I did not expect Intel’s first generation of graphics cards to be so FAST.
At their best, the performance of the A750 and 770 cards is enough to satisfy the needs
of MOST gamers, at the popular 1080p and 1440p resolutions.
Sure, they’re no Geforce 4090, but most people won’t be getting a 4090, will they.
So I felt the tier of Intel’s products to be sensibly chosen.
HOWEVER, even if they’re performance and price-matched against AMD and Nvidia rivals,
I still could not see Intel as being equals due to the many exotic problems their drivers
suffered from, which were so bad they were just not feasible as gaming options on release-day.
I would have hoped for more of a discounted price than we ultimately got, and while every
update improves the situation somewhat, I still wouldn’t want to recommend the cards
to others, but it may be getting to the point where I’d consider using one myself.
All these driver issues that Intel has faced shouldn’t come as a shock to you- because
making a new graphics card is HARD.
And even with Intel being a massive company that’s serious about making a graphics card,
they will still have to work long and hard to catch up with the head start that AMD and
Nvidia have in this market.
But that still doesn’t mean that I want to use them in a broken state.
I can forgive poor performance, but when it comes to exotic, inescapable software-based
problems like it not being able to display an image on your monitor, or game-breaking
artifacting and buggy visuals, or stutter-fests and broken overlays, these sorts of issues
are not fun and can make using your PC a thoroughly unpleasant experience.
You don’t know how many computer things you take for granted until they don’t work
anymore.
Hence why I’m quite happy to let Intel iron those things out before I give their products
consideration.
So this video will discuss the barriers that Intel needs to break before I consider their
graphics cards to be on-par with AMD’s and Nvidia’s.
So the big, ongoing thing is the drivers, and I have been thoroughly impressed by how
frequently Intel has updated them, and how they’ve been focusing on remedying the worst
of the identified problems.
If they keep this up, then by the time their next generation of cards comes out then they
should be in a pretty good shape.
I know what you’re thinking- who am I to assess the state of their drivers, if I don’t
even have one of their cards myself?
…well, the fact that they’re still patching problems up on popular games and benchmarks
is telling.
If there are still issues with commonly played games, then it’s only going to get worse
once you go off the beaten path and begin trying older and less popular games and applications
instead.
So I’m being fair on them by giving them a bit longer to patch things up before I subject
myself to their cards, because I just know that if I try them too soon, I could end up
resenting them and it’s not fun waiting around for every new update in the hope that
all my particular problems will be resolved.
So yeah, I tend to like experimental new stuff, but something about software issues that you
can’t work around really irks me.
But it seems like Intel are getting there.
The other condition that Intel needs to meet before I’m happy with them is to show that
they’re serious about committing to the future.
If you buy an Nvidia or AMD card, then you can be fairly confident that they’ll still
be supported in 3-5 years’ time.
Because there’s nothing to indicate otherwise, is there.
Nvidia are going strong and always have done, while AMD’s struggling but always have done,
and they’ve pulled through worse than this before, so they’ll probably keep on going.
But with Intel, they have no track record in the graphics card market to base things
off -apart from failed projects- so there is the risk that they may pull out again before
you’ve had your money’s worth out of your graphics card.
But how can Intel promise the future to us now?
Right now, Intel is communicating their intent via their regular new driver updates.
Don’t get me wrong: if they didn’t do this, then their ARC cards would be dead in
the water right now.
Nobody would trust a company that ships broken products and doesn’t bother fixing them.
But… broken products that are regularly improved and fixed?
That looks a lot better doesn’t it.
It’s still not as good as if they were released in a fully working state, but it’s the next
best thing, and understandable with a brand new graphics card.
And sure, Intel’s cards have weaknesses, but they also have strengths: like excellent
support for AV1 encoding.
If Intel’s cards are only ever comparable or worse than their rivals then it makes them
a hard sell- but a few key strengths like this one can make taking the plunge a lot
less daunting.
And I like that they’ve made their own XESS upscaling solution.
They COULD have just relied on AMD’s FSR 2, but they went out of their way to become
less dependent on an alternative by creating their own, and I believe it works better on
Intel cards than it does on others any way, which is another nice selling point.
It probably gives ARC users a warm fuzzy feeling when they load a game up and see that Intel
has bothered supporting it personally.
But you know the best way of knowing if a company will do something?
It’s if it benefits them to do that thing.
And investing in ARC makes SENSE for Intel.
Because it’s awesome to grab a slice of the graphics card market at a time when people
deem $300 to be low-end, and when AI is emerging as being another reason for people to need
more computing power.
And it seems to me like Intel has already had to do a load of graphics work to get the
integrated graphics on their processors working in the first place.
If I was in Intel’s position, I’d certainly want to try and scale that up to dedicated
solutions as well, and for the benefits of one to trickle across to the other.
I’m sure improved drivers and upscaling solutions like XESS will be a godsend in their
APUs as well!
This combined approach has certainly paid off for AMD, who have found great success
in combining their CPU and GPU efforts to drive things like the Playstation, the Xbox
and Steam Deck.
Their computer-based APUs aren’t bad either.
So if I was Intel I’d definitely want a powerful in-house solution that I was in control
of, instead of having to rely on other companies for any system which requires more power than
integrated graphics can provide.
I’ve seen a few people online suggesting that ARC has been a failure, but if you ask
me, it’s gone about as well as it could have done.
Better than I expected it to, in fact!
That they’ve been able to create and to sell a product that sits within the $200-$300
price point, first time, in such a large market, is a very good sign indeed.
And Intel knows it will take time, money, effort and manpower to pull something like
this off.
I really don’t see them cancelling the project so soon after their first release when it
already shows so much promise.
AND YET, even for me, the launch of their next generation of graphics cards will be
the moment that I will seriously consider getting one of their cards.
Not only because I hope that by then their drivers will be fairly decent, but because
hopefully by then their card’s price to performance offering will be something worth
getting excited about.
And I think that’s already the thing that’s made me hesitant about wanting to cover these
existing cards.
It’s sort of like the same Geforce 1080 TI performance that we’ve already seen from
AMD’s Radeon 7, the 5700 series, the 6600 series, the Geforce 2070 series, and 3060
series, and …come on.
Let’s move things on a bit, shall we.
If the ARC A750 and 770 were $150 and $200, then THAT would be worth getting excited about.
But this market has become so stagnant that we’ve all become so jaded that even this
seems like wishful thinking.
BUT…
IF Intel’s next generation of graphics cards- which I presume will be like, the Battlemage
B750 and 850 and stuff like that, CAN actually shift the price-performance curve along a
bit, then it WILL be something to get excited about.
I’m hoping that a third player in the graphics card market will bring about some price wars.
I’m not too confident about that, but I like to try and be positive.
So yeah, I suppose this video has been a bit of a soul-searching exercise for me to try
and establish why I don’t get too excited about covering the A750 and 770 cards, despite
them probably being the most interesting graphics cards to appear in the last few years.
And I really think it boils down to how it doesn’t really deliver exciting price-performance,
especially given the state of its day 1 drivers.
I thought Intel’s first cards would have shaken up the market somewhat, but they haven’t.
At all.
And that’s a problem.
And let’s be honest here- another big reason I haven’t covered them is because I’d
have to buy a product that I’d only really use to make the video with.
And that costs me money!
Let’s talk sponsorships, which is when a company pays someone money to make content
about their product.
Just so you know: I haven’t been asked by Intel or anything like that.
I just saw Digital Foundry HAD been paid to make a video about the ARC A770 and it got
me thinking about the value of such content.
Like, if you’re paid to say nice things about a product, or not to say bad things,
then the content will be of very limited value.
Yes, you can raise awareness that a product works in certain games and situations, but
that probably isn’t what people want to know about said product.
HOWEVER, if you’re paid for your TIME to investigate something you otherwise wouldn’t
have done, then I can see the value to that.
Both for you, and for the viewers watching.
For instance: last year, I went and bought a Radeon 6500 XT because I was personally
very curious to see how it would perform DESPITE its hardware limitations.
Problem is… you’re not interested.
My videos on that card aren’t very popular, and it simply isn’t profitable for me to
dedicate so much time to testing that card when the audience for that kind of content
is so small.
It’s just that for that small audience, the videos are very handy because it provides
an insight into a product that they may well be considering for themselves.
But that’s the issue I have with covering these ARC cards right now- I’d have to buy
one, then I’d have to spend several weeks of my life testing it, making notes, capturing
footage and so on.
Even if it does earn me money, it still won’t compensate for the initial investment and
time required when I could just be spamming out low-effort source 2 rumour videos instead.
So any way, that’s how I see paid content.
It CAN have a reason and use, if given the right circumstances.
But obviously, nothing’s better than content being made for the sake of testing said product.
I’ve been really impressed with how Linus Tech Tips has been handling ARC.
They clearly had some privileged access from Intel early on, but since then they’ve provided
all sorts of content on the graphics cards, talking about how they are to use over the
course of weeks and months, they’ve live-streamed it running gameplay from them across numerous
different games, and have been vocal about the issues they’ve encountered with them
as well as the areas in which ARC has excelled.
And this kind of content is invaluable for showing people what these products are like.
It’s certainly helped me to understand the current state that they’re in.
So yeah, I think it’s in everyone’s best interests that Intel’s ARC becomes as good
as possible, and I can’t wait for proper 3-way competition to make its way to the graphics
card market again.
At this point, it’ll be the first time in decades!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUUMUGvTffs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTomqXuYK4s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEvdrbxTtVo