Intel recently shared performance metrics of its new Arc A380 desktop GPU in 17 gaming titles, with direct comparisons to the GTX 1650 and RX 6400 — all tested on the same PC. On average, the A380 lost compared to the GTX 1650 and RX 6400, making it one of the slowest entry-level GPUs when it arrives on the US market. Even as a budget offering, Intel will have a tough time making our best graphics card list.
The A300 series is Intel’s entry-level desktop GPU, using the smaller “ACM-G11” Arch Alchemist chip. However, unlike the mobile A350M and A370M, it has all eight of Intel’s Xe GPU cores and is enabled alongside the 96-bit GDDR6 memory interface. That’s nearly the same core configuration as the entry-level Arc A370M mobile GPU, but with 50% more memory, 66% more memory bandwidth, and significantly higher GPU clocks reaching up to 2.45 GHz.
TBP (typical board power) is also higher at 75W, perhaps more, and Intel’s Arc A380 will come in several variants. Cards that run at less than 75W can get by without a power connector and have a 2 GHz clock speed, cards with up to an 80W TBP will require at least a 6-pin power connector and can run at up to 2.25 GHz, and cards with an 87W or higher TBP can run at 2.35 GHz or more.
We don’t know what card Intel used for the tests, and the Gunnir card images shown here with the 8-pin power connector are for reference purposes only. However, the test PC was equipped with a Core i5-12600K, 2x16GB DDR4-3200 memory, an MSI Z690-A Pro WiFi DDR4 motherboard (actually the same motherboard we use in our GPU testbed), and a 4TB M600 Pro XT SSD, running Windows 11.
For now, the Arc A380 is the only desktop GPU available on Intel’s Arc website. But according to previous driver leaks, we should expect Intel’s A500 series and A700 series of desktop GPUs to arrive at some point. Take these figures with a healthy dose of skepticism, in other words, as most manufacturer-provided benchmarks attempt to show products in a better light.
You can view the complete list of fps results over at Wccftech, the publication that was able to procure these results from Intel. To give you a quick summary, Intel’s Arc A380 was able to compete with the AMD Radeon RX 6400.
|Games||Intel Arc A380||GeForce GTX 1650||Radeon RX 6400|
|17 Game Geometric Mean||96.4||114.5||105.0|
|Age of Empires 4||80||102||94|
|The Witcher 3||85||101||81|
|Total War: Troy||78||98||75|
On average, the Arc A380 lost to the GTX 1650 by 19% and the RX 6400 by 9%. When we compare each GPU game-by-game, the Arc A380 only beats the RX 6400 in four of the 17 titles and the GTX 1650 in one of them (Naraka Bladepoint). There’s also a three-way tie in NiZhan, where all the GPUs managed 200 fps, though we’re still determining why Intel would even bother to include that particular benchmark since it looks like there’s a frame rate cap.
Regardless, it isn’t encouraging to see the new Intel GPU getting beat out by an entry-level Nvidia GPU released over three years ago and an ultra-low-level Radeon GPU that is a cut-down Navi 24 mobile GPU slapped onto a graphics card PCB. Moreover, over the past few months, we’ve heard reports that Intel’s graphics drivers play a significant role in gaming performance with these new A-series GPUs, with poor optimization being a big issue.
Intel can turn things around and provide well-optimized gaming drivers shortly once its A-series lineup makes it to the rest of the world market. Intel also recently showed its expected performance for the higher tier A700M mobile parts, which looked at least reasonably capable. But if Intel has the same driver problems on its mid-range A500 and flagship A700 series graphics cards, where gaming performance matters even more, Intel’s GPU division will be dealing with severe challenges in a market that’s already quite competitive.
For the entry-level and mobile parts, it’s not just gaming performance that Intel is exciting. Arc includes the Xe media engine, which supports up to 8K encode and decode of AVC (H.264), HEVC (H.265), VP9, and AV1 — and Arc is the only GPU right now with hardware encoding support of AV1. So, for example, comparing the A380 against a Core i5-12600K CPU encode of an AV1 video, the A380 took less than a quarter of the time (53 seconds versus 234 seconds).
Arc A380 was also faster in other video encoding scenarios like an HEVC encode using DaVinci Resolve, where Intel’s Deep Link feature that leverages the CPU graphics and dedicated GPU allowed it to finish the task in 16 seconds compared to 25 seconds on a GTX 1650 card. Interestingly, just the UHD Graphics 770 or Arc A380 alone required 30 seconds, so encoding performance nearly doubled thanks to Deep Link.
If you’re more interested in media capabilities, Arc might be a great option in the US market. For gamers, additional driver improvements can help narrow the gap that Intel’s currently showing.
This review is by Shenmedounengce from Bilibili content maker. She was the first to post-test results for the Intel Arc A380 graphics cards in both gaming and synthetic workloads.