News Intel GPUs - Battlemage officially announced, evidently not cancelled

[Hans Gruber]

64 would not be needed as 32 Xe2 cores with 3GHz clock and game improvements due to architecture is enough to reach 4070S. 64 would mean 2x on top of that, which I don't believe they'll reach that on N5, especially with just 1.5x perf/watt improvement.

In fact, this would turn out to be an opposite of RDNA3 where the high level specs seem weak but they actually spent enough transistors to outperform it's high level specs.

XFX Radeon RX 7900 XTX Magnetic Air Review

The XFX Radeon RX 7900 XTX Magnetic Air comes with user-replaceable fans that pop out without any tools. It's a fantastic solution to clean your card and to simplify RMAs. The card achieved excellent performance results in our review, and the overclocking potential is highly impressive.

www.techpowerup.com

Lower resolutions/settings being on the level of other cards would indicate a ~10% improvement where the A770 would be on the 3060 Ti level. 25% improvement on top of that with clocks on Xe2 would be 4070S.

Assuming clocks are increased without exponential increases, 2x that would require going from 225W to something like 700W assuming GPU takes up about 160W, and way far past even 4090's power requirements. Yes it would also greatly outperform 4090 but it doesn't seem realistic.

Regarding Arrowlake: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/o4vQofD6ZXVJ43gfCqZXWU-1200-80.png.webp

On the older roadmaps the Alchemist+ parts were referred to as "G20". It would fit with the current leaks that it's Meteorlake's GPU with XMX and more caches added.

There is no point in making comparisons or assimilating what performance of Battlemage should be. Intel already admitted that ARC was a flawed/broken architecture from the design. They did a good job using software drivers to work around the broken aspects of the 1st generation Intel card. They said Battlemage would fix all the problems in the architecture that plagued ARC. Originally ARC was said to be on paper a bit better in theory to a 3070 and closer to a 3070ti in performance. Because of the hardware flaws that level of performance was never realized.

The real questions are what 5nm TSMC silicon will Intel use for Battlemage. Will it be N4 or N4P or N4X. Then compare the efficiency and power gains from N6 (Arc) to Battlemage. The other question is what performance to expect. I have heard anything from 4070 performance to 4070ti performance for the top Battlemage SKU. The other factor to consider is the GDDR6 memory and the speed of the memory Intel will use. The faster the better.

 

[DavidC1]

There is no point in making comparisons or assimilating what performance of Battlemage should be.

Sure we can. Because we have preliminary Lunarlake data from leakers and Intel themselves. The GPU moved from MTL's N5 to LNL's N3B. This is likely similar from N6 to an N4 variant. Before Lunarlake, it was nearly pure speculation.

Originally ARC was said to be on paper a bit better in theory to a 3070 and closer to a 3070ti in performance. Because of the hardware flaws that level of performance was never realized.

I'm not sure if 3070(nevermind a 3070 Ti) was even possible. AMD rarely catches up to Nvidia in efficiency in that regard either. And their mess ups are far less.

Some people/groups are simply better/smarter than others. The performance in 4K is what I see as max for A770, a 3060 Ti. It is difficult to accept a company wholly focused on an entirely different market segment with HD Audio mentality on top of that to be on par with a product from a company with peak in execution and record employee satisfaction and high retention rates among it's engineers.

Obviously "leakers" like MLID don't know anything in regards to what they are talking about. Sad reality we live in today, where the modern Press has almost zero knowledge about the news they are releasing.