• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

News Intel GPUs - we've given up on B770, where's Celestial already

Page 96 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
First 3rd party results are in. Loses to the 6400 in all of the games tested. Well that fell considerably below my expectations too :/

 
First 3rd party results are in. Loses to the 6400 in all of the games tested. Well that fell considerably below my expectations too :/


Well at least it's faster in RT than AMD's equivalent cards.

This is a correct statement for both Time Spy and Port Royal test. In this ray-tracing test, it scored almost twice as high as AMD Navi 24 GPUs

Also who is that Tom that is raiding?
 
First 3rd party results are in. Loses to the 6400 in all of the games tested. Well that fell considerably below my expectations too :/



In this test there is a power test using the Intel Fan Tuning Tool. It's 65W package power and 65C in Furmark, so I guess this is more accurate than the GPUz numbers.


12qsjp9.png



The high fps games struggles the most, League of Legends A380 135 fps vs RTX RX6400 180 fps. Driver overhead seems horrible.
 
In this test there is a power test using the Intel Fan Tuning Tool. It's 65W package power and 65C in Furmark, so I guess this is more accurate than the GPUz numbers.


12qsjp9.png



The high fps games struggles the most, League of Legends A380 135 fps vs RTX RX6400 180 fps. Driver overhead seems horrible.
Reported power numbers in software for ARC are not board power, they're more in-line with ASIC power in some way. We'll find out sooner or later what is and isn't being reported in more detail, but suffice to say the entire GPU is probably a bit closer to the specified 92W TBP.
 
Package Power for DG1 is GPU only, so I'm assuming the same goes for the A380 here.

Since the 75W TDP figure is base clock related according to Intel (at 2000MHz) it's probably more in the 80W-90W range while boosting.
 
In this test there is a power test using the Intel Fan Tuning Tool. It's 65W package power and 65C in Furmark, so I guess this is more accurate than the GPUz numbers.

Because of how GPUz has to measure power, it requires an update before it can properly see power usage anytime a new CPU/GPU comes out. It basically has to extrapolate its values, because not every chip reports current draw the same way. Intel's own reporting should be accurate, provided they aren't fibbing.
 
Back
Top