News Intel GPUs - Battlemage officially announced, evidently not cancelled

[Tup3x]

I am sorry, your doing it wrong.

Virtual Super Resolution is supported by both AMD and Nvidia. Just render that old game at 8k and let your graphics card scale it down to your screen size. Sometimes the UI does not scale, so a mod is required. Sometimes a mod is required to add the 4k, 5k, and 8k* resolution options to the game. But most of the time it just works very well. The shimmer, the jaggys, the blur, it all just goes away. There is no need for AA or AF tricks with super resolution.


*the AMD driver requires you to have a 4k display before it will do 8k super resolution. If your display is 1440p your stuck with just 4k and 5k super resolutions. It still is very effective.

Never said it wasn't - it's a acceptable workaround for older games. UI scaling can be an issue. But now that I think about it... Intel doesn't or at very least doesn't in a comparable way. Yet at least.

If game for some reason only uses trilinear filtering then there definitely is a need for forced AF. Also in my opinion DSR alone without post process AA isn't quite good enough.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Just render that old game at 8k and let your graphics card scale it down to your screen size.

Back when we all used CRT monitors, higher resolution was always to be preferred over AA. Why should be obvious. The real reason AA became a thing was the fixed resolution of LCD displays. You can't really do scaling outside of multiples of the native resolution without image quality taking a hit.

 

[Dribble]

Back when we all used CRT monitors, higher resolution was always to be preferred over AA. Why should be obvious. The real reason AA became a thing was the fixed resolution of LCD displays. You can't really do scaling outside of multiples of the native resolution without image quality taking a hit.

You make it sound like CRT's had infinite resolution scaling, they didn't, they nearly all had quite low max resolutions and our gpu's ran too slow to render to high resolutions anyway, so we wanted AA to clean up the jaggies exactly like today. Only then because the resolutions were so much lower the jaggies were much more obvious so it was even more important.

 

[PingSpike]

Yeah, that isn't how I remember the late CRT days at all. I remember people running lower resolutions because the performance just wasn't there mostly (1024x768 was upper echelon in reviews) but cheap CRTs were also fuzzy at high res and sometimes had to drop to 50hz. AA always seemed like a compromise to try and make the lower resolutions look a little better. To me LCDs forced everyone to run native resolutions that were often quite high for hardware of the time to handle, otherwise the scaled images looked like garbage. This was the main reason I stayed away from LCDs for awhile, I prefer to drop resolution and increase texture quality, AF, etc and LCDs forced you to do the opposite.

I will say jaggies are probably worse on LCDs of that era, but it's not like turning on AA increased performance. Honestly, I don't quite get the obsession with AA these days. In era of people using 4K monitors it doesn't seem highly useful. But jaggies never bothered me much, I always thought AF was way more useful.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Back when we all used CRT monitors, higher resolution was always to be preferred over AA. Why should be obvious. The real reason AA became a thing was the fixed resolution of LCD displays. You can't really do scaling outside of multiples of the native resolution without image quality taking a hit.

I disagree. Higher resolution doesn't fix Aliasing artifacts.

 

[ZGR]

I disagree. Higher resolution doesn't fix Aliasing artifacts.

I sure think it does. Compare playing Fallout 4 or RDR2 without AA on a 2160p panel vs a 1440p panel and aliasing is almost eliminated at 2160p, but it is still noticeable. At 1440p and below, both these games are extremely aliased without TAA (yuck). I do think we need to be at 4320p for those pesky aliasing artifacts to be hard to notice. I can't see Intel providing any form of competition at this high end resolution anytime soon.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

You make it sound like CRT's had infinite resolution scaling, they didn't, they nearly all had quite low max resolutions and our gpu's ran too slow to render to high resolutions anyway, so we wanted AA to clean up the jaggies exactly like today. Only then because the resolutions were so much lower the jaggies were much more obvious so it was even more important.

CRTs do have a resolution scaling limit. The Shadow Mask pitch size determines that. However, it tends to be a lot higher then LCDs of that era. You could get 1600x1200 out of a decent CRT monitor, even 2048x1536 with a big enough one, while you'd be lucky with 1024x768 on a typical early '00 LCD panel.

Yeah, that isn't how I remember the late CRT days at all. I remember people running lower resolutions because the performance just wasn't there mostly (1024x768 was upper echelon in reviews) but cheap CRTs were also fuzzy at high res and sometimes had to drop to 50hz. AA always seemed like a compromise to try and make the lower resolutions look a little better. To me LCDs forced everyone to run native resolutions that were often quite high for hardware of the time to handle, otherwise the scaled images looked like garbage. This was the main reason I stayed away from LCDs for awhile, I prefer to drop resolution and increase texture quality, AF, etc and LCDs forced you to do the opposite.

I will say jaggies are probably worse on LCDs of that era, but it's not like turning on AA increased performance. Honestly, I don't quite get the obsession with AA these days. In era of people using 4K monitors it doesn't seem highly useful. But jaggies never bothered me much, I always thought AF was way more useful.

If you're running a CRT at 50Hz*, you're doing it wrong. CRTs need a minimum of 60-75Hz to be flicker free. 85Hz+ is even better. That is another advantage of a CRT, you're not limited to panel refresh rate.

With either increased resolution or AA there is a significant performance penalty, which tend to be a wash between methods. So pick your poison.

*Unless it's a TV obviously.

I disagree. Higher resolution doesn't fix Aliasing artifacts.

Of course not. It does minimize them however.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Of course not. It does minimize them however.

It makes them smaller, but the problem with Aliasing artifacts are things like motion sparkles which is still visible and annoying even when smaller.

Good AA can virtually eliminate it.

And of course the ultimate win is to run at higher resolution with AA.

 

[Stuka87]

The difference between CRT and LCD is that an LCD has direct pixel mapping (when at native res). A "digital" pixel is directly mapped to a physical pixel on the display. This does make any sort of jaggies more visible.

This was not the case with CRTs. CRT's projected an analog image onto the screen. There was always a fuzziness around the pixels. Some CRTs had less than others. Late model Trinitron displays were fairly sharp at 1600x1200. And while the higher res had smaller jaggies than a low res display, they were certainly still there, but they were less noticeable than on an LCD. Though LCDs of that era were pretty low resolution.

Jaggies will always become less prominent as the resolution increases for a given screen size, as the pixels shrink.

 

[Heartbreaker]

The difference between CRT and LCD is that an LCD has direct pixel mapping (when at native res). A "digital" pixel is directly mapped to a physical pixel on the display. This does make any sort of jaggies more visible.

This was not the case with CRTs. CRT's projected an analog image onto the screen. There was always a fuzziness around the pixels. Some CRTs had less than others. Late model Trinitron displays were fairly sharp at 1600x1200. And while the higher res had smaller jaggies than a low res display, they were certainly still there, but they were less noticeable than on an LCD. Though LCDs of that era were pretty low resolution.

Jaggies will always become less prominent as the resolution increases for a given screen size, as the pixels shrink.

You can basically run the CRT high enough to blur the screen, which is doing more to hide artifacts than the actual higher resolution.

You can do the same on LCD by running one of the cheap post process AA methods that cost almost nothing and blur the screen as well.

If you have decent sharpness and no AA, you get visible artifacts.

 

[mikk]

The latest Intel Arc driver release (Which INCLUDES Arc Control) was released on 7/6/2022, per their site here: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/726609/intel-arc-graphics-windows-dch-driver.html

Steve at GN specifically said they used the driver that came with the cards/released driver (link above), and Intel then gave them a beta driver, which they also used.

If you download the driver from the link above, everything is dated July 6th. Intel (as far as I can tell) has nothing newer on their page for download.

Also, these cards were manufactured *WAY* before July 6th. Not sure why people are angry at Intel for not including the "latest drivers" in a boxed product that was boxed long before the current release was released.

EDIT: Here is the link to the Beta driver, released July 14th: https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...ics-windows-dch-drivers-preview-features.html

They failed to understand (or better to say they ignored it deliberately) that the Arc control included in the driver is outdated and in order to get the newest one they have to install the separate Arc control package from the Intel site, it's much much newer. This Arc control version fixes the install issue, they are aware but ignored it deliberately for the rant content. It gave them the content they wanted. Why not pointing out there is a newer Arc control available instead of ignoring, what is the problem? They could have tested the newer Arc control and see how it works. And you ask why people are angry.

 

[Stuka87]

They failed to understand (or better to say they ignored it deliberately) that the Arc control included in the driver is outdated and in order to get the newest one they have to install the separate Arc control package from the Intel site, it's much much newer. This Arc control version fixes the install issue, they are aware but ignored it deliberately for the rant content. It gave them the content they wanted. Why not pointing out there is a newer Arc control available instead of ignoring, what is the problem? They could have tested the newer Arc control and see how it works. And you ask why people are angry.

Per Intel's page, they state to install the driver package in order to get Arc Control. I just looked again, and they don't have a dedicated download link for Arc Control. So if you know of some special link, its obviously very well hidden.

This image is taken from Intel's site, clicking that link takes you to the first link that I posted above:

This is all they list if you go to downloads directly and look for any software for the A380:

 

[Leeea]

They failed to understand (or better to say they ignored it deliberately) that the Arc control included in the driver is outdated and in order to get the newest one they have to install the separate Arc control package from the Intel site, it's much much newer. This Arc control version fixes the install issue, they are aware but ignored it deliberately for the rant content. It gave them the content they wanted. Why not pointing out there is a newer Arc control available instead of ignoring, what is the problem? They could have tested the newer Arc control and see how it works. And you ask why people are angry.

It is unreasonable to expect the user to dig through blog posts on the manufacturer website to find working components for the software so they can manually assemble a "working" driver.


We have had several tech literate reviewers now fail to get a working ARC going. Gamer's Nexus spent two weeks digging through
Intel's trash to try and put together something working and failed. If they cannot make it happen the end user is not going to make it happen.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

You can basically run the CRT high enough to blur the screen, which is doing more to hide artifacts than the actual higher resolution.

Yup. It's what we had back then. SuperSample AA basically does the same thing. Running at higher internal resolution, then scaling down. Multisample does similar, but takes into account multiple frames.

I will say I prefer the smoother image on a CRT, but each to his own. I remember being pretty miffed AMD removed the refresh rate override control with the drivers for my brand new HD4850.

 

[mikk]

Per Intel's page, they state to install the driver package in order to get Arc Control. I just looked again, and they don't have a dedicated download link for Arc Control. So if you know of some special link, its obviously very well hidden.

Not to include the newest version is Intels fail, not testing and not pointing out to the newest Arc control is a GamersNexus fail, they should know better or maybe it wasn't their intention, their intention was a catastrophic video.

Anything unclear? And I already posted the link:

Arc control panel included in the driver is really outdated, they should have tested the newest which is available here: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/download/727323/intel-arc-control.html

 

[Stuka87]

Anything unclear? And I already posted the link:

1: That link was not in your above post.
2: How did you get there? Because it wasn't from Intel's Download page, or Arc page.
3: The date on that download is even older than either of the driver downloads that are shown above. Why would a consumer manually search out Arc Control with an older release date than the driver that they already downloaded? That makes zero sense.

 

[mikk]

1: That link was not in your above post.
2: How did you get there? Because it wasn't from Intel's Download page, or Arc page.
3: The date on that download is even older than either of the driver downloads that are shown above. Why would a consumer manually search out Arc Control with an older release date than the driver that they already downloaded? That makes zero sense.

I got it from other Arc users and numerous other people. The download page date is not relevant, what matters is the Arc control version and date. Once again, I already posted this.

31.0.101.3220 Arc Control included:: 0.0.3789.0 (24.03.2022)
30.0.101.3259 Arc Control included: 0.0.3775.0 (18.03.2022)
Arc Control Intel download package 1.0.4723.0 (25.06.2022)

 

[Stuka87]

I got it from other Arc users and numerous other people. The download page date is not relevant, what matters is the Arc control version and date. Once again, I already posted this.

That's absurd.

You are suggesting that owners of these cards should go dig through some forum/redit post about where to find a specific file to download in order to use their new video card? And that the reviewers should have ignored what has clearly been posted by Intel, and also gone digging around through forums to find a magic link?

Its is NEVER ok for a consumer to have to dig around to find the latest driver/software for their new card. I am not sure why Intel is being defended here, and consumers/reviewers being attacked.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

God almighty...

Intel Arc Board Partners are Reportedly Stopping Production, Encountering Quality Issues

According to sources close to Igor Wallossek from Igor's lab, Intel's upcoming Arc Alchemist discrete graphics card lineup is in trouble. As the anonymous sources state, certain add-in board (AIB) partners are having difficulty adopting the third GPU manufacturer into their offerings. As we...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[mikk]

That's absurd.

You are suggesting that owners of these cards should go dig through some forum/redit post about where to find a specific file to download in order to use their new video card?

That's not what I'm saying lol. I never said this. Your argumentation is absurd. I mean you can't even read, no wonder.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

God almighty...

Intel Arc Board Partners are Reportedly Stopping Production, Encountering Quality Issues

According to sources close to Igor Wallossek from Igor's lab, Intel's upcoming Arc Alchemist discrete graphics card lineup is in trouble. As the anonymous sources state, certain add-in board (AIB) partners are having difficulty adopting the third GPU manufacturer into their offerings. As we...

www.techpowerup.com

That would be really bad, like Glaze3D bad.

 

[moinmoin]

That's not what I'm saying lol. I never said this. Your argumentation is absurd. I mean you can't even read, no wonder.

Not everybody is well connected to get to know info like that the Arc Control included in the public Arc driver is outdated and that there's a hidden place offering a newer separate download of it.

You seem to expect Arc users to second guess Intel. Do you see nothing wrong with that?

 

[igor_kavinski]

Intel Arc Board Partners are Reportedly Stopping Production, Encountering Quality Issues

According to sources close to Igor Wallossek from Igor's lab, Intel's upcoming Arc Alchemist discrete graphics card lineup is in trouble. As the anonymous sources state, certain add-in board (AIB) partners are having difficulty adopting the third GPU manufacturer into their offerings. As we...

www.techpowerup.com

Nice comment there:

 

[mikk]

Not everybody is well connected to get to know info like that the Arc Control included in the public Arc driver is outdated and that there's a hidden place offering a newer separate download of it.

You seem to expect Arc users to second guess Intel. Do you see nothing wrong with that?

I know I know, that's why it would have been helpful from Gamer Nexus pointing out to the newer Arc control version. They can still rant about the driver and the included control panel, this is Intels failure. At the same time they could have tested the new control panel. Gamer Nexus failed on this.

 

[Stuka87]

I know I know, that's why it would have been helpful from Gamer Nexus pointing out to the newer Arc control version. They can still rant about the driver and the included control panel, this is Intels failure. At the same time they could have tested the new control panel. Gamer Nexus failed on this.

They literally tested a beta driver that intel themselves gave them. Why would GN go dig through forums or whatever to try and find a magic link that Intel themselves never told GN about?