• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Intel Updates Q1 2022 (GPU, CPU and Foundry)

Intel Arc A350M GPU has finally been tested, slower than GTX 1650, up to 2.2 GHz clock

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-a...sted-slower-than-gtx-1650-up-to-2-2-ghz-clock LINK TO FULL ARTICLE THAT CONTAINS IMAGES TOO OF BENCHMARKS AND OTHER SCREENSHOTS.. can't be bothered re-hosting the images as basically the results are a mess and as some of us suspected here Intel driver issues and just poor performance really. Sadly not looking like Intel will be our saviour just yet...


Intel Arc A350M tested on Samsung Galaxy Book2 Pro

As we have reported earlier today, Intel Arc A-Series of mobile GPUs are currently exclusively available for the South Korean market. This is where one may find Samsung Galaxy Book2 Pro laptop optionally outfitted with Arc A350M graphics.

As it turns out, there are actually reviewers in the country that were able to find and test such a laptop, essentially becoming the first in the world to test the Intel Arc GPU.

Tech reviewer bullslab from Jeoljit Research Institute (뻘짓연구소) is testing Samsung laptop with a product code of NT950XEV-G51A. This model features Core i5-1240P Alder Lake 12-core and 16-thread CPU. It also features 16GB of LPDDR5 RAM, 1080p 60Hz AMOLED display and weights only 1.17 kg. More importantly, it is equipped with Arc A350M mobile GPU with 4GB of RAM. The A350M is the lowest tier SKU in the Arc Alchemist series, featuring an ACM-G11 GPU with 768 shaders and 64-bit memory bus.

Upon preparing the system for testing (driver updates), the reviewer immediately notices that this process will be confusing for first time users. This is especially a problem for the GPU drivers, which, for some reason, have a dedicated branch for Arc GPUs. Those drivers are older than the most recent branch for all integrated GPUs (30.0.101.132 vs 30.0.101.1660). To make things worse, Intel’s own graphics panel (not Arc Control) is not displaying the correct name of the GPU, but lists “Unknown 5694” instead.

A350M 30W slower than GTX 1650 50W

In 3DMark test, the Arc A350M is indeed faster than NVIDIA GeForce MX450 with 25W TDP, but visibly slower than GTX 1650. This is not the lowest Max-Q variant though (it would make a lot more sense to compare a 35W Max-Q version here), so this is an apples-to-apples comparison. The GPU is struggling to output more than 200 points in Port Royal ray tracing benchmark, but then the GTX or MX series don’t offer any RT hardware acceleration, so this is still a win for Arc GPU.

Up to 2.2 GHz clock in games and low GPU usage

In gaming tests, the reviewer notices a few anomalies, such as relatively low GPU usage through tested games and not very stable GPU clock. This is especially visible in PUBG testing, which has a lot of stutters, but the core frequency stays at 2.2 GHz. On a contrary, in games with low GPU requirements such as League of Legends, the GPU usage is relatively low and the framerate is still good (~70 FPS in Overwatch or ~ 100 in LOL). All games were tested at 1080p resolution with low settings (judging from the quality).

The reviewer points out some graphics glitches in games, or the fact that some games do not work at all (such as Forza Horizon 5 and COD Cold War). There is clearly still a lot of work ahead for the Intel graphics team. Not to mention actually making Arc GPUs available to customers in other countries.




 
The drivers seem like an absolute mess based on that Korean review. Artifacting, horrible lows, stuttering and some games just outright not working. Probably a good thing that the desktop cards are nowhere to be seen really.
 
Intel Arc A350M GPU has finally been tested, slower than GTX 1650, up to 2.2 GHz clock

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-a...sted-slower-than-gtx-1650-up-to-2-2-ghz-clock LINK TO FULL ARTICLE THAT CONTAINS IMAGES TOO OF BENCHMARKS AND OTHER SCREENSHOTS.. can't be bothered re-hosting the images as basically the results are a mess and as some of us suspected here Intel driver issues and just poor performance really. Sadly not looking like Intel will be our saviour just yet...

While it didn't outperform the 1650, it did seem to perform better in the video I linked
 
It's not surprising that a version cut down as far as possible to reduce power consumption to a minimum has low performance. 30W is very little power for a graphics card. It is surprising that the software support is still so bad. Intel has had enough time. This isn't a surprise product that emerged recently from some sort of side project by some sort of skunkworks-style team working mostly independently.

Surely Intel's top brass isn't going to screw it up so badly. They must know that Intel has to come in strong if they're serious about entering the dGPU market. Drivers and other software support so poor that some games don't even run and hardware isn't identified correctly will blight the whole product line even if the higher models are genuinely competitive products.
 
Surely Intel's top brass isn't going to screw it up so badly. They must know that Intel has to come in strong if they're serious about entering the dGPU market. Drivers and other software support so poor that some games don't even run and hardware isn't identified correctly will blight the whole product line even if the higher models are genuinely competitive products.

It's going to be rough for a while, brace yourself.
 
Intel's Arc 770 apparently matches Nvidia's 2060. So the 780 will likely match the RTX 2070. That puts Intel solidly in RTX 3050 / 60 or RTX 4050 territory. Not bad for their re-entry and price right they could clean up the low end, but they'll need to get their next model out next year.
 
Intel's Arc 770 apparently matches Nvidia's 2060. So the 780 will likely match the RTX 2070. That puts Intel solidly in RTX 3050 / 60 or RTX 4050 territory. Not bad for their re-entry and price right they could clean up the low end, but they'll need to get their next model out next year.
Wonder how accurate TPU's A780 entry is?
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/arc-7-a780.c3910
Because they have that down as 406mm² on TSMC's 6nm and 21.7 billion transistors. Whereas RTX 3050 based on cut-down GA106 (never mind any eventual GA107 based version) is way smaller: GA106 is 276mm² on the far cheaper Samsung 8nm and has 12 billion transistors. GA107 must be smaller still.

So the real question is: how much contra revenue are Intel willing to throw at this until the give up!?
 
So the real question is: how much contra revenue are Intel willing to throw at this until the give up!?

Remember that this is their first effort. I don't think they're expecting to be more than #3 in performance. With GPU prices coming down, they may have left it too late to make a quick profit, but this effort was started long before GPU prices went crazy.
 
Intel Arc A350M GPU has finally been tested, slower than GTX 1650, up to 2.2 GHz clock

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-a...sted-slower-than-gtx-1650-up-to-2-2-ghz-clock LINK TO FULL ARTICLE THAT CONTAINS IMAGES TOO OF BENCHMARKS AND OTHER SCREENSHOTS.. can't be bothered re-hosting the images as basically the results are a mess and as some of us suspected here Intel driver issues and just poor performance really. Sadly not looking like Intel will be our saviour just yet...

Guess all Intel Arc A350M benchmarks results in all reviews over the last 2 weeks are invalided so reviewers will need reviews redone with updated benchmarks.

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-a...games-with-dynamic-tuning-technology-disabled

Reviewer Bullslab revisited review tested with updated Arc driver and discovered Intel Dynamic Tuning Technology caused Arc A350M poor performance, he disabled DTT and retested it saw massive 50-60% performance boost in all games. I had no idea how Arc A350M compared to GTX 1650.


So with DTT disabled may see Arc A350M faster than GTX 1650, probably slight slower or as fast as GTX 1660 Ti which has 80W TDP for laptop GPU.
 
Guess all Intel Arc A350M benchmarks results in all reviews over the last 2 weeks are invalided so reviewers will need reviews redone with updated benchmarks.

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-a...games-with-dynamic-tuning-technology-disabled

Reviewer Bullslab revisited review tested with updated Arc driver and discovered Intel Dynamic Tuning Technology caused Arc A350M poor performance, he disabled DTT and retested it saw massive 50-60% performance boost in all games. I had no idea how Arc A350M compared to GTX 1650.


So with DTT disabled may see Arc A350M faster than GTX 1650, probably slight slower or as fast as GTX 1660 Ti which has 80W TDP for laptop GPU.

Well that will be nice to see them compete with AMD and Nvidia . I'm sure things will get better once they get their act together with the drivers too, the problem is not their hardware with Intel but their drivers when it comes to graphics and always has with even their IGP in their cpus. Lets hope hope for good things as it makes the market better for us customers. Thanks for that info :).
 
Back
Top Bottom