News Intel adds more Arc GPUs to end of life — A750 Limited Edition rides into the sunset 3 years after launch

[Admin]

Intel has put the Arc A750, A770M, A730M, A570M, A530M, and A370M on the EOL list.

Intel adds more Arc GPUs to end of life — A750 Limited Edition rides into the sunset 3 years after launch : Read more

 

[rluker5]

I have one of those A750LEs. Nice design but the B580 is way better.

 

[abufrejoval]

If anyone needs a reminder on the depth of commitment Intel has in the dGPU space, this should serve well.

IMHO all of Intels dGPU activities are nothing but crude attempts at shareholder appeasement, nothing to do with actual users or clients of Intel tech.

Looking at the product range and how it's evolving they clearly aren't interested in acutally capturing market share, as they seem to loose money (or fall way below prescribed margins) on every GPU sold. It's all show and the only reasonable audience for that show must be actual or potential shareholders/investors.

Intel currently needs to put in quite a few more transistors, bandwidth or just hardware resources to draw close to Nvidia or AMD offerings and that isn't sustainable. So expanding the product range to professional variants of the B580 or going for a B7x0 can only mean enlarging the financial wounds for every unit sold. Small wonder they all seem paper launches, because Intel does understand the bottom line, even if they don't know how to meet it any more.

Please try to believe me that I want to be wrong in the interest of more competition and better customer value. I just don't see the data points to sustain that dream.

 

[rluker5]

If anyone needs a reminder on the depth of commitment Intel has in the dGPU space, this should serve well.

IMHO all of Intels dGPU activities are nothing but crude attempts at shareholder appeasement, nothing to do with actual users or clients of Intel tech.

Looking at the product range and how it's evolving they clearly aren't interested in acutally capturing market share, as they seem to loose money (or fall way below prescribed margins) on every GPU sold. It's all show and the only reasonable audience for that show must be actual or potential shareholders/investors.

Intel currently needs to put in quite a few more transistors, bandwidth or just hardware resources to draw close to Nvidia or AMD offerings and that isn't sustainable. So expanding the product range to professional variants of the B580 or going for a B7x0 can only mean enlarging the financial wounds for every unit sold. Small wonder they all seem paper launches, because Intel does understand the bottom line, even if they don't know how to meet it any more.

Please try to believe me that I want to be wrong in the interest of more competition and better customer value. I just don't see the data points to sustain that dream.

Intel just needs to compress their design. The 9060XT 16GB has 50% more transistors than the B580 and is 28% faster at a 40% higher MSRP. In a lot of games the 8GB is behind the B580. HWU just had a video where the 8GB was a lot further behind the 16GB 9060XT than 28% if you didn't have PCIe gen 5. If Intel adjusted their design to increase transistor density they would be even with AMD already in their offered performance segments.

Will that take 2 more gens? Hard to say, but definitely seems possible.

 

[dalauder]

Intel just needs to compress their design. The 9060XT 16GB has 50% more transistors than the B580 and is 28% faster at a 40% higher MSRP. In a lot of games the 8GB is behind the B580. HWU just had a video where the 8GB was a lot further behind the 16GB 9060XT than 28% if you didn't have PCIe gen 5. If Intel adjusted their design to increase transistor density they would be even with AMD already in their offered performance segments.

Will that take 2 more gens? Hard to say, but definitely seems possible.

That comes back to commitment to consumers. There's a reason I don't build with Intel CPUs and haven't recommended one since 2015. They change their sockets so often and nickel and dime you for artificially locked features. They even toyed around with letting you buy back features after the CPU was installed.

I did like their GPUs and wanted to get one if I could ever catch a sale.

 

[abufrejoval]

Intel just needs to compress their design. The 9060XT 16GB has 50% more transistors than the B580 and is 28% faster at a 40% higher MSRP. In a lot of games the 8GB is behind the B580. HWU just had a video where the 8GB was a lot further behind the 16GB 9060XT than 28% if you didn't have PCIe gen 5. If Intel adjusted their design to increase transistor density they would be even with AMD already in their offered performance segments.

Will that take 2 more gens? Hard to say, but definitely seems possible.

"If Intel only did..." is what you keep reading most about Intel's iGPU journey. And then they don't.

Or they do it so late (e.g. double sized VRAM variants or double sized ASIC variants for Battlemage), that it pretty much doesn't seem to matter any more.

After observing this for some time now, I can only conclude that they really don't want to sell their cards in volume.

Now why would a vendor not want to sell in volume? Well that's the hard part to figure out, because they are not telling and it seems insane behavior in IT hardware.

But we all know by now that Intel isn't healthy and a giant in its death throes evidently can do strange things.

Yet, whatever the motivation, the customer's interests may not be anywhere near the top priorities and long-term support may be at risk.

 

[rluker5]

That comes back to commitment to consumers. There's a reason I don't build with Intel CPUs and haven't recommended one since 2015. They change their sockets so often and nickel and dime you for artificially locked features. They even toyed around with letting you buy back features after the CPU was installed.

I did like their GPUs and wanted to get one if I could ever catch a sale.

I've used 2 Intel sockets over the last 11 years. 1150 and 1700. The processors were good enough to last. And market segmentation isn't that bad if you still get a good deal compared to the competition. Would you rather have more choice or less?

Also AMD overcharging for their consumer products at release then reducing prices shortly after says hi.

 

[rluker5]

"If Intel only did..." is what you keep reading most about Intel's iGPU journey. And then they don't.

Or they do it so late (e.g. double sized VRAM variants or double sized ASIC variants for Battlemage), that it pretty much doesn't seem to matter any more.

After observing this for some time now, I can only conclude that they really don't want to sell their cards in volume.

Now why would a vendor not want to sell in volume? Well that's the hard part to figure out, because they are not telling and it seems insane behavior in IT hardware.

But we all know by now that Intel isn't healthy and a giant in its death throes evidently can do strange things.

Yet, whatever the motivation, the customer's interests may not be anywhere near the top priorities and long-term support may be at risk.

Alchemist has a lot of unsold cards. There is still a lot of inventory of last Gen out there. The very next Gen they were more careful about not overproducing. It has been one Gen of under producing after a Gen of overproducing.

Sometimes you need to get out of your head and take a look at the bigger picture without trying to make everything fit in your narratives.

 

[cerata]

Intel just needs to compress their design. The 9060XT 16GB has 50% more transistors than the B580 and is 28% faster at a 40% higher MSRP. In a lot of games the 8GB is behind the B580. HWU just had a video where the 8GB was a lot further behind the 16GB 9060XT than 28% if you didn't have PCIe gen 5. If Intel adjusted their design to increase transistor density they would be even with AMD already in their offered performance segments.

I know very little about chip design but this isn't necessarily the case. The B580 does have fewer transistors, despite a larger die size. But it draws an extra 30W. Now, some of this will be due to using TSMC's N5 process, whereas the 9060 XT is on their N4P process. But I'd guess Intel is also pushing the Battlemage die out of its performance/efficiency sweet spot so they have a product that's at least somewhat competitive with AMD & nVidia's mainstream cards.

More heat requires more die area to dissipate. As an example, AMD has "compact" Zen 4c and Zen 5c cores. Same architecture, just arranged more efficiently. But they still make CPUs with "normal" cores because the extra surface area lets them clock higher.

(sorry if this is all obvious/well-known to you)

 

[rluker5]

I know very little about chip design but this isn't necessarily the case. The B580 does have fewer transistors, despite a larger die size. But it draws an extra 30W. Now, some of this will be due to using TSMC's N5 process, whereas the 9060 XT is on their N4P process. But I'd guess Intel is also pushing the Battlemage die out of its performance/efficiency sweet spot so they have a product that's at least somewhat competitive with AMD & nVidia's mainstream cards.

More heat requires more die area to dissipate. As an example, AMD has "compact" Zen 4c and Zen 5c cores. Same architecture, just arranged more efficiently. But they still make CPUs with "normal" cores because the extra surface area lets them clock higher.

(sorry if this is all obvious/well-known to you)

My B580 rarely gets anywhere near TDP. Probably because of some design things, I've seen complaints about utilization because so little power is used. I was getting about 100W in Oblivion remastered when I had AB overlayed. Just checked 2077 and that was 130w at full usage, stock voltage settings running the benchmark. Undervolting to overclock because TDP is pegged isn't a thing with ARC in games. Overvolting is. Maybe later it will be, but ARC isn't the same as the other 2 brands in this regard. They could easily shrink the die and still cool it.

Might be bad for clocks though, IDK.

 

[dalauder]

I've used 2 Intel sockets over the last 11 years. 1150 and 1700. The processors were good enough to last. And market segmentation isn't that bad if you still get a good deal compared to the competition. Would you rather have more choice or less?

Also AMD overcharging for their consumer products at release then reducing prices shortly after says hi.

I used an Intel i7-2600K from 2011 to 2019 and and R5-3600X since then. You're not wrong.

It's a matter of a company's attitude towards consumers. One seems like they're out to nickel and dime you and the other seems like it's trying to give you a great product for the going rate. I hate being nickel and dimed more than most people.