Intel's Arc A770 and A750 were decent, if imperfect, GPUs at launch, but they've massively improved since then.
"Intel’s Arc A770 and A750 were decent at launch, but over the past few months, they’ve started to look like some of the best graphics cards you can buy if you’re on a budget. Disappointing generational improvements from AMD and Nvidia, combined with high prices, have made it hard to find a decent GPU around $200 to $300 — and Intel’s GPUs have silently filled that gap.
They don’t deliver flagship performance, and in some cases, they’re just straight-up worse than the competition at the same price. But Intel has clearly been improving the Arc A770 and A750, and although small driver improvements don’t always make a splash, they’re starting to add up."
@nanoUFO Honestly, I am considering picking one up for Starfield, depending on how they perform there. I'm sure their Linux support isn't incredible, but Nvidia also has a lot of issues on Linux and I've been running my 1060 for years now.
Have you considered upgrading to an eBay 1080ti? Still a bulletproof card depending on your application, unless you're trying to get that sweet sweet AV1 encoding.
I don't think realtime AV1 encoding is really going to be necessary for quite awhile tbh. A Ryzen i3 should be able to hit around 10fps on software AV1 encoders and get like 5x the quality. Otherwise x264 on medium is blazing fast and way better than what hardware h.265 will get you.
I really want an energy efficient variant next time around. I currently have a 1050Ti and when i upgrade i sort of want something that's relatively better but with less wattage if possible.
Thanks for that, that's good info. It's good to know the arc gpus are trending towards the bottom half of the graph. It would be very cool to see a frames/watts graph like.
I've got a Vega 64 in my HTPC, and it can run Diablo 4 okay at 4k, but would like to upgrade. It's hard to find a comparison, but does anyone know how an Arc A750/770 compares to a Vega 64?
My main concern is if they will keep up the support, I don't want to go buy something that looses driver support in a year or two. I feel like I have seen too much of that from various companies, though i can't think of too many examples from intel other than Optane.
I don't know much about the performance of the a770 so I don't really know if that's right, but I wouldn't trust userbenchmark at all. they favor Nvidia massively and their ratings are super inaccurate. here's an article on some of it: https://www.gizmosphere.org/stop-using-userbenchmark/
I don't trust anyone saying userbenchmark is biased without their own set of information to back up their claim. Using reddit drama as an excuse to not use a tool is weak.
The article you posted claims this:
"However, consider this: UserBenchmark mentions the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super in their GPU section as faster than the Radeon RX 5600 XT."
This claim in the article is factually incorrect at the current time.
It was extremely close between the 6700xt and the A770 for me when I was picking my GPU for my virtualized windows gaming PC. The only reason I went with the 6700xt was because I knew it'd work. I think if Intel sticks this out and actually releases some new cards, they could easily become a decent competitor to AMD and Nvidia for cards the majority of people actually buy. I know in myself part of the reason I didn't pick Intel this time around was fear that they'd just give up and leave me with an abandoned card.