The $200 to $300 GPU market! That market segment has been disappointing since 2018 or so, the last truly good card in that segment was the RX 480.
back
1 comments
Is isn’t going to get better with Intel. The XE is worst than an integrated Vega 8 and 1030 both of which are way cheaper. https://www.tomshardware.com/features/intel-xe-dg1-benchmark...
Oh, I'm not talking about the DG1, but the lower end of the upcoming Arc series, like the 96EU version in the table lower on this page: https://wccftech.com/intel-arc-alchemist-high-end-entry-leve...
Intel and cheap performance product just doesn’t seem like something I’d combine and since they didn’t announce the prices I’m dubious it’ll be well priced, and I can only judge them from their history, like the DG1. I don’t want to hype something to a feverish pitch that isn’t realistic. I expected them to be bad and the first generation wasn’t good. The second generation I can only guess will be iterative.
> Performance is expected to land between the GeForce GTX 1650 and GTX 1650 SUPER but with raytracing capabilities.
It won’t compete very well with these 2016 GPUs aside from having ray tracing but an AMD driver with RADV got ray tracing backported so it’s going to have to be better for people to it over their old GPU (I avoided ryzen for a long time since my older CPU was stronger). The tensor cores looks interesting but if you use free online tokens to run ML models it’s not worth getting for that. For 1060 6GB/480 8GB owners (which I fall under) it’s not much different, do you have a mid range 2016 card? If you do, what’s the benefit you see? Nvidia is still my only option to run CUDA.
Damm, that puts it into perspective. A man can hope.