Leaked slide says that all Intel Arc Alchemist GPUs will cost less than $400

mongeese

Posts: 627   +122
Staff member
Recap: Intel is finally teasing its long-awaited Arc Alchemist GPUs and seems to be on the verge of releasing them. Most of their specifications were leaked months if not years ago, leaving pricing as the biggest mystery.

Wccftech has sourced a slide (below) that paints a rough picture of Alchemist's pricing, power consumption, and memory capacity. It was allegedly part of a presentation created by Intel for its partners in Taiwan. It's fairly official-looking and also contains reasonable information, but it doesn't come from a reliable source, so treat it with the appropriate skepticism.

Intel's team joined Linus Tech Tips on stream last week to announce the third member of the Alchemist series, the A770 flagship. They were tight-lipped but promised to divulge more details including the price in an upcoming video. According to the slide, they'll say that it costs somewhere between $350 and $390; slightly less than the $399 MSRP of both the GeForce RTX 3060 Ti and Radeon RX 6600 XT.

In its own YouTube videos, Intel has been talking up the penultimate flagship, the A750. It's level with the $330 RTX 3060 and RX 6600 (non-XT) on the slide's graph and apparently outperforms them, which is a good thing. A hundred dollars or so lower sits the A580, seemingly positioned to compete with the RTX 3050 on the border between the entry-level and midrange market segments.

Via Wccftech

Intel has also been subtly teasing the performance of the A380 for a few weeks, which is a little strange given that it's already been released in China and reviewed. According to those foreign reviews, it's slightly faster than the (horrendously overpriced) $200 RX 6500 XT. In China, it sells for less than $150 and that's where it lands on the slide's graph as well.

At the base of the product stack, the A310 occupies the diminutive ~$100 price point. It doesn't make much sense as a product, given that it consumes a lot of power (relatively) and can't be much faster than integrated alternatives, but most of the small $100-and-lower market is OEMs anyway.

It's too soon to tell if Intel's pricing will be competitive, but it's at least targeting the right price points in what I'd describe as a realistic scenario. Arc Alchemist could compare favorably to the GPUs currently on the market, but note that they are a couple of years old already. AMD and Nvidia are both known to have new generations in the works that could give Alchemist a pretty hard time.

Masthead credit: Linus Tech Tips

Permalink to story.

 
Where Intel could really shine is if they play the value and efficiency game in the GPU market. If they can put lower cost GPUs to market that perform 90% as well as AMD and Nvidia, while keeping power consumption within reason - they'll be in a good place. If Intel worked with Microsoft so Windows supported Xe Super Sampling natively across DirectX 11 and newer API titles, Intel would dominate.
 

nodfor

Posts: 322   +578
Currently there is nothing new below 150$ - that is one market Intel could stand out, gpus for cpus without igpu.

For anything above that it will be rough, the market segment above 150$ seems to be covered well by the competition
 
Last edited:

Fearghast

Posts: 585   +518
It's still combination Intel and GPU, they're bound to problems ... a lot of them, actually.
But what can we get - a decent GPU with classic Intel drivers or another disaster train wreck that is hilarious to observe - for us, it's win-win situation.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,221   +3,857
An RX 6600 is $279 right now, other cards are also dropping in price.

Currently there is nothing new below 150$ - that is one market Intel could stand out, gpus for cpus without igpu.

For anything above that it will be rough, the market segment above 150$ seems to be covered well by the competition

Agree - low end cards like the A310 should have no competition if they start at $100ish. There is no modern architecture equivalent with full features - 1630 is old, slow and expensive, RX 6400 not feature complete.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,838   +1,909
The A310...doesn't make much sense as a product, given that []it] can't be much faster than integrated alternatives...
Eh? Even pessimistically assuming it's only half the speed of the A380, it will still be twice as fast as the best integrated solutions.
 

kira setsu

Posts: 411   +392
Where Intel could really shine is if they play the value and efficiency game in the GPU market. If they can put lower cost GPUs to market that perform 90% as well as AMD and Nvidia, while keeping power consumption within reason - they'll be in a good place. If Intel worked with Microsoft so Windows supported Xe Super Sampling natively across DirectX 11 and newer API titles, Intel would dominate.
Does windows handle dlss or fsr natively?

seems wrong to give help to intel of all companies just cause theyre new to the gpu side, especially with the money and power they hold already, theyll be fine working they're way up to relevance by themselves.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,138   +4,014
TechSpot Elite
"In its own YouTube videos, Intel has been talking up the penultimate flagship, the A750. It's level with the $330 RTX 3060 and RX 6600 (non-XT) on the slide's graph and apparently outperforms them, which is a good thing."

I think that you have confused the word "good" with the word "expected". Intel's slide graph shows their GPU out-performing the competition which, on an Intel slide graph, is an EXPECTED thing. :laughing:
 

Mugsy

Posts: 772   +203
If the Arc GPUs have no built-in ray-tracing hardware like the RTX, it's no miracle it rates as "faster".

Try using software to simulate the graphics features of a the nVidia or Radeon cards and you'll see those speed gains vanish.