Intel surprise launched a new graphics card, but it doesn’t …

Intel’s Arch A580 graphics card is finally here, but we’re not sure if it’s ready to compete against some of the best GPUs right now. In fact, based on reviews, it is not ready to face the current GPU market. what went wrong? It’s not even about performance, even though it leaves a lot to be desired. Mostly it seems like there’s no point buying this GPU compared to the competition, including Intel’s own offerings.

It’s been a bumpy road for the Intel Arc A580. The rest of the Arc Alchemist lineup, including the flagship Arc A770, was launched a year ago after several delays. The Arch A580 was announced along with them, but then, Intel became silent. Many thought the card was quietly canceled, but then it resurfaced a few days ago — and now, it’s officially available with a $180 price tag. We also know the complete details of the GPU.

[12:31 PM] jacob roach

With those specifications, the GPU sits between the Arch A750 and A380, but it’s definitely closer to the A380. Intel itself pits it against the Nvidia RTX 3050 and AMD RX 6600, cards in the same price range that are slightly more expensive. It appears that the card is currently available in two models, one from ASRock and one from Sparkle.

TechPowerUp tested the ASRock Arc A580 Challenger in several benchmarks, finding that the A580 is about 25% faster than Nvidia’s RTX 3050, making it clearly a much better deal considering the lower price. It offers comparable 1080p performance to AMD’s RX 6600, and is about 8% behind the RX 5700 XT. Of course, Intel’s own Arch A750 is faster, but only by 9% – making the advantage largely negligible.

If you’re looking for something capable of 1440p gaming and ray tracing, the A580 definitely isn’t it, but it’s true that most GPUs in this price range weren’t made for this kind of thing. In TechPowerUp’s review, the A580 averaged 75 frames per second (fps) across the entire gaming test suite at 1080p, and dropped to 56.8 fps at 1440p. It outperforms older, but solid cards like the GTX 1080 Ti and RTX 2070.

Tom’s Hardware took the Sparkle model of the GPU out for a spin. While the official clock on the GPU is limited to 1.7GHz, the Sparkle Orc OC model was able to reach 2.4GHz in testing, bringing it closer to the A750. In gaming tests, the card performed a little worse here, averaging 50 fps at 1080p with Ultra settings and a comfortable 77.6 fps at medium settings. For comparison, the A750 achieved 84.6 fps in the same test.

Overall, GPU performance is better in the case of cards like the AMD RX 7600 and Arch A750. This isn’t unexpected, and there would still be room for this GPU in many budget PC builds if it weren’t for the price. It appears that Intel has deviated from its initial plan to keep its discrete graphics cards very competitive in terms of performance per dollar.

If the Arch A580 were a little cheaper, it would be a better buy than the A750. However, at $180, there is no reason for anyone to buy this GPU. Sparkle’s A750 model can be had for $190, so by paying $10 extra, you’re getting better performance. Sure, it’s not much, but it’s definitely worth the money. And Intel, Nvidia and AMD are potential threats at the same price range. Nvidia’s RTX 4060 or RTX 3060 are both better, and AMD has the RX 6600 and RX 7600.

It may be too late for Intel. If it had arrived a year earlier with the rest of the lineup, it might have made more sense, as the A750 initially cost $250. However, given the performance issues the Arch GPUs initially faced with DX9 and DX11 titles, perhaps Intel thought the A580 wasn’t worth it at the time. Most people wouldn’t use it for AAA gaming in DX12 titles, so it may have been ignored when Intel was working on their drivers to support the older API.

It’s a shame that this GPU, while not bad, likely won’t become a popular choice. Nvidia and AMD could use a solid competitor in the mainstream arena, but it doesn’t have to be that way. If you’re shopping for a GPU, the A750 will probably be your best bet.