Arc A750 vs RX 6600 GPU faceoff: Intel Alchemist takes on AMD RDNA 2 in the budget sector

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why the A750 has a so much bigger die compared to the RX 6600?
I mean 406mm^2 vs 237mm^2, while the A750 even has the node size advantage N6 vs N7.
The performance is largely about the same, the clocks are largely same, the transistor and shader count are much higher at the A750.

I think it is a nice improvement, on the driver side, especially as the 1pct lows are in line with the avg fps, so they are not bad vs the more known competitor. I think here the raster performance is the thing what really matters, not many will use cards of this tier for any kind of raytracing, and in raster performance they are on par.

But for this performance level, I would not ever buy a card for regular use what consumes 200-250 watts. It is a bit like some older period of gaming, when they tried to sell games, with 6 CDs of video content, and a rudiemntary game logic, because the latter worked for many with 1-2CDs of multimedia content. Perception and values have shifted for most. No, do not buy low and mid-low tier with a wattage comparable to a deep freezer.
 
Last edited:
There are a few advantages the A750 has that require more transistors (although AMD's Infinity Cache probably uses more transistors than Intel's bigger memory bus):
FeatureRX 6600A750Result for Arc
memory width128-bit256-bitless performance loss at 1440p+
PCIe lanes816no performance hit on PCIe 3.0 computers
ray tracing performance30.6fps39.2fpsit ray traces good
tensor cores0448XESS > FSR
Clearly Battlemage is going to need to get more out of its transistors if this is going to be a successful business for Intel. But the A750 does have good reason to have at least a few more transistors than the RX 6600:
 
  • Like
Reactions: kano1337, vinay2070, Notton and 3 others
Reality_checker said:
I'm not surprised that the A750 demolished the RX 6600.

AMD makes weak products, especially in the GPU sector these days.
Click to expand...
Reality_checker said:
Losing to another company's first discrete GPU product is a really bad look for AMD.

Almost as if Radeon went downhill since AMD bought ATI.
Click to expand...
They're not in the same tier. AMD's gimped leftover (not even the 6600 XT) is a little worse than Intel's GPU with nearly double the die size and double the memory bus. The price is the same because Intel GPUs have to be practically given away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder64 and NinoPino
usertests said:
They're not in the same tier. AMD's gimped leftover (not even the 6600 XT) is a little worse than Intel's GPU with nearly double the die size and double the memory bus. The price is the same because Intel GPUs have to be practically given away.
Click to expand...

Better technology for less money is worse? Got it.

Edit: +muted.
 
The irony here is that RX 6600 is Radeon's best value product, and possibly the only one worth getting -- at least until Arc showed up...

It makes absolutely no sense to pay more than $200 for any current Radeon given their pathetic RT performance and upscaling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King_V
Reality_checker said:
Losing to another company's first discrete GPU product is a really bad look for AMD.

Almost as if Radeon went downhill since AMD bought ATI.
Click to expand...
I always feel this. Had intel purchased ATi and allocated right budget that AMD refused to allocate. ATi would probably be in a much better place. And maybe even offset the loss intel's CPU division is going through, with probably better AI chips.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom