AMD benchmarks show the Radeon RX 6500M outperforming the Intel Arc A370M

midian182

Posts: 8,012   +87
Staff member
What just happened? Intel finally lifted the lid on its Arc laptop GPUs this week, which included the A370M from the Arc 3 series. The performance numbers it showed off weren't too revealing as they compared Arc to its own integrated graphics solutions, rather than the competitors' products, but AMD has stepped in with its own benchmarks comparing the A370M to its entry-level Radeon RX 6500M laptop GPU, and it's good news for team red.

The comparison slide was posted by the official AMD Radeon RX Twitter account. It highlights how both the Radeon RX 6500M and Arc A370M are built on TSMC's N6 node, though Intel leads the transistor count with 7.2 billion while AMD's offering has 5.4 billion. The ACM-G11 GPU features eight Xe-Cores while AMD's Navi 24 XM processor has 16 Compute Units. Both have 4GB of GDDR6.

The chart compares the two GPUs across five games running at 1080p: Hitman 3, Total War Saga: Troy, F1 2021, Strange Brigade, and Final Fantasy XIV. All were at medium settings apart from Strange Brigade, which was set to high.

According to the chart, the Radeon RX 6500M decimated the Arc 370M. Every one of the games managed over 80fps using AMD's GPU, while no title running Intel's product could achieve this feat. Most ran at least 30 fps faster on the Radeon, with F1 2020 increasing its frame count by 114%.

AMD, of course, never gave any specifications about the laptop hardware used in the test, nor did it reveal TGP levels and game/driver versions, so the results are likely a best-case scenario for team red.

Only the Arc 3 entry-level GPUs are available in laptops right now, with the higher-end Arc 5 and Arc 7 line set for a summer release. We're expecting the desktop cards to also arrive sometime around the end of Q2; Intel gave us a first look at the Arc Limited Edition Graphics yesterday.

h/t: Tom's Hardware

Permalink to story.

 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,216   +4,268
If there's a product that I trust *less* than intel drivers on a brand new line of products, for sure that is anything named "6500" by AMD. Yes I know that most laptop vendors will just use pci-e 4.0 and ''solve" many of the issues but I rather AMD just get stuck with unsold 6500 chips for their heinous attempt at selling them as a desktop GPU product: they deserve to just put all those in a damn landfill.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,416   +2,940
TechSpot Elite
"AMD brags that its laptop GPU is the one you need for 80+ fps gaming"

To quote Kid Rock:
"It ain't braggin mutha-*bleep*-ah if you back it up!"

Ever since the release of Zen, AMD seems to have learnt the value of just telling it like it is. Even their most outlandish claims (like getting double the performance-per-watt of RDNA1 from RDNA2) turned out to be conservative estimates.
 
Last edited:

yRaz

Posts: 4,514   +5,372
So a midranged AMD GPU was compared to a low-end intel GPU, cool. And these results are surprising how?

thanks for the lack of context in the article. Sure, their GPU could be better but it isn't MARKETED as such. This is basically 1 step above Intel's new line of integrated graphics.

I've hated Intel for years but I really don't understand everyone WANTING them to fail. I, legitimately, hope they make good GPUs that are priced for their performance. I might not buy them but I still hope they make good GPUs.
 

dangh

Posts: 620   +974
So a midranged AMD GPU was compared to a low-end intel GPU, cool. And these results are surprising how?
Not sure what's midrange and what's low - end. what's matter is price and consumed power. If 'mid-range' is both cheaper and have same power consumption then yes, results would be surprising. And AMD comparing them both indicates they are aiming for same segment.
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,555   +785
As I remember from the other article, Intel's dedicated gpus did not show drastic performance over their built in Iris gpus.
This makes sense. They made a stronger GPU to offer something that can actually play games. Even playing Skyrim on Intel's integrated gpu is pain (I tried).
It all makes sense. NVIDIA and AMD are in this market for so many years that it wont be easy to beat them.
Although there are also Chinese gpus coming, sources claim they already can run games.
An English review for those would be nice.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,514   +5,372
Not sure what's midrange and what's low - end. what's matter is price and consumed power. If 'mid-range' is both cheaper and have same power consumption then yes, results would be surprising. And AMD comparing them both indicates they are aiming for same segment.
Or it could be a cleaver PR stunt. Unless AMD has insider information we have access to, they don't know what segment they're aiming for.
Although there are also Chinese gpus coming, sources claim they already can run games.
An English review for those would be nice.
I would never buy a Chinese GPU
 

pcnthuziast

Posts: 1,329   +1,114
It's not as though Intel's venture is guaranteed to be a successful one. They could fail miserably and it seems quite plausible.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,646   +2,858
TechSpot Elite
I would never buy a Chinese GPU
Why? It was probably designed and patented in the US!

you-know-its-true-jack-farlis.gif
 

Irata

Posts: 2,164   +3,743
It's not as though Intel's venture is guaranteed to be a successful one. They could fail miserably and it seems quite plausible.
Not in the OEM segment. They will literally sell everything Intel feeds them if the money is right.

That said, I don‘t think their GPU will be bad in the OEM segment, particularly in the lower to mid segment where they‘ll replace the likes of MX, 1650, 3050 and 3060.

Additionally, they might be a pleasant surprise in the compute / media segment.
 

Tom Yum

Posts: 177   +417
So a midranged AMD GPU was compared to a low-end intel GPU, cool. And these results are surprising how?

thanks for the lack of context in the article. Sure, their GPU could be better but it isn't MARKETED as such. This is basically 1 step above Intel's new line of integrated graphics.

I've hated Intel for years but I really don't understand everyone WANTING them to fail. I, legitimately, hope they make good GPUs that are priced for their performance. I might not buy them but I still hope they make good GPUs.
Given the 6500M has fewer transistors than the A370M and is built on the same process (and therefore likely has a smaller die and is cheaper to manufacture), what makes you think they are intended to compete in different tiers of GPU products? Ultimately price is what sets a products tier, for which we have no data for either, but having a smaller die already puts AMD at an advantage over Intel there. So unless Intel want to throw margin to the wind and sell these well under the 6500M despite likely having a higher BOM, I'm not seeing how you can claim they shouldn't be compared.
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,514   +5,372
Given the 6500M has fewer transistors than the A370M and is built on the same process (and therefore likely has a smaller die and is cheaper to manufacture), what makes you think they are intended to compete in different tiers of GPU products? Ultimately price is what sets a products tier, for which we have no data for either, but having a smaller die already puts AMD at an advantage over Intel there. So unless Intel want to throw margin to the wind and sell these well under the 6500M despite likely having a higher BOM, I'm not seeing how you can claim they shouldn't be compared.
The 370 is a 35w part and the 6500m is a 50w part. I'm going to make an assumption here, but I'd guess that Intel hasn't gotten the process down perfectly and can't run it at a high or intended clock speed, hence the low TDP to transistor ratio.

They probably don't want to lose 100% of their money in R&D so they're selling 1st gen defective parts for cheap to recoup some of their losses.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,414   +5,724
So a midranged AMD GPU was compared to a low-end intel GPU, cool. And these results are surprising how?

thanks for the lack of context in the article. Sure, their GPU could be better but it isn't MARKETED as such. This is basically 1 step above Intel's new line of integrated graphics.

I've hated Intel for years but I really don't understand everyone WANTING them to fail. I, legitimately, hope they make good GPUs that are priced for their performance. I might not buy them but I still hope they make good GPUs.
A 6500. Mid range.

What are you smoking? That's literally bottom of the amd barrel.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 1,262   +1,149
To those that failed to pass comprehension 101 in kindergarten, the article explicitly states the AMD 6500M is the entry level, not mid range offering.

Intel is in for a rough ride, launching Arc this late just as next gen GPU's and APU's are soon to drop is rather stupid. Arc needed to be launched at least 6 months earlier and Battlemage needed to be ready for mid next year at the latest. I welcome more competition, but I would never buy a first gen card and Intel's driver support with iGPU's has been garbage. That better improve 1 billion % for their discrete cards. The best hardware is garbage with poor drivers.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,680   +1,335
If there's a product that I trust *less* than intel drivers on a brand new line of products, for sure that is anything named "6500" by AMD. Yes I know that most laptop vendors will just use pci-e 4.0 and ''solve" many of the issues but I rather AMD just get stuck with unsold 6500 chips for their heinous attempt at selling them as a desktop GPU product: they deserve to just put all those in a damn landfill.
This whole 6500XT thing proves just how stupid many people are. Here's how it went:

- AMD decides to create Navi 24 chip on new TSMC's 6nm process for laptops
- When AMD started designing Navi 24, there was NO way telling what situation will be when it's ready.
- When chip was ready, there were no good alternatives for $300 price range because of chip shortage.
- Because there was demand for chip like Navi 24 on desktops, AMD decided that card manufacturers may well use it if they see fit

That seems to be problem for someone because? So far I have not seen single valid argument why launching 6500XT was bad idea. To remind, even Techspot considered 6500XT best card in price range under $300 here https://www.techspot.com/bestof/gpu-2022/

Review score 20/100 proves their arguments there were totally invalid and they also totally lacked understanding whole 6500XT release.
 

meric

Posts: 364   +359
To those that failed to pass comprehension 101 in kindergarten, the article explicitly states the AMD 6500M is the entry level, not mid range offering.

Intel is in for a rough ride, launching Arc this late just as next gen GPU's and APU's are soon to drop is rather stupid. Arc needed to be launched at least 6 months earlier and Battlemage needed to be ready for mid next year at the latest. I welcome more competition, but I would never buy a first gen card and Intel's driver support with iGPU's has been garbage. That better improve 1 billion % for their discrete cards. The best hardware is garbage with poor drivers.
Pandemics affected many businesses. It seems most (if not all) companies did not anticipate things would go this way. Intel holds a huge OEM market and they're going to hold it. Even if they can't sell these chips with competitive pricing, these may be offered to their OEMs for dirt cheap to be used in pre-builts etc. Good pricing would solve the problem. At worst, they'd not have any profit for the first gen but I doubt they'd lose in the end.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Objectively we should want Intel to beat AMD (and Nvidia). We want competition in the market place don’t we? I hear that said all the time.

Personally I’m done with AMD graphics, I’ve had too many bad experiences with their driver support so I’d like to see Intel make a better product so that I can buy it. Radeon really isn’t in very good shape these days, several cards get discontinued from driver support way too early (especially laptops and cards that didn’t sell well like the Fury X), my 2.5 year old Radeon APU in my laptop is lucky to get 2 driver updates a year. Now I don’t know if Intel is better or not, none of us do yet. But surely we want them to be? Why wouldn’t you want a better product? The only reason I can think of brand loyalty and I’m sorry but if you’re loyal to any of these companies you’re an *****..
 

emmzo

Posts: 630   +832
Objectively we should want Intel to beat AMD (and Nvidia). We want competition in the market place don’t we? I hear that said all the time.

Personally I’m done with AMD graphics, I’ve had too many bad experiences with their driver support so I’d like to see Intel make a better product so that I can buy it. Radeon really isn’t in very good shape these days, several cards get discontinued from driver support way too early (especially laptops and cards that didn’t sell well like the Fury X), my 2.5 year old Radeon APU in my laptop is lucky to get 2 driver updates a year. Now I don’t know if Intel is better or not, none of us do yet. But surely we want them to be? Why wouldn’t you want a better product? The only reason I can think of brand loyalty and I’m sorry but if you’re loyal to any of these companies you’re an *****..
Ofc everybody wishes them all the best, competition and all, but so far it's only a ton of hype and you know what that usually means. I personally don't believe in first gen and nobody's gonna convince me they have a product on par with companies that have decades of experience. Sure, there could be some surprises, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,422
Ofc everybody wishes them all the best, competition and all, but so far it's only a ton of hype and you know what that usually means. I personally don't believe in first gen and nobody's gonna convince me they have a product on par with companies that have decades of experience. Sure, there could be some surprises, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Personally I could believe it could be better than Radeon. I’ve had such a bad time on Radeon over the last decade, surely Intel can do better than that, the bar isn’t exactly very high.

I’m not holding my breath. But it would be great for everyone if Intel could deliver a good product.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 2,416   +2,940
TechSpot Elite
This whole 6500XT thing proves just how stupid many people are. Here's how it went:

- AMD decides to create Navi 24 chip on new TSMC's 6nm process for laptops
- When AMD started designing Navi 24, there was NO way telling what situation will be when it's ready.
- When chip was ready, there were no good alternatives for $300 price range because of chip shortage.
- Because there was demand for chip like Navi 24 on desktops, AMD decided that card manufacturers may well use it if they see fit

That seems to be problem for someone because? So far I have not seen single valid argument why launching 6500XT was bad idea. To remind, even Techspot considered 6500XT best card in price range under $300 here https://www.techspot.com/bestof/gpu-2022/

Review score 20/100 proves their arguments there were totally invalid and they also totally lacked understanding whole 6500XT release.
It gets even worse than that. The RTX 3050 with its 8GB was snapped up by miners because nVidia's LHR setting is software-based and that can always be hacked. For all we know (and I believe this to be likely), many miners have figured out how to circumvent the LHR setting but are keeping mum about it.

While I have no evidence of this, I wouldn't be surprised if nVidia didn't reveal how to circumvent LHR on the dark web to increase the sales (and values) of their cards. If I were a slimy outfit like nVidia, I'm sure that I would do it. :laughing: