Intel Arc GPUs: Disappointing Performance, Inconsistencies, and Crashing

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Intel's Entry into the GPU Market
3. Initial Optimism and Disappointments
   • 3.1. Rumored Targets and Entry Points
   • 3.2. Issues with Stability and Drivers
4. Mixed Reviews and Inconsistent Performance
   • 4.1. Performance Comparisons with Competitors
   • 4.2. Inconsistencies in Game Performance
5. Focus on DX12 and Vulkan APIs
   • 5.1. Impact on Esports Titles
   • 5.2. Backwards Compatibility Concerns
6. Reported Issues and Bugs
   • 6.1. Games Crashing and Texture Issues
   • 6.2. Monitor Detection Problems
7. Die Size and Performance Discrepancies
8. The Need for Resizable BAR and CPU Compatibility
9. Alternative Options: AMD and Nvidia
10. Conclusion
11. Resources

💡 Highlights

• Intel's entry into the GPU market was met with initial excitement, but the review results have been disappointing.
• The performance of Intel's Arc GPUs has been inconsistent and mixed, with some games outperforming competitors while others perform poorly.
• Issues with stability, drivers, and compatibility have been reported, including games crashing and texture problems.
• Intel's focus on DX12 and Vulkan APIs has resulted in poor performance in popular esports titles and limited backwards compatibility.
• The die size of the Arc GPUs suggests they should perform better, but something went wrong during development.
• The use of resizable BAR and the need for specific CPU compatibility further complicate the situation.
• For now, AMD and Nvidia are recommended as more stable and competitive options in the GPU market.
• Intel needs to address these issues and improve their drivers to gain traction and compete effectively with AMD and Nvidia.

Resources: Gamers Nexus Review, Hardware and Box Review, Kid Guru Review

🖥️ Intel's Entry into the GPU Market

In 2017, Intel announced its intention to enter the highly competitive discrete GPU market, challenging the dominance of AMD and Nvidia. This news was welcomed by computer hardware enthusiasts and gamers alike, as the presence of another player in the market promised increased competition and innovation. Additionally, Intel's acquisition of Raja Koduri, former head of AMD's Radeon graphics division, further fueled excitement for Intel's foray into graphics processing units.

✨ Initial Optimism and Disappointments

Initially, there were rumors that Intel's flagship GPU would target the performance levels of the popular RTX 3070 and RX 6700 XT. This gave hope that Intel would offer a competitive option at a potentially lower price point. However, this optimism started to diminish when Intel released the Arc A380, which fell short of expectations. Instead of performing at the level of an RTX 6500 XT, it only offered performance comparable to an RX 6400 XT, a whole tier slower.

Moreover, the release of the Arc A380 came with a myriad of issues related to stability, driver compatibility, and game performance. Although some overlooked these problems since the Arc A380 was not widely available and intended for specific markets, hopes were high that Intel's flagship Arc GPUs would address these issues thoroughly.

🔀 Mixed Reviews and Inconsistent Performance

On October 5th, the review embargo for the Arc A770 and A750 was lifted, and the results from renowned tech reviewers started to surface. The general Consensus was that the feedback was mixed, but leaning towards the negative side. One notable takeaway was the inconsistency in performance across different games. While some games showed Intel's dominance or competitive performance, others exhibited abysmal results.

For instance, Gamers Nexus reported that the A770 performed almost on par with an RTX 3070 in certain games, while TechPowerUp showcased how the GPUs outperformed an RTX 3070 in Metro Exodus. However, other reviewers, like Gamers Nexus, reported abysmal performance in popular esports titles such as CS:GO, Rainbow Six Siege, and Valorant. This poor performance was attributed to Intel's focus on optimizing their drivers for low-level hardware APIs like DX12 and Vulkan, which modern games tend to use. As a result, older games, especially those using DX9, suffered due to the translation layer and increased CPU driver overhead.

🐞 Reported Issues and Bugs

Several reviewers pointed out various issues encountered during their testing. These issues included games crashing, textures not loading correctly, and monitor detection bugs. It is evident that these GPUs were not ready for launch and needed further development and refinement. As a company with billions in revenue and extensive engineering talent, Intel should have executed a smoother product launch without these glaring issues.

📉 Die Size and Performance Discrepancies

One factor that raised eyebrows among reviewers was the die size of the Arc GPUs. At 406 millimeters square, they boasted larger dies compared to some competing GPUs. However, the performance did not match expectations, leading to speculation about what went wrong during the development process. It is clear that raw performance itself isn't necessarily the problem, but rather the lack of refined and polished drivers.

⚙️ The Need for Resizable BAR and CPU Compatibility

Intel recommended a minimum requirement of their own 10th Generation CPUs or AMD's Ryzen 3000 series CPUs to fully utilize their GPUs. This is due to the reliance on the resizable BAR feature, which Intel deems as essential. Neglecting to enable resizable BAR effectively cripples the performance of these GPUs, making them significantly less competitive. This additional consideration adds complexity to the decision-making process for potential buyers.

🔄 Alternative Options: AMD and Nvidia

Given the reported issues, performance inconsistencies, and the availability of stable alternatives in the market, it is hard to justify purchasing Intel's Arc GPUs as one's daily gaming driver. Both AMD and Nvidia offer better stability, driver support, and competitive pricing. AMD, in particular, provides excellent raw rasterization performance at an attractive price point. Nvidia, on the other HAND, offers superior ray tracing capabilities. For now, Intel's Arc GPUs seem to attract only the most loyal Intel fans and hardware enthusiasts looking for something new to tinker with.

🔚 Conclusion

Intel's entry into the GPU market has been met with disappointment and skepticism. The issues with stability, driver optimization, and game performance have hindered the widespread adoption of Intel's Arc GPUs. While they are not entirely terrible, the timing of their release and lack of polished drivers have hindered their success in the market. Intel needs to address these issues promptly and deliver a more competitive and refined product to effectively challenge AMD and Nvidia. As consumers, we should not bear the responsibility of being Intel's guinea pigs in this venture.

❓ FAQ

Q: Are Intel's Arc GPUs completely unusable? A: No, they are not completely unusable. However, the reported issues with stability, driver compatibility, and inconsistent game performance make them less appealing compared to stable alternatives from AMD and Nvidia.

Q: What types of games are Intel's Arc GPUs particularly bad at handling? A: Intel's focus on optimizing their drivers for DX12 and Vulkan APIs has resulted in poor performance in popular esports titles such as CS:GO, Rainbow Six Siege, and Valorant. These games tend to use older APIs like DX9, which are not natively supported by Intel's GPUs, leading to subpar performance.

Q: Will Intel's driver team fix the reported issues over time? A: It is uncertain how long it will take for Intel's driver team to address the reported issues and improve the drivers. While driver revisions may eventually solve some of the problems, there is no guarantee of their timely resolution.

Q: Should I consider buying an Intel Arc GPU for its encoding performance? A: While Intel's Arc GPUs may offer decent encoding performance, it is important to remember that they were primarily marketed as gaming-focused GPUs. For users primarily interested in encoding or other non-gaming tasks, other products may provide better value and performance.

Q: What are the recommended alternatives to Intel's Arc GPUs? A: AMD and Nvidia currently offer more stable and competitive GPU options in the market. AMD provides excellent raw rasterization performance at attractive prices, while Nvidia offers superior ray tracing capabilities.