Intel Reveals Arc A770, Pricing, and Performance Tiering

If they really keep it below 400$ they might even sell what they can get to customers.

 

Seems like it needs to be on a better node with those power figures...

 

Seeing the 1050 Ti as the low tier, after all these years, hurts my eyes.

I really really think that silicone is done.

 

Seeing the 770 with 16gb of Ram and then comparing it with Nvidia cards and their Ram amount...

 

There is 8gb and 16gb version of the a770 while a750 is 8gb only. I think both cards are far to weak to utilize more than 8gb considering its slower than even 3060ti.

 

Hopefully Intel get enough experience out of this first run of GPUs to polish things up for their 2nd run in couple years. On both the HW and SW front.

 

It would be smart to under price these cards. The money is not as important than getting a foot in the door.
Grab a bit of market share.

 

I think the same but still the fact remains that Nvidia is skipping on RAM compared to Intel and AMD.

And this is even worse if we consider Nvidia to be premium solution...

 

it was low tier even when new. I have one on a Dell laptop and even then it was terrible compared to my 1070

 

So what you are seeing is intel offering a more expensive card then it needs to be due to the added memory right? ...right. Because more doesn't always mean better, unless you'd be one of those people who buy a card with 64gb of ram because higher number...

Buy for performance, not ram amount.

Some companies want to dazzle and sway you with numbers. Others rather focus on what matters.

If you dont get better performance with more ram, especially with competition, or the reason you do get better performance has nothing to do with the ram amount, and could be less, it's a complete waste. That, or, tge radeon 7 is better then almost every RTX 30 card....

Don't buy for ram, don't look at ram, look at performance. Buy for performance, whichever company that is, i don't care, buy for performance. If that happens to be the company with the least amount of ram, be happy! Just for the love of everything stop paying attention to ram over performance.

But hey if you do just continue your ways, i'll find a GT 1030 and somehow modify 32 gigs of ram on it and sell it to you for $700, it'll be the best GPU currently, i promise.

 

i think if those power fiqure or correct they better be better performance then cards there ment to compete with. seeing MSRP price seem about the same that competition cards

 

Performance/power seems to be a generation or two out of whack there.

 

By that logic the 4090 should just have 4gb vram. Who cares right when the performance is all you need? Vram is an important figure thats why its right there next the graphics card name.

 

Why does this keep needing to be said:
More [V]RAM only makes your processor less slow. So long as you haven't run out, having more won't fix anything. In fact, there is such thing as too much memory, though GPUs don't appear to be anywhere near that limit.
Remember kids - GPUs count buffers as part of VRAM usage.

General rule of thumb for modern games (assuming you're not doing supersampling):
1080p can get by with 4GB but is best with 6GB+
1440p can get by with 6GB but is best with 8GB+
2160p can get by with 10GB but is best with 12GB+

Intel's lineup is sensible. In fact, I think 16GB for the A770 is a bit overkill.

 

You are correct, of course, but higher end cards benefit from more RAM.

For example, do you think it`s okay for the 3080 to have only 10gb of RAM? Or for the future 4070 to also only have the same 10gb of RAM?

Even my 1080ti, from 2 generations ago, has more RAM.

For me, there`s no reason for Nvidia to be so stingy with the RAM amount, specially with the prices they charge.

 

This is really hard on Intel going in with AMD and Nvidia. On the one hand they should have something in line with RTX4000 and RDNA3 while having the time to test physical stability of Xe architecture.

 

This seems a little wrong to me, mostly the 4GB for 1080p, recent games tend to use a lot. one that comes to mind is farcry 6, doesn't that chew up vram and this amount of ram would just not be enough (this might be true for 1440p with 6GB of vram as well)

I agree 16gb is overkill though, 12GB would of been enough but Ram is in the odd area where you can't get strange amounts of ram like 13/14/15GB as an example

 

I knew someone was going to say that, but the problem is the way people think they have to max out everything. Modern games have textures meant to support 4K displays. Lower texture and shadow detail a notch or two and 4GB will probably keep up without much of any noteworthy loss in detail.
Keep in mind too that with DDR5, PCIe 4.0 or 5.0, and the use of Vulkan or DX12, feeding data over the PCIe bus isn't going to be the major bottleneck it used to be... so long as you you don't get something like a RX 6400 with only 4x lanes.

 

seem out of wake for amd/nvidia/and intel but that just my opinion, intel just seem worse seeing from benchs i seen the intel equalvant to 3060/ti are either slight faster or slow.