News New Benchmarks Show GTX 1650 and RX 6400 Outperforming Intel's Arc A380 Graphics Card


Jun 30, 2010
Price it at 80 bucks and theres a fight on our hands. Honestly its not a terrible card, its a decent low power entry level card that actually offers encoding, should have atleast an x8 PCIE connector, and has a higher than 64bit bus, the RX 6400 is missing all of that, hopefully it may even get a little better with time, they just need to price it accordingly for now like peachpuff said. I want to like the 6400 and 6500xt, but they're just so compromised that unless you have a niche system that it wouldn't be throttled by (pcie gen 4 cpu and mobo) they arent worth it.
Last edited:
Reactions: KyaraM


Feb 6, 2009
Wonder if my Nvidia 970 will out perform the Intel's Arc A380 :ROFLMAO:

Just compared the now 8 year old 970 with the 1650 and the are around the same (5% faster), so yes my 970 is faster than the Intel's Arc A380.

@artk2219 best I could work out is around £125 or $154 converted from 1030 Chinese Yuan). Some had list one up for ¥3999 including VAT, which is roughly $595 USD.
Last edited:
Reactions: artk2219


This is fine, they just need to price it accordingly
Agreed. It's not like the card hit 45FPS while the others were at 70+ It was never below 60FPS, and was often "close" to the others. IF priced right its not a horrible card. More so if you factor in driver improvements. This is their entry level card, and the first commercial attempt. Good first try Intel. Keep working on it.
Even as a budget offering, Intel will have a tough time making our best graphics card list.
As was pointed out, it all comes down to pricing. The RX 6400 and GTX 1650 are terrible cards right now, at least as far as price to performance is concerned. RX 6400 pricing starts around $170-180, and the 1650 is typically over $200, when that level of performance should be down around the $100 level at this point. In fact, it was already possible to pick up a notably faster RX 580 bundled with a couple newly-released games several years back for less than what these cards cost. The crypto market has collapsed, and yet these low-end models are still a ripoff at their current pricing.

If Intel prices this card around $150, then sure, it won't exactly be a particularly attractive offering. But closer to $100 it would be a much more compelling option than what the competition is currently offering in the "budget" category. If Intel wants to make inroads into the dedicated GPU market, I would hope they would bring competitive pricing to the table, especially considering the amount of uncertainty surrounding the hardware and its long-term driver support. And I get the impression that might be what they're planning. I can't see them releasing official performance numbers that show their card performing almost universally slower than the competition unless pricing is significantly better to compensate.
Agreed. It's not like the card hit 45FPS while the others were at 70+ It was never below 60FPS, and was often "close" to the others. IF priced right its not a horrible card. More so if you factor in driver improvements. This is their entry level card, and the first commercial attempt. Good first try Intel. Keep working on it.
On the other hand, I don't think it's mentioned what settings these games were tested at. The frame rates shown here don't really seem to align with what reviews show for these cards running at 1080p high/ultra settings. At those kinds of settings, the 6400 and 1650 struggle to maintain 30fps in a game like Control, let alone the 72-75fps Intel is suggesting for those cards. So, clearly settings have been lowered to whatever point Intel was able to show a frame rate over 60fps for their card. That could be 720p low for all we know.

Likewise, The Witcher 3, now a 7 year old game, is generally shown to not be able to manage 60fps on a 1650 with the settings turned up at 1080p, so the "101fps" Intel shows for that card is similarly suspect. The same goes for some other games, where they are showing around double the framerates one might expect. So they've obviously adjusted the settings to keep the numbers high. You can do that on low-end integrated graphics too, if you're willing to run games at low settings at SD resolutions, so the exact numbers for the frame rates don't tell us much, aside from the relative performance compared to the other cards.
Reactions: artk2219


Apr 19, 2016
Another set of benchmarks with no minimum frame rates. These are basically useless, especially on older games which drivers may not be optimized for. We won't really know what the performance looks like until someone actually does some comprehensive testing. From what little has appeared so far it seems like there are still big driver issues.
Reactions: artk2219


Dec 29, 2007
We know that Intel won't start great with drivers, but if this card can eventually close the gap with 1650 (so similar to 970 as others pointed out, but with new features such as AV1 decode/encode) I don't see that as a bad product at all. But it has to be priced accordingly. We shall see. Same with rest of the family, if they price them well they'll sell. Low and midrange has been almost completely forgotten past several years by AMD and Nvidia, rehashing old chips and renaming old cards. These at least have modern features, even if their performance isn't stellar. On the other hand, if AMD would release actual top to bottom RDNA 7000 series, then Intel would surely fail. But while we can expect cards like 7800, 7950 and such, I have a feeling we won't see 7400 or 7500 cards with actual RDNA3, not in 2023, let alone 2022. Same with Nvidia. They've just rehashed 1630 with Turing from 2018 (!!!) so little hope for Lovelace GTX 4630 in 2022/2023.. maybe in 2026 :/ :p
Reactions: KyaraM


Mar 11, 2022
Mhmm, I think that Intel will first establish itaelf in the low-end sector, too. There are quite a few opportunities there. Also, the hardware is fine looking at synthetic benchmarks. They need to improve drivers, which will happen over time. About the price, it's of course only a rumor at this point, but I have seen $125 floating around. That would be a reasonable price I think, and if not, the cards will certainly drop soonish. Even Intel, from the last figure I saw start of the year, doesn't expect to get much out of the first generation yet. Which implies to me they are prepared and already calculated entering at low revenue or even a loss, and long-time plans stand at continuation and improvement.
Reactions: sherhi