Ryan Shrout
Yeah, I believe.
New games are likely not going to be a problem. As long as Intel makes sure that developers will start optimising for their GPUs, things should not be that bad (also if they release game ready drivers on time). All those zillion old games that are not optimised for Arc that do not have any driver optimisations are the problem.I wonder if we're all actually living in Ryan Shrout's personal hell. Ever since he started working at Intel he's had to market products that don't really stack up against the competition in the same way they did historically.
Trying to market ARC to gamers is probably a bit like pushing a boulder up a hill for all eternity. Just when you think you've almost got it to the top a new game comes out and the drivers don't work and it all goes tumbling down.
You don't need many years for optimizations that target general improvements. You can see from some results it's relatively behind Iris Xe in performance. It's faster but not like specs suggest. Those ones will happen quickly.That probably means many, many years later, if their GPUs are still around by that time. I guess they are so fatigued by the whole effort that they just want to sell something now and worry about compatibility later. So anyone who buys ARC now is buying it for current and (hopefully) future games. Not past games.
Oh well, that means a lot of Steam sale deals will be worthless to them and they can have smaller game libraries. Just pointing out an advantage to going with ARC
I wonder if we're all actually living in Ryan Shrout's personal hell. Ever since he started working at Intel he's had to market products that don't really stack up against the competition in the same way they did historically.
Trying to market ARC to gamers is probably a bit like pushing a boulder up a hill for all eternity. Just when you think you've almost got it to the top a new game comes out and the drivers don't work and it all goes tumbling down.
While I haven’t educated myself about the sub-par older game performance I agree with what you said and want to add is it really relevant when your CPU & Ram are magnitudes faster. Does anyone really need 189fps in Team Fortress? Can any human being detect fps that high? Does it matter if you have good enough performance in older games.All joking aside, Intel might be picking the right battles. Better to capture young gamers spending most of their time on current F2P games. Like McDonald's you want that name recognition with them early in life. Look how many brand loyal members the other 2 have. Also smart to follow the others in having your GPUs associated with new AAA titles. Work with the game developers and throw them money to optimize for your products.
I am looking forward to seeing how it all plays out. I have systems for older games. So I would not hesitate to buy an Intel ARC for new ones, if they are the best bang for buck.
While I haven’t educated myself about the sub-par older game performance I agree with what you said and want to add is it really relevant when your CPU & Ram are magnitudes faster. Does anyone really need 189fps in Team Fortress? Can any human being detect fps that high? Does it matter if you have good enough performance in older games.
While I haven’t educated myself about the sub-par older game performance I agree with what you said and want to add is it really relevant when your CPU & Ram are magnitudes faster. Does anyone really need 189fps in Team Fortress? Can any human being detect fps that high? Does it matter if you have good enough performance in older games.
The finding's intuitive as well, the higher the contrast the higher the frequency has to be to not detect a flicker. Humans can easily see lightnings even though their duration is about 1000 - 100us, down to 5us for single strains (though it's debatable one can actively see those). That's a theoretical FPS of 10000 - 100000 and 200000. That's obviously the worst case of a highest possible contrast in nature. Screens being comparably dim compared to lightning and sun achieve much lower absolute contrast so don't need to achieve such high frequencies to avoid flicker. That may seem ironical, but the lower the screen brightness the lower the susceptibility to flickers.Human flicker detection goes up to 500fps: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861
The finding's intuitive as well, the higher the contrast the higher the frequency has to be to not detect a flicker. Humans can easily see lightnings even though their duration is about 1000 - 100us, down to 5us for single strains (though it's debatable one can actively see those). That's a theoretical FPS of 10000 - 100000 and 200000. That's obviously the worst case of a highest possible contrast in nature. Screens being comparably dim compared to lightning and sun achieve much lower absolute contrast so don't need to achieve such high frequencies to avoid flicker. That may seem ironical, but the lower the screen brightness the lower the susceptibility to flickers.
Human flicker detection goes up to 500fps: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861
One flash time is meaningless, and completely unrelated to FPS. Sure you can see one brief flash, incredibly brief if it's incredibly bright, it's simply about getting enough photons on the sensor to be detected, but that isn't remotely related to FPS.
For there to be FPS, there must be more than one frame.
FPS is more about the interval you can detect between two flashes. In the 50-100Hz range, they will look like one flash, unless you have a motion to separate the flashes spatially. This is known as flicker fusion threshold
The paper above is looking an extreme edge case artifacts, that you won't see on a normal display. Basically it's citing the Rainbow effect on DLP displays. When you combine motion on screen, with the serial color flashing and motion of your eyes, colors get misplaced and you get color fringing on the edges.
You won't get this artifact on displays that have continuous color (like LCD/OLED/MicroLED).
Artifacts on oddball displays aren't evidence that you need 1000 Hz monitors.
Well, they don't have to compete with the top and they never planned to. AMD was no where near the top for years and they didn't even try to compete there. With Battlemage Intel may or may not try.Back to the card. A780 debunked:
Intel debunks Arc A780 rumors, such graphics card was never planned - VideoCardz.com
Intel Arc GPU week Ryan Shrout (Intel Graphics Marketing) has confirmed that there is no Arc A780 graphics card, in fact it was never planned. The rumors about potential candidate for the fastest Arc desktop model called A780 are dated back to first quarter of this year. This part was never...videocardz.com
Pretty sad for Intel that their top card will only be competing with last generation 6 series cards from AMD/NVidia.
Well, they don't have to compete with the top and they never planned to. AMD was no where near the top for years and they didn't even try to compete there. With Battlemage Intel may or may not try.
Well, they don't have to compete with the top and they never planned to. AMD was no where near the top for years and they didn't even try to compete there. With Battlemage Intel may or may not try.
You have to start somewhere. RTX 3060 Ti is really close to RTX 3070 (so close that I think it is a really weird product) so they pretty much are there. With better driver it might start trading blows with it.But they are FAR from the top, and it looks like they were originally position to compete against 7 series cards.
It's statements like this that leave me confused.and that’s fine with me. I have never owned a top tier card (except maybe my voodoo 3 card)
I really don’t like AMD video cards however they have been the majority that I’ve owned over the years because of good enough performance and excellent price.
I don't see any confusion. Nvidia markets their cards very well, with desirable features like better raytracing performance and DLSS. However, a lot of gamers have trouble stomaching their prices along with lesser amount of RAM so they go with AMD as a compromise. Doesn't mean they would if they had a choice.It's statements like this that leave me confused.
As I’ve documented here.It's statements like this that leave me confused.
I don't see any confusion. Nvidia markets their cards very well, with desirable features like better raytracing performance and DLSS. However, a lot of gamers have trouble stomaching their prices along with lesser amount of RAM so they go with AMD as a compromise. Doesn't mean they would if they had a choice.
Every decision has compromises. Choosing mainly AMD, to me, means that they offered the best compromise each time.As I’ve documented here.
Nothing exciting about most of my previous amd cards, all were sort of loud or put a lot of heat into the room or both. Never liked any of the the various software packages that came with them. Basically nothing exciting about them at all except offering good enough performance for $50-100 less.
Every decision has compromises. Choosing mainly AMD, to me, means that they offered the best compromise each time.
I'm confused by anyone not realizing, that this means it was the best for them, at that time, based on their requirements. Not that is was the "best" overall, whatever that means.
I would be driving a Bugatti if reality didn't intrude, but alas, it does.