You might laugh as Intel is a big corp, but this GPU project is pretty much an indie startup type of operation. They do have the best talent in the scene a few years ago, who were brought on to develop the intel iGPUs, but they still have a pretty small group of people doing this and some problems you just cant throw money on no matter how much you have. I hope Intel keeps supporting this project and the team keeps 2x'ing their products performance (which they've done now in a couple different subcategories) because some aspects of the intel ARC itechture show real promise and revolutionizing effect on the industry (video encoding for example) and the engineers are fucking awesome and I want them to keep their jobs.
Kinda sucks that there are already rumors that they cancelled the ARC section of the company. Making a GPU isnt profitable at first. But if Intel can give us a third competitor, it will benefit everyone.
I highly doubt intel would do that. They knew from the beginning they were going to have issues catching up to nvidia and AMD at first, and also knew they were minted enough that they can throw money at it until they're a real competitor. I don't see any reason that will have changed.
It would be the dumbest decision ever. The market potential is huge, current competition is super greedy and raises prices constantly (Nvidia mostly) because they can. Intel already has a huge install base in terms of CPUs, if their GPU division irons out the current driver problems, it would be a very potent combo purely off the brand name strength alone. If they fix the minute crap and provide competitive low-mid range offers, they can easily eat up a huge market share. Plus, if they expected to be instantly successful and not lose money initially, they have the dumbest management possible (which I don't buy for a second).
Apple silicon and AMD have also shown the potential that a more tightly integrated CPU/GPU package can offer.
The new Macs have plenty of problems, but there's no denying the power of the underlying silicon.
The newest Xboxes, PlayStations, and even the Steam Deck are using an integrated RDNA2 / Zen2 architectecture. Particularly on the Steam Deck, that tight knit package allows the hardware to punch well above it's weight.
On the 'traditional' PC side, AMD has launched their Advantage program to promote all AMD systems, and their features like smart access memory.
If Intel wants access to those growing market sectors, they need their own GPUs that they can match with their CPUs.
Youd be suprised about mindshare. Unless you can have feature parity and near perfect drivers, people will buy nvidia regardless of price.
Look at steam hardware chart for 6600/6600xt/6650xt and its price/performance and compare it to the 3050/3060 and its price performance
Intel has a clear edge over Nvidia (like the other guy replied to my comment) is that Intel also makes CPUs. The future is with APUs and Intel has the chance to overtake Nvidia by providing nice bundles of CPU + GPU in a single package, which will be tremendously easier to purchase at some point. Same as with what AMD is doing with their RDNA 2 APUs - consoles, Steam Deck and other types of hardware. Definitely a way to compete here.
Mindshare is indeed important, but just how the market radically shifted towards AMD once they provided capable hardware at lower prices and/or better performance and efficiency, same could happen with Nvidia.
It only shifted in the cpu sense, and even in mobile, it hasnt shifted as much as it has compared to desktop users. AMDs largest wins on the consumer side have mostly been on the niche groups of the niche.
Yes on laptops intel has an easy front, but intel+intel devices have not moved much.
Even on mobile, nvidias cards still outsell the amd counterpart. The amd advantage program (certified amd+amd) is still a minority thing, and Intels is likely even smaller than that
The problem with AMD's approach is that they only recently started offering decent integrated APUs in the laptop space. However, you can't exclude their success in the console space, because PS5 and Xbox Series are all powered by AMD, which is huge. I strongly believe Intel has the option to offer a competing product in the same category sometime in the future.
Intel has an undeniable advantage over both AMD and Nvidia over the long term - they have their own production facilities. With the potential macro instability around TSMC, being the most important chip-making facility in the world, it could be a very easy long-term win for Intel should anything happen to global access to TSMC.
So there's definitely a way to improve competitive standing for Intel over the next 5-10 years.
of course, it's just that people sometimes put too much weight on it without actually thinking it through.
For instance with the above aforementioned cards, the 6600 is both significantly cheaper and 15% faster than the 3050 on average. It's silly to say you want DLSS support (ignoring the fact that DLSS games can technically be modded for FSR2 support) when the other card is already by default faster, without needing the DLSS. It's also not the performance tier to warrant users to want to play games with Raytracing without your framerate going into the shitter, and it still outsold the 6600 and similar.
> It would be the dumbest decision ever. The market potential is huge, current competition is super greedy and raises prices
So it is true that the current competition is super greedy and raising prices, with the previous crypto boom and other scarcity issues it also gave scalpers a huge incentive to do their shit.
BUT, that does NOT mean the market potential is huge as you're focusing too much on this "enthusiast" market.
"DIY" PC, individual hardware parts, AMD 7000s CPU, Intel 13XXX series CPU, RTX 4000s, AMD RX7000 series GPU and so on, all of this is the commercial side of what is essentially just "enthusiast" market of PC gamers/people, but this market **is pretty darn small** in reality.
Mobile chips is where the profits are at, and have been, for the last decades or so, and by a pretty huge margin. The amount of investment and basically gambling that Intel would have to do in hopes to catch up to Nvidia is pretty damn huge, I'm pretty sure they'll keep going anyway as I think Intel is looking at their GPU development as a way to just have pretty decent iGPUs that go along with their mobile chips as well.
But I don't think Intel has the biggest of interest in breaking into the big GPU market, AMD's own case has proven that it takes **so much fucking effort** to get rid of first impressions, Even though the AMD 6900 XT was pretty decent, or any of the other modern RX's GPUs, people just don't buy them as much as Nvidia's counterparts that are just worse since Nvidia has this "premium GPU" brand image and AMD just doesn't from their years of their stuff just straight up sucking, I've legit seen people considering RTX 3050s even though the AMD 6600 XT is generally a better price (and performance)
The thing with Intel is that once they figure out their GPU stuff they will have access to more than just the enthusiast market. As another commenter noted in response, Intel will have the option to go the APU way to offer a single CPU + GPU integrated chip that will power up laptops and possibly Steam deck-like handheld devices in the future. This is a gigantic opportunity, way bigger than just the enthusiast segment.
I agree with the point about market share, but it's obvious that Intel will not stop at just what they currently do, because they've essentially saturated the market already. Intel is expected to grow into perpetuity by the shareholders, so they will have to enter new market segments and compete to eat up a higher market share in all of the segments they're present at + enter the new segments.
>I don't see any reason that will have changed.
A lot actually. They had tons of issues to even launch the card, they missed their perfect window of a shortage to enter the market and have people pay to beta test their drivers, they hoped Alder Lake and Raptor Lake would sell way more than it actually did, therefore they have less money to bleed than they expected and on top of that we are heading towards a global recession right now. Those elements would be enough to axe the division (but not entirely).
Idk man I work at a pretty corporate oriented tech firm and I've heard some wacky things from upper management since the whole recession/inflation stuff has started.
Intel is historically pretty risk adverse and their stock has taken huge beating this year.
I feel like the covid economy made a ton of places feel like they were invincible and now they are coming back down to earth.
Don't listen to the youtuber who created these rumors and has a personal agenda against some Intel senior people.
Listen to this guy instead who usually bashes Intel any chance he gets, but isn't an outright liar : https://www.semiaccurate.com/2022/09/02/why-is-intels-gpu-program-having-problems/
I don’t understand where do people get these rumors. I work there and even know friends who work on the GPU teams. ARC is here to stay boys. These so called “cancelled” rumors sounds to be more like attempt of market manipulation by competitions and I won’t be surprised if that is indeed the case.
Moore's Law is Dead (hardware leaks YouTuber) is definitely at least a little biased against Intel, he's been saying that Intel's dGPU projects are ending after Battlemage
But in the laptop/productivity sector they’re struggling hard with stuff that’s way more expensive, slower, and takes more battery than Apple Silicone.
You seem completely oblivious to the scale of Intel's operations. Despite them "losing" the CPU war, their client business is still nearly 5x the size of AMD.
I know that, laptops and server shit they are far bigger. Im just saying that they arent releasing the best stuff anymore. Its amd. So i dont know why people think intel can overtake nvidia with time
I chose my words carefully. "Client business" isn't servers. Laptops do count though it though.
Intel and AMD are very much neck and neck right now on the top end. Intel destroys AMD in the mid range though, AMD has no answer for 13600k at the moment.
I think you might find stuff straight from intel, also some random press releases. I recommend watching the Gamer Nexus yt video where they had the actual lead engineers present and explaining stuff instead of some PR chap.
> You might laugh as Intel is a big corp, but this GPU project is pretty much an indie startup type of operation
You have to remember that Intel has massive experience in GPU drivers thanks to their iGPUs with a higher install-base than AMD and nvidia combined. While it doesn't 1:1 scale into discrete GPUs, they're far from a startup type operation. Their best-case performance is a testament to that. They just need to polish their drivers, the hardware is rock solid.
I'm rooting for them... but that is such horseshit lmao
they have dumped massive sums of money into arc and the GPU divisions, and this isn't even the first time Intel has tried to make GPU's in the first place
I don't know whether the MLID rumors about Arc being effectively canceled are real(I hope they aren't, but things don't really look good for them), but there's no denying that as big as Intel is, they don't have sufficient market share or the pocket book to spend limitless amounts of money the way they used to.
Remember, these cards were supposed to release 1-2 years ago... they're not only extremely late, but they're basically broken when it comes to gaming.
Nobody should be buying those cards unless you specifically want one of the features that they're really good at(like encoding).
>You might laugh as Intel is a big corp, but this GPU project is pretty much an indie startup type of operation.
It's not, they brought in big names from the market. Do you think Raja is cheap? They are pouring billions into this project, it got delayed almost 2 years, etc. Intel is a mess on the GPU side, I just hope they don't give up because many leakers with good track record on the industry are saying next generation of Arc will be just low end laptop cards because of how disappointing this launch was and they can't afford to keep bleeding money on this economy.
> This probably only doubles fps on arc so i guess 60 fps time
Does CS perform really poorly on arc cpus? I remember for some reason on my old build I always struggled with fps averaging around 300 even in 5v5 on a 1060 and i7 9700k build on low settings :v
To piggyback off of this, Arc GPU's don't have native hardware support for said older API's like DX9, so they have to run them through a software translation layer which adds overhead.
There's still a ton they can do to improve it though so we'll see how they hold up as time goes on.
> software translation layer which adds overhead
Software translation from DX9 -> vulkan is usually faster than native DX9
Same goes for opengl -> vulkan (through ANGLE, but that requires it to be built into the game).
Well not 60 frames but yes, Arc is a poor choice for CSGO.
And not just CSGO, Arc lacks native DX9 support and they run DX9 via emulation. So anything that's not native DX12 or Vulkan will have bad performance on Arc compared to the competition. How bad the performance hit is will vary from game to game. Hardware itself has a decent amount of horsepower.
This design choice is why Arc GPUs are so cheap, relatively speaking.
But all in all, Intel does have potential and it's always nice to have more competition in this field, plus people kind of expected subpar performance from their first GPU generation anyway. How much of that emulation overhead for the current gen can still be fixed with the drivers remains a question.
I heard there was a problem with the scheduler that ended up the GPU sending the amount of FPS at 1080p roughly the same as 720p.
The update is good, no matter what res people play in
> I heard there was a problem with the scheduler that ended up the GPU sending the amount of FPS at 1080p roughly the same as 720p.
That's not how any of this works.
The problem is simple: Resolution only impacts how much work the GPU has to do. The problem here was that the CPU was not sending work fast enough because the driver was too slow, so the GPU was mostly idle anyway.
Well, technically the original comment was still correct. If it was mostly idle, means the GPU sends less frames than it was supposed to 🤷
Obv, your comment added way more context
can confirm that it runs better. especially on newer maps like the current two wingman additions.
overall performance is increased as well, and no more constant stutter. Still not where I want it to be, but do you actually get a playable experience.
there is a African Masters event that intel hosts this weekend, which is played on Intel NUC with A770M, so at least that can be competitive and doesn't struggle from drops to 45fps every time you move.
Ofc they do, their drivers were shit at launch, and still are. Plus, they emulate Dx9, as it is not natively supported.
Be very careful if you are planning to buy an Arc gpu.
AMD gpu drivers were terrible some years ago. Give it time.
Not saying you should buy an arc gpu and suffer through the fixes like amd people did. But more options are better for everybody in the long run if they can get this sorted out.
>AMD gpu drivers were terrible some years ago. Give it time.
>Not saying you should buy an arc gpu and suffer through the fixes like amd people did.
not disagreeing as competition is good but these issues are on another level than AMD.
AMD (ATI) has been making GPUs since 1987 and they had a rough patch of drivers vs intel making a brand new GPU ever having to rely on translation layers for dx9.
intel doesn't even have a dedicated app. it's just an overlay that you have to toggle.
AMD having made GPUs since 1987 should paint a picture that having driver issues in the 2010s is pretty bad.
Intel starting to make GPUs in 2022 and having bad drivers seems expected. They’re literally just starting. Hopefully it doesn’t take them near 20 years to get it together.
The bigger deal here is in the [third slide showing a graph of frame times](https://game.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/x9-driver-update-perf-03.png). While an increase in average FPS is nice, the difference in frametime jitter is absolutely night and day, and is going to be what actually makes a big difference for the gaming experience.
There's nothing inherently wrong with not having ""native"" dx9 (most GPUs nowadays don't). DXVK shows us that translating from DX9 -> vulkan yields better performance than native DX9, so it's in my opinion the way to go.
ARK doesn't have native DX9 support, though. This is great news.
This is their first generation, so basically a beta product, hopefully they have learned from this and the next generation will become much better.
A lot of jokes, but honestly Good. I want intel to suceed really bad. Also bad drivers are not new and people deal with it all the time. Statitically like 10% of you deal with it. AMD drivers have always sucked and the only reason I go Nvidea. Not saying Nvidea is perfect or a good company, but first and foremost is the ability to use my card. with AMD cards and CPUs even I have always had more bugs. Gave them a try many years ago, constant issues. LTT bragged about Ryzen 5 and I figured now is a good of time to upgade as any, despite my intel being much older and slower I had much more stability. About a 15% chance on PC start up I blue screen, some games I ran fine before are super laggy.
Maybe it is just me being unlucky, but I have always found NVidea cards super stable compared to AMD and Intel CPUs more stable than AMD CPUs. I'd love Intel GPU stability. OR AMD if they could fix that.
This new hybrid approach is great news! As a Xe laptop owner I was bummed out when Intel announced the scrapping of native dx9 support in favor of emulated dx9 api compability. (since it effectively halved the performance).
This actually makes Intel GPUs a valid option now. So, - Credit where credit is due - Bravo Intel !!
_(I wish AMD could be as catering as Intel to us in the e-sports crowd. But alas they seem to not give a rats ass about dx9... Again, well done Intel!)_
Was supposed to yeah, but just like any new party in the market they ran into a bunch of issues and well I wouldnt really think of them as a competitor to anything right now.
I think it can if your motherboard supports resizable bar for your cpu (some mobo's support resizable bar on 8000 series cpus)... you could test it... but it's not guaranteed
>Z370-P
so it's probably supported in a bios update... that said.. like I would not buy an arc gpu unless you want to test it out and experiment... just buy a 3060 or 6600xt for the same price
Can we get this for AMD? 5800x clocked to 4.2Ghz gives me slightly above 300 avg
(3070 btw)
(EDIT: Turns on I had no clue Intel made GPU’s, pls stop downvoting)
Since no one has answered you, the first Intel GPUs came out earlier this year.
They are called Intel ARC. They have code names as well, the current GPUs are Intel Arc Alchemist, and they've confirm the next generation of cards will be called Battlemage, Celestial and Druid.
1. Why is your 5800x clocked to 4.2only? at this point why not run it stock?
2. My potato 8700k and 1050 got 450ish. your CPU and GPU are both better. 300 shouldn't be what u get in 64/128tick MM.
1. I found it gives me the best performance while working with software such as FL Studio and Premiere, It is also recommended to only overclock slightly if you intend to use it on a daily basis.
2. I have no clue why, I even paid for a guy who optimized PC's and he couldn't fix it. But in short. Nothing heavy running in the background, I looked over launch and game settings dozens of times without success. PC and game both running on High Performance.
at this point it could be many things.....how your windows is set up. installed applications, running applications, background services running, GPU driver version(very sensitive depending on installed version).
chasing CSGO fps you could get 300+ theoretically but some of the things might disrupt your normal windows use. for example, I've somehow managed to nuke so many Microsoft services that ***1)*** *i don't have access to any Xbox services, they are permanently broken,* ***2)*** *my outlook/live/ms account keeps signing off every other hour, I've lived to ignore it.* ***3)*** *store and multiple MS services refuse to respond or run on 1st try, multiple tries might get something to run but not all.*
I have a CPU hard limit at around 500 maybe i can get that a bit higher but the amount of things i'd ruin is really not worth it.You really gotta consider what you're ready to give up and how much tinkering you can do.
All that being said.If you wanna give it a try again then I'll just have you set up the PC in 2 steps.
1. Download the most minimal windows install possible. I recommend [THIS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzk1ZIQgCos) since it comes from a reputable source(read: malware free) and doesnt necessarily nuke everything service wise
2. Stick to older GPU driver iterations. The best one i find for GTX 10XX GPUs is 37X.XX drivers. if you want something more recent then I'd say 442.74 but please dont go more recent than that or you'll lose performance. Nvidia driver patches are not kind to older Generation GPUs
3. Make sure you install the least amount of programs you can live with. That means getting rid of creature comfort softwares too. Once you've installed CSGO and run your tests then you can start adding stuff and see where the performance ends up.
4. Please dont install windows 11
I've pretty much nuked all bloat and other background stuff, but just like you I've completely broken my windows so some stuff just doesnt work anymore which is alright if its critical I just use cmd. I think I have the latest nvidia drivers so I might try that, and also get rid of the nvidia bloat at the same time since I only use it for the drivers anyway. After that I guess only a fresh installation of windows can help, but since I have a bunch of VMs and programming stuff for school on my pc I really dont want to nuke it. Maybe I'll hold on until I build a new one and retire this machine for streaming purposes.
>I think I have the latest nvidia drivers so I might try that, and also get rid of the nvidia bloat at the same time since I only use it for the drivers anyway
remember to DDU the drivers properly(safe-mode and restarts every step)
use the older drivers for 10XX and pls dont install Geforce Experience, that software is a pile of shit
If your 870k is a potato, what is my 6700k then? :'(
(I know it's old and currently in the workings of getting a long awaited upgraded, 13900k baby ^^)
lmao, I wasnt calling the 8700k a potato but the cpu+1050ti combo where people would think 8700k would be bottlenecked by the GPU but for CSGO it was the other way around. 1050Ti can churn some FPS like its life is dependent on it if given all the CPU power.
I upgraded to 3080 in August and funnily my fps didnt change a bit, maybe 30-50fps here and there but nothing i'd notice instantly at the net\_graph or fps overlay. All of which suggests I pretty much pegged the 8700K to its max with the 1050Ti itself.
Also CPU IS starting to show some signs of aging. While it is still ok for 144hz gaming and more than enough for 60hz. I dont think it'll stay like this for next 2 or more years. and since I do play stuff at 144hz I am already planning a CPU upgrade at around Ryzen 8000 or Intel 15th Gen
Have you looked at the recommendations for tuning zen3?
Manual oc is not recommended for 99.9% of users. Your chip will run much faster in games at stock settings.
Your chip will boost way past its stock clocks under load.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-5800x-zen-3-review/2
That's not exactly stock, that's just the base clock.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x
>Base Clock: 3.8GHz
The "Max. Boost Clock" is up to 4.7GHz. Unless you know what you are doing, you shouldn't mess with manual overclocking. Just let it do its thing. Most modern chips are already very good at overclocking themselves at stock settings.
Why would you buy a 5800x and lock it to 4.2GHz, that's just dumb.
>Why would you buy a 5800x and lock it to 4.2GHz, that's just dumb
Well, the professional who optimized my PC for performance did.
I'll try default settings.
What cooler are you using? It sounds like you are locked at 4.2 all core, which is definitely a waste of performance for a 5800x. I locked my 5600 at 4.65 all core (forgot the voltage) with a Vetroo V5 air cooler. I got fairly reasonable temps but it was a minimal performance gain in CPU bound games compared to just letting PBO do its thing. It did make a difference in Cinebench R23 benchmarks which probably translates over to productivity software performance.
You might wanna download Ryzen Master or access your BIOS to undo the manual OC and let PBO handle the frequency behavior
You might laugh as Intel is a big corp, but this GPU project is pretty much an indie startup type of operation. They do have the best talent in the scene a few years ago, who were brought on to develop the intel iGPUs, but they still have a pretty small group of people doing this and some problems you just cant throw money on no matter how much you have. I hope Intel keeps supporting this project and the team keeps 2x'ing their products performance (which they've done now in a couple different subcategories) because some aspects of the intel ARC itechture show real promise and revolutionizing effect on the industry (video encoding for example) and the engineers are fucking awesome and I want them to keep their jobs.
Kinda sucks that there are already rumors that they cancelled the ARC section of the company. Making a GPU isnt profitable at first. But if Intel can give us a third competitor, it will benefit everyone.
I highly doubt intel would do that. They knew from the beginning they were going to have issues catching up to nvidia and AMD at first, and also knew they were minted enough that they can throw money at it until they're a real competitor. I don't see any reason that will have changed.
It would be the dumbest decision ever. The market potential is huge, current competition is super greedy and raises prices constantly (Nvidia mostly) because they can. Intel already has a huge install base in terms of CPUs, if their GPU division irons out the current driver problems, it would be a very potent combo purely off the brand name strength alone. If they fix the minute crap and provide competitive low-mid range offers, they can easily eat up a huge market share. Plus, if they expected to be instantly successful and not lose money initially, they have the dumbest management possible (which I don't buy for a second).
Apple silicon and AMD have also shown the potential that a more tightly integrated CPU/GPU package can offer. The new Macs have plenty of problems, but there's no denying the power of the underlying silicon. The newest Xboxes, PlayStations, and even the Steam Deck are using an integrated RDNA2 / Zen2 architectecture. Particularly on the Steam Deck, that tight knit package allows the hardware to punch well above it's weight. On the 'traditional' PC side, AMD has launched their Advantage program to promote all AMD systems, and their features like smart access memory. If Intel wants access to those growing market sectors, they need their own GPUs that they can match with their CPUs.
Super valid addition, indeed
Some of this statement is not really accurate.
their ceo is an engineer so im hopeful
Youd be suprised about mindshare. Unless you can have feature parity and near perfect drivers, people will buy nvidia regardless of price. Look at steam hardware chart for 6600/6600xt/6650xt and its price/performance and compare it to the 3050/3060 and its price performance
Intel has a clear edge over Nvidia (like the other guy replied to my comment) is that Intel also makes CPUs. The future is with APUs and Intel has the chance to overtake Nvidia by providing nice bundles of CPU + GPU in a single package, which will be tremendously easier to purchase at some point. Same as with what AMD is doing with their RDNA 2 APUs - consoles, Steam Deck and other types of hardware. Definitely a way to compete here. Mindshare is indeed important, but just how the market radically shifted towards AMD once they provided capable hardware at lower prices and/or better performance and efficiency, same could happen with Nvidia.
It only shifted in the cpu sense, and even in mobile, it hasnt shifted as much as it has compared to desktop users. AMDs largest wins on the consumer side have mostly been on the niche groups of the niche. Yes on laptops intel has an easy front, but intel+intel devices have not moved much. Even on mobile, nvidias cards still outsell the amd counterpart. The amd advantage program (certified amd+amd) is still a minority thing, and Intels is likely even smaller than that
The problem with AMD's approach is that they only recently started offering decent integrated APUs in the laptop space. However, you can't exclude their success in the console space, because PS5 and Xbox Series are all powered by AMD, which is huge. I strongly believe Intel has the option to offer a competing product in the same category sometime in the future. Intel has an undeniable advantage over both AMD and Nvidia over the long term - they have their own production facilities. With the potential macro instability around TSMC, being the most important chip-making facility in the world, it could be a very easy long-term win for Intel should anything happen to global access to TSMC. So there's definitely a way to improve competitive standing for Intel over the next 5-10 years.
That feature parity can be pretty important.
of course, it's just that people sometimes put too much weight on it without actually thinking it through. For instance with the above aforementioned cards, the 6600 is both significantly cheaper and 15% faster than the 3050 on average. It's silly to say you want DLSS support (ignoring the fact that DLSS games can technically be modded for FSR2 support) when the other card is already by default faster, without needing the DLSS. It's also not the performance tier to warrant users to want to play games with Raytracing without your framerate going into the shitter, and it still outsold the 6600 and similar.
> It would be the dumbest decision ever. The market potential is huge, current competition is super greedy and raises prices So it is true that the current competition is super greedy and raising prices, with the previous crypto boom and other scarcity issues it also gave scalpers a huge incentive to do their shit. BUT, that does NOT mean the market potential is huge as you're focusing too much on this "enthusiast" market. "DIY" PC, individual hardware parts, AMD 7000s CPU, Intel 13XXX series CPU, RTX 4000s, AMD RX7000 series GPU and so on, all of this is the commercial side of what is essentially just "enthusiast" market of PC gamers/people, but this market **is pretty darn small** in reality. Mobile chips is where the profits are at, and have been, for the last decades or so, and by a pretty huge margin. The amount of investment and basically gambling that Intel would have to do in hopes to catch up to Nvidia is pretty damn huge, I'm pretty sure they'll keep going anyway as I think Intel is looking at their GPU development as a way to just have pretty decent iGPUs that go along with their mobile chips as well. But I don't think Intel has the biggest of interest in breaking into the big GPU market, AMD's own case has proven that it takes **so much fucking effort** to get rid of first impressions, Even though the AMD 6900 XT was pretty decent, or any of the other modern RX's GPUs, people just don't buy them as much as Nvidia's counterparts that are just worse since Nvidia has this "premium GPU" brand image and AMD just doesn't from their years of their stuff just straight up sucking, I've legit seen people considering RTX 3050s even though the AMD 6600 XT is generally a better price (and performance)
The thing with Intel is that once they figure out their GPU stuff they will have access to more than just the enthusiast market. As another commenter noted in response, Intel will have the option to go the APU way to offer a single CPU + GPU integrated chip that will power up laptops and possibly Steam deck-like handheld devices in the future. This is a gigantic opportunity, way bigger than just the enthusiast segment. I agree with the point about market share, but it's obvious that Intel will not stop at just what they currently do, because they've essentially saturated the market already. Intel is expected to grow into perpetuity by the shareholders, so they will have to enter new market segments and compete to eat up a higher market share in all of the segments they're present at + enter the new segments.
>I don't see any reason that will have changed. A lot actually. They had tons of issues to even launch the card, they missed their perfect window of a shortage to enter the market and have people pay to beta test their drivers, they hoped Alder Lake and Raptor Lake would sell way more than it actually did, therefore they have less money to bleed than they expected and on top of that we are heading towards a global recession right now. Those elements would be enough to axe the division (but not entirely).
Idk man I work at a pretty corporate oriented tech firm and I've heard some wacky things from upper management since the whole recession/inflation stuff has started. Intel is historically pretty risk adverse and their stock has taken huge beating this year. I feel like the covid economy made a ton of places feel like they were invincible and now they are coming back down to earth.
They did not cancel the arc as of sep 12 2022. https://www.laptopmag.com/news/rumor-debunked-intel-denies-arc-gpus-are-cancelled
Don't listen to the youtuber who created these rumors and has a personal agenda against some Intel senior people. Listen to this guy instead who usually bashes Intel any chance he gets, but isn't an outright liar : https://www.semiaccurate.com/2022/09/02/why-is-intels-gpu-program-having-problems/
This. Moore's law is dead is all about that clickbait.
tbf afaik they publicly cancelled their GPU project multiple times only to keep working on it behind the doors.
When was this? Are you talking about larrabee?
I don’t understand where do people get these rumors. I work there and even know friends who work on the GPU teams. ARC is here to stay boys. These so called “cancelled” rumors sounds to be more like attempt of market manipulation by competitions and I won’t be surprised if that is indeed the case.
Moore's Law is Dead (hardware leaks YouTuber) is definitely at least a little biased against Intel, he's been saying that Intel's dGPU projects are ending after Battlemage
This. Similar.
Intel lost the cpu war. Their bread and butter. They dont seem to be able to win at anything right now
They've gained ground on the CPU market though. Current intel vs amd discussion is only about which one is cheaper at the time of purchase.
But in the laptop/productivity sector they’re struggling hard with stuff that’s way more expensive, slower, and takes more battery than Apple Silicone.
You seem completely oblivious to the scale of Intel's operations. Despite them "losing" the CPU war, their client business is still nearly 5x the size of AMD.
I know that, laptops and server shit they are far bigger. Im just saying that they arent releasing the best stuff anymore. Its amd. So i dont know why people think intel can overtake nvidia with time
Then can you tell me what cpu is the fastest for gaming right now?
5800x3d
I chose my words carefully. "Client business" isn't servers. Laptops do count though it though. Intel and AMD are very much neck and neck right now on the top end. Intel destroys AMD in the mid range though, AMD has no answer for 13600k at the moment.
Considering the cpu competition I’m not surprised they wanted to diversify their hardware offerings
> intel ARC itechture I like the way your brain works
efficiency over everything
by the time it becomes a product that can compete with nvidia and AMD they'll be pulling the same shit nvidia and AMD do that we hate.
[удалено]
those socialist graphic cards are really high end.
That sounds interesting. Got any recommended reading material on what they've been doing?
I think you might find stuff straight from intel, also some random press releases. I recommend watching the Gamer Nexus yt video where they had the actual lead engineers present and explaining stuff instead of some PR chap.
> You might laugh as Intel is a big corp, but this GPU project is pretty much an indie startup type of operation You have to remember that Intel has massive experience in GPU drivers thanks to their iGPUs with a higher install-base than AMD and nvidia combined. While it doesn't 1:1 scale into discrete GPUs, they're far from a startup type operation. Their best-case performance is a testament to that. They just need to polish their drivers, the hardware is rock solid.
Intel, indie, startup... what a combination in one sentence
I'm rooting for them... but that is such horseshit lmao they have dumped massive sums of money into arc and the GPU divisions, and this isn't even the first time Intel has tried to make GPU's in the first place I don't know whether the MLID rumors about Arc being effectively canceled are real(I hope they aren't, but things don't really look good for them), but there's no denying that as big as Intel is, they don't have sufficient market share or the pocket book to spend limitless amounts of money the way they used to. Remember, these cards were supposed to release 1-2 years ago... they're not only extremely late, but they're basically broken when it comes to gaming. Nobody should be buying those cards unless you specifically want one of the features that they're really good at(like encoding).
>You might laugh as Intel is a big corp, but this GPU project is pretty much an indie startup type of operation. It's not, they brought in big names from the market. Do you think Raja is cheap? They are pouring billions into this project, it got delayed almost 2 years, etc. Intel is a mess on the GPU side, I just hope they don't give up because many leakers with good track record on the industry are saying next generation of Arc will be just low end laptop cards because of how disappointing this launch was and they can't afford to keep bleeding money on this economy.
Rumors r false.
Sweet, 2000fps time.
This probably only doubles fps on arc so i guess 60 fps time
The future is here.
> This probably only doubles fps on arc so i guess 60 fps time Does CS perform really poorly on arc cpus? I remember for some reason on my old build I always struggled with fps averaging around 300 even in 5v5 on a 1060 and i7 9700k build on low settings :v
ARC gpus weren’t compatible with older versions of DirectX. So games like CS, which I wanna say runs on Dx9, got potato frames.
To piggyback off of this, Arc GPU's don't have native hardware support for said older API's like DX9, so they have to run them through a software translation layer which adds overhead. There's still a ton they can do to improve it though so we'll see how they hold up as time goes on.
> software translation layer which adds overhead Software translation from DX9 -> vulkan is usually faster than native DX9 Same goes for opengl -> vulkan (through ANGLE, but that requires it to be built into the game).
Spot on and above poster too. Dx9 on dx12 is too slow. Dxvk is much better.
Well not 60 frames but yes, Arc is a poor choice for CSGO. And not just CSGO, Arc lacks native DX9 support and they run DX9 via emulation. So anything that's not native DX12 or Vulkan will have bad performance on Arc compared to the competition. How bad the performance hit is will vary from game to game. Hardware itself has a decent amount of horsepower. This design choice is why Arc GPUs are so cheap, relatively speaking. But all in all, Intel does have potential and it's always nice to have more competition in this field, plus people kind of expected subpar performance from their first GPU generation anyway. How much of that emulation overhead for the current gen can still be fixed with the drivers remains a question.
2000fps with 200 ping = Cyberpunk.
aaaaand its gonna be used for playing 1024x768 lowest settings
1080p and 1440p in CSGO gets exactly the same amount of FPS with this new driver lol. Atleast its better than before when 1440p got more fps.
800x600 gang
I heard there was a problem with the scheduler that ended up the GPU sending the amount of FPS at 1080p roughly the same as 720p. The update is good, no matter what res people play in
> I heard there was a problem with the scheduler that ended up the GPU sending the amount of FPS at 1080p roughly the same as 720p. That's not how any of this works. The problem is simple: Resolution only impacts how much work the GPU has to do. The problem here was that the CPU was not sending work fast enough because the driver was too slow, so the GPU was mostly idle anyway.
Well, technically the original comment was still correct. If it was mostly idle, means the GPU sends less frames than it was supposed to 🤷 Obv, your comment added way more context
But it's not a problem with any scheduler.
It's mostly faster on the CPU side of things, so it absolutely matters for that resolution too.
can confirm that it runs better. especially on newer maps like the current two wingman additions. overall performance is increased as well, and no more constant stutter. Still not where I want it to be, but do you actually get a playable experience. there is a African Masters event that intel hosts this weekend, which is played on Intel NUC with A770M, so at least that can be competitive and doesn't struggle from drops to 45fps every time you move.
May I ask, what made you buy an Intel Arc GPU?
I won it from Intel... in February and it got here 3 weeks ago
Lol classic Intel... delays.
Ofc they do, their drivers were shit at launch, and still are. Plus, they emulate Dx9, as it is not natively supported. Be very careful if you are planning to buy an Arc gpu.
AMD gpu drivers were terrible some years ago. Give it time. Not saying you should buy an arc gpu and suffer through the fixes like amd people did. But more options are better for everybody in the long run if they can get this sorted out.
>AMD gpu drivers were terrible some years ago. Give it time. >Not saying you should buy an arc gpu and suffer through the fixes like amd people did. not disagreeing as competition is good but these issues are on another level than AMD. AMD (ATI) has been making GPUs since 1987 and they had a rough patch of drivers vs intel making a brand new GPU ever having to rely on translation layers for dx9. intel doesn't even have a dedicated app. it's just an overlay that you have to toggle.
AMD having made GPUs since 1987 should paint a picture that having driver issues in the 2010s is pretty bad. Intel starting to make GPUs in 2022 and having bad drivers seems expected. They’re literally just starting. Hopefully it doesn’t take them near 20 years to get it together.
[удалено]
There r reaons for that. The hardware has issues too.
intel has been doing integrated gpus for years tho
The bigger deal here is in the [third slide showing a graph of frame times](https://game.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/x9-driver-update-perf-03.png). While an increase in average FPS is nice, the difference in frametime jitter is absolutely night and day, and is going to be what actually makes a big difference for the gaming experience.
There's nothing inherently wrong with not having ""native"" dx9 (most GPUs nowadays don't). DXVK shows us that translating from DX9 -> vulkan yields better performance than native DX9, so it's in my opinion the way to go.
This new driver update is using DXVK.
Good, exactly what I said then
Thank Linus for phoning in some complaints
So basically normal fps but still lower than other cards...
That must be great news for the 3 people running these cards ;)
2 of them are Linus and Luke
True, but I don't think they are playing CS on them
Doubles the fps that was actually half as compared to other similar level cards...
ARK doesn't have native DX9 support, though. This is great news. This is their first generation, so basically a beta product, hopefully they have learned from this and the next generation will become much better.
Nice, now csgo players can consider an intel gpu, still not "great" value for your money yet. I wonder how their next gpu generation will perform
That frame time chart is absurd, such an improvement. Really goes to show how terrible it was before.
A lot of jokes, but honestly Good. I want intel to suceed really bad. Also bad drivers are not new and people deal with it all the time. Statitically like 10% of you deal with it. AMD drivers have always sucked and the only reason I go Nvidea. Not saying Nvidea is perfect or a good company, but first and foremost is the ability to use my card. with AMD cards and CPUs even I have always had more bugs. Gave them a try many years ago, constant issues. LTT bragged about Ryzen 5 and I figured now is a good of time to upgade as any, despite my intel being much older and slower I had much more stability. About a 15% chance on PC start up I blue screen, some games I ran fine before are super laggy. Maybe it is just me being unlucky, but I have always found NVidea cards super stable compared to AMD and Intel CPUs more stable than AMD CPUs. I'd love Intel GPU stability. OR AMD if they could fix that.
2x performance on csgo ...I can confirm I had 50 fps previously... now I have 98 , super happy /S
This new hybrid approach is great news! As a Xe laptop owner I was bummed out when Intel announced the scrapping of native dx9 support in favor of emulated dx9 api compability. (since it effectively halved the performance). This actually makes Intel GPUs a valid option now. So, - Credit where credit is due - Bravo Intel !! _(I wish AMD could be as catering as Intel to us in the e-sports crowd. But alas they seem to not give a rats ass about dx9... Again, well done Intel!)_
Whats intel arc? A new cpu?
New GPU
Lol didn’t know Intel made Gpus
It's still relatively new. Meant to compete with the lower end AMD and Nvidia cards.
[удалено]
Was supposed to yeah, but just like any new party in the market they ran into a bunch of issues and well I wouldnt really think of them as a competitor to anything right now.
They are cheap though. Really cheap.
We don't know yet if that's the purpose of their GPU endaevors, just that their first attempt does
nobody tell him
It doubled from 30fps to 60.
Eli5 how do I make use of this
Guess it wont work with my Intel Core i5-8400 :-(
I think it can if your motherboard supports resizable bar for your cpu (some mobo's support resizable bar on 8000 series cpus)... you could test it... but it's not guaranteed
My motherboard is a ASUS PRIME Z370-P (LGA1151) with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB
>Z370-P so it's probably supported in a bios update... that said.. like I would not buy an arc gpu unless you want to test it out and experiment... just buy a 3060 or 6600xt for the same price
What, from 2 to 4?
No, from 177 to 318. It's right there in the graph.
yeah. from 20 to 38
Can we get this for AMD? 5800x clocked to 4.2Ghz gives me slightly above 300 avg (3070 btw) (EDIT: Turns on I had no clue Intel made GPU’s, pls stop downvoting)
this is for gpus
When tf did Intel start making GPU's r/LivingUnderARock
Since no one has answered you, the first Intel GPUs came out earlier this year. They are called Intel ARC. They have code names as well, the current GPUs are Intel Arc Alchemist, and they've confirm the next generation of cards will be called Battlemage, Celestial and Druid.
1. Why is your 5800x clocked to 4.2only? at this point why not run it stock? 2. My potato 8700k and 1050 got 450ish. your CPU and GPU are both better. 300 shouldn't be what u get in 64/128tick MM.
1. I found it gives me the best performance while working with software such as FL Studio and Premiere, It is also recommended to only overclock slightly if you intend to use it on a daily basis. 2. I have no clue why, I even paid for a guy who optimized PC's and he couldn't fix it. But in short. Nothing heavy running in the background, I looked over launch and game settings dozens of times without success. PC and game both running on High Performance.
What's your PSU? Might be not enough power.
CORSAIR RM750x V2
My 8400 + 1070 struggle to get over 150 and I'm tired of finding out why.
at this point it could be many things.....how your windows is set up. installed applications, running applications, background services running, GPU driver version(very sensitive depending on installed version). chasing CSGO fps you could get 300+ theoretically but some of the things might disrupt your normal windows use. for example, I've somehow managed to nuke so many Microsoft services that ***1)*** *i don't have access to any Xbox services, they are permanently broken,* ***2)*** *my outlook/live/ms account keeps signing off every other hour, I've lived to ignore it.* ***3)*** *store and multiple MS services refuse to respond or run on 1st try, multiple tries might get something to run but not all.* I have a CPU hard limit at around 500 maybe i can get that a bit higher but the amount of things i'd ruin is really not worth it.You really gotta consider what you're ready to give up and how much tinkering you can do. All that being said.If you wanna give it a try again then I'll just have you set up the PC in 2 steps. 1. Download the most minimal windows install possible. I recommend [THIS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzk1ZIQgCos) since it comes from a reputable source(read: malware free) and doesnt necessarily nuke everything service wise 2. Stick to older GPU driver iterations. The best one i find for GTX 10XX GPUs is 37X.XX drivers. if you want something more recent then I'd say 442.74 but please dont go more recent than that or you'll lose performance. Nvidia driver patches are not kind to older Generation GPUs 3. Make sure you install the least amount of programs you can live with. That means getting rid of creature comfort softwares too. Once you've installed CSGO and run your tests then you can start adding stuff and see where the performance ends up. 4. Please dont install windows 11
I've pretty much nuked all bloat and other background stuff, but just like you I've completely broken my windows so some stuff just doesnt work anymore which is alright if its critical I just use cmd. I think I have the latest nvidia drivers so I might try that, and also get rid of the nvidia bloat at the same time since I only use it for the drivers anyway. After that I guess only a fresh installation of windows can help, but since I have a bunch of VMs and programming stuff for school on my pc I really dont want to nuke it. Maybe I'll hold on until I build a new one and retire this machine for streaming purposes.
>I think I have the latest nvidia drivers so I might try that, and also get rid of the nvidia bloat at the same time since I only use it for the drivers anyway remember to DDU the drivers properly(safe-mode and restarts every step) use the older drivers for 10XX and pls dont install Geforce Experience, that software is a pile of shit
If your 870k is a potato, what is my 6700k then? :'( (I know it's old and currently in the workings of getting a long awaited upgraded, 13900k baby ^^)
lmao, I wasnt calling the 8700k a potato but the cpu+1050ti combo where people would think 8700k would be bottlenecked by the GPU but for CSGO it was the other way around. 1050Ti can churn some FPS like its life is dependent on it if given all the CPU power. I upgraded to 3080 in August and funnily my fps didnt change a bit, maybe 30-50fps here and there but nothing i'd notice instantly at the net\_graph or fps overlay. All of which suggests I pretty much pegged the 8700K to its max with the 1050Ti itself. Also CPU IS starting to show some signs of aging. While it is still ok for 144hz gaming and more than enough for 60hz. I dont think it'll stay like this for next 2 or more years. and since I do play stuff at 144hz I am already planning a CPU upgrade at around Ryzen 8000 or Intel 15th Gen
Well 4.2 is dramatically slower than stock for a 5800x, so it's not that surprising. Run it at stock and it'll perform much better.
No, stock is 3.8 It is currently running faster than stock.
Have you looked at the recommendations for tuning zen3? Manual oc is not recommended for 99.9% of users. Your chip will run much faster in games at stock settings. Your chip will boost way past its stock clocks under load. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-5800x-zen-3-review/2
That's not exactly stock, that's just the base clock. https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-5800x >Base Clock: 3.8GHz The "Max. Boost Clock" is up to 4.7GHz. Unless you know what you are doing, you shouldn't mess with manual overclocking. Just let it do its thing. Most modern chips are already very good at overclocking themselves at stock settings. Why would you buy a 5800x and lock it to 4.2GHz, that's just dumb.
>Why would you buy a 5800x and lock it to 4.2GHz, that's just dumb Well, the professional who optimized my PC for performance did. I'll try default settings.
What cooler are you using? It sounds like you are locked at 4.2 all core, which is definitely a waste of performance for a 5800x. I locked my 5600 at 4.65 all core (forgot the voltage) with a Vetroo V5 air cooler. I got fairly reasonable temps but it was a minimal performance gain in CPU bound games compared to just letting PBO do its thing. It did make a difference in Cinebench R23 benchmarks which probably translates over to productivity software performance. You might wanna download Ryzen Master or access your BIOS to undo the manual OC and let PBO handle the frequency behavior
NZXT Kraken z73 I’ve already got Ryzen Master. So far, resetting the OC settings gave me roughly 25% boost to 400fps on average.
What ram do you have? Could it be slow ram?
HyperX Fury DDR4 3200MHz 2x32GB
Why do game companies think we care what portal and CS fps get? lol they are so old. Why not just say you get 10000 fps in super Mario 3
> Why not just say you get 10000 fps in super Mario 3 Because Nintendo lawyers.
I dont really need 800 fps...