Intel's $249 Arc B580 is the GPU we've begged for since the pandemic | PCWorld
Intel's $249 Arc B580 is the GPU we've begged for since the pandemic | PCWorld
Powered by the new Xe2 "Battlemage" architecture and a new XeSS 2 frame generation feature, Intel's $249 Arc B580 is FINALLY bringing 1440p gaming to the masses.
If even half of Intel's claims are true, this could be a big shake up in the midrange market that has been entirely abandoned by both Nvidia and AMD.
You're viewing a single thread.
As someone with a 6650 XT, which is a little slower than the 6700 or 4060, I doubt the increased vram, which is of course still nice, is enough to push it for 1440p. I struggle even in 1080p in some games, but I guess if you're okay with ~40 FPS then you could go that high.
Unfortunately, if the 4060 is roughly the target here, that's still far below what I'm interested in, which is more the upper midrange stuff (and I'd love one with 16 GB vram at least).
At least the price is much more attractive now.
Yeah, I've got a 6650 XT as well, and it's been great for what I want it to be. I play in 1440p, mostly older games and indie games, and even w/ newer games it gets an acceptable framerate (and yeah, 40 is acceptable).
That said, I'm interested in playing w/ VR and LLMs, and 12 GB VRAM just ain't it, I'd much rather get 16GB or more. However, I don't need top-tier performance, so something like a 15-20% uplift may be enough. I play exclusively on Linux, so good Linux support is really important (and this new card seems to hit that w/ FOSS drivers), but AMD provides better cards w/ more VRAM for not that much more money (can get 6800 XT for $100 or so more). That would last at least a couple years more than the B580.
But if I decide to build a desktop for my kids, maybe I'll try it out. $250 isn't a bad price, it's just not a very big uplift from what I've got. If they could add another 4GB VRAM and keep the price under $300, I'd be a bit more interested since that opens up entry-level LLMs.
Yeah, 40 is just not for me. I rather go 1080p and hopefully get 75+ FPS. It's really hard to go back from that to something as choppy as 40, even 60 feels kinda bad now.
And yes, I use local LLMs too and 8 GB vram is kinda painful and limiting, though the biggest hurdle is still rocm & python which are an absolute mess. I'd love to get even more than 16 GB but that's usually for the high end segments and gets real pricey real quick.
Linux and me playing a lot of indie titles is also why I'd still avoid Intel, even if they had something in the upper midrange, but I still would've loved to see some competition in that area because then AMD would have to also deliver with their prices and that'd be good for me.
Yeah, 40 isn't great, but I play a lot of Switch games, and 40 is generally a good framerate for those. But I definitely notice it when switching between new AAA and indie/older games.
Intel could've earned my business by making up for mediocre performance with a ton of VRAM so I could tinker w/ LLMs between games. But no, I guess I'll stick w/ my current card until I can't even get 40 FPS reliably.