprising it doesn't match or exceed the performance of competitors who have decades of experience. This performs alright, but of course there's a ton of room for improvement that will hopefully come in the next generations. It's also not a top of the line card, as the pricing clearly reflects. It's also clear the drivers need some work, Vulkan seems to outperform the others by a large margin (the Portal 2 benchmark shows that). If the drivers get optimized, this will likely outperform the 1050 ti, maybe even be on par with a 1060, which for the price would be great (as an existing GTX 1060 user). I also want to point out, 6GB of VRAM in a card of this price range is very generous. TLDR: Yes this card clearly falls short, but there's hope for the future (and a clear path for improvement, primarily in the software/driver area).

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by c117152 View Post

                    I believe it's targeting the new ATX12VO 2 psu specs. But if not, it's still occupies a fairly specific power-performance-cost niche that might overlap with some NUC thing or something we're not aware of.

                    Either way, you need to consider performance, cost and power in all of this.
                    This card doesn't have the new 12VHPWR GPU connector from ATX 3.0/ATX12VO 2.0. The PCIe slot is rated for 75W, so in theory a 75W TBP card should be content with only that.
                    It is also over the usual NUC power budget, unless you consider their NUC Extreme, which are PCs with a funky motherboard that support many PCIe GPU. To my knowledge they are not using 12VHPWR in them yet.
                    At the moment the performance, cost and power consideration doesn't look good for this product. Hopefully it will get better because competition is always good for us.
                    Last edited by numacross; 28 August 2022, 10:53 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by PlanetVaster View Post
                      For $140 this seems like an okay card. Everyone shitting on it seems to forget: this is the FIRST generation, it's not surprising it doesn't match or exceed the performance of competitors who have decades of experience. This performs alright, but of course there's a ton of room for improvement that will hopefully come in the next generations. It's also not a top of the line card, as the pricing clearly reflects. It's also clear the drivers need some work, Vulkan seems to outperform the others by a large margin (the Portal 2 benchmark shows that). If the drivers get optimized, this will likely outperform the 1050 ti, maybe even be on par with a 1060, which for the price would be great (as an existing GTX 1060 user). I also want to point out, 6GB of VRAM in a card of this price range is very generous. TLDR: Yes this card clearly falls short, but there's hope for the future (and a clear path for improvement, primarily in the software/driver area).
                      Except that this is Intel, a multibillion dollar company. And they have been making iGPUs for a long time. Their software for this card is inexcusable. Consumers who have this card should be demanding refunds.

                      It's a low-end card, the entire industry needs more competition but the way Intel has entered the market is not great... I was really hoping this would be a good card, as I just want something low profile that isn't nVidia.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X