News Intel Arc A350M GPU Appears Slower Than GTX 1050 Ti Mobile in 3DMark Fire Strike

rtoaht

Reputable
Jun 5, 2020
102
107
4,760
For a thin and light laptop like the Galaxy Book Pro perf per watt is more important than Performance. GTX 1050Ti consumes 75-95W vs 25-30W for the Arc 350M. Also GTX 1050Ti costs $240 while 350M could be much cheaper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EMI_Black_Ace
Mar 31, 2022
1
0
10
Remember how Intel said the average price would be $75? Given that MSRP for a GTX 1050 Ti is around $150 (and much more in today's landscape) if this one is delivering that performance for $75, then I, for one, welcome our new budget gaming overlords. They're filling in a niche that Nvidia and AMD haven't bothered to compete in for the past several years. If I can get GTX 1060 performance in a desktop for circa $150 then I'm all for it.
 

watzupken

Reputable
Mar 16, 2020
1,022
516
6,070
For a thin and light laptop like the Galaxy Book Pro perf per watt is more important than Performance. GTX 1050Ti consumes 75-95W vs 25-30W for the Arc 350M. Also GTX 1050Ti costs $240 while 350M could be much cheaper.
The header says GTX 1050 Ti Mobile. I don’t think the mobile version uses that much power. 75 to 90W are meant for desktop variants. But I agree that we need to see this dGPU in a bigger form factor or at least a laptop with better cooling solution to conclude.
Having said that, the results are not good in my opinion. While people can blame immature driver being the potential cause of the lack of performance, but if Intel can’t optimise their driver even for a short and predictable benchmark, I don’t know if they are capable of delivering decent drivers for games. Both the 3D Mark bench are also affected by the CPU score, which actually gives the Alder Lake based system an advantage, which the GPU failed to capitalise on.