More leaks for Intel's DG2 graphics: 448 execution unit SKU incoming

Soupreme

Posts: 20   +0
Staff
Something to look forward to: Hot off the heels of Intel's modest DG1 discrete graphics card getting performance tested in the wild, trusted leaker TUM_APISAK has suggested the introduction of a new addition to Intel's incoming DG2 line, a card slotting into a second-from-top tier that's capable of duking it out with Nvidia's RTX 3070 and AMD's RX 6700 XT.

While the tweet is rather short, it points to the existence of another SKU within Intel's DG2 lineup, which was previously thought to only consist of five models, and helps clear up the picture of how Intel's upcoming graphics product stack is going to shape up. This new GPU comes toting 448 execution units, joining a previously-established 384-EU SKU that is also cut down from the top model's 512 EUs.

TUM_APISAK's tweet puts the 448 EU model up against AMD's RX 6700 XT and Nvidia's RTX 3070, and claims that it comes out only 8% behind the former and 5% behind the latter. This roughly matches up with previous information that the 512-EU SKU was set to be targeting the RTX 3070 Ti (which itself claims only limited gains over the 3070), both DG2 GPUs bracketing the Nvidia card with the difference of 64 EUs either way.

As the 384-EU model is getting 12 GB of GDDR6 VRAM, the new SKU should have that same configuration at a minimum, which already matches the RX 6700 XT and beats both the RTX 3070 and 3070 Ti on that front -- although it's also worth noting that the RTX 3070 still maintains the best VRAM bandwidth out of the three unless the new SKU uses the same 256-bit memory bus of the highest DG2 model.

The alleged 1.8 GHz boost clock speeds also line up with previous leaks about the top SKU, while at the bottom end of the product stack the 128 EU model is claimed to boost all the way up to 1.9 GHz -- a great deal higher than clock speeds claimed for the higher 256-EU model, but that's to be expected as those covered mobile versions of the GPUs.

It also claims a 12% lead over Nvidia's GTX 1650, although with the incoming RTX 3050 Ti claiming performance akin to the incumbent GTX 1660 Ti, it might have trouble establishing itself in the entry-level market unless it's aggressively priced.

Rumored Intel Xe DG2 mobile specifications

  SKU 1 SKU 2 SKU 3 SKU 4 SKU 5 SKU 6
EUs 512 448 384 256 196 128
Boost Clock (Mobile) 1100 MHz ? 600 MHz 450 MHz ?
Turbo Clock (Mobile) 1800 MHz ? 1800 MHz ? 1400 MHz ?
Turbo Clock (Desktop) ? 1800 MHz ? 1900 MHz
Memory Capacity 16 GB 12 GB+ 12 GB 8 GB 4 GB
Memory Speed 16 Gbps
Memory Type GDDR6
Bus Type 256-bit ? 192-bit 128-bit 64-bit
Mobile TDP (exc. memory) 100w ? 100 W ?

It's worth noting that no metric, benchmark or testing suite was given for these performance numbers -- and drivers can be just as important to real-world GPU performance as the silicon itself, so they should still best be taken with the usual pinch of salt.

Plus, all of the GPUs are rumored to be produced on TSMC's 6 nm process, meaning that ongoing high demand for the foundry's silicon could become a bottleneck for availability no matter how aggressively Intel prices its GPUs on release.

Permalink to story.

 

Irata

Posts: 1,528   +2,507
What I‘d really like is if Intel shook up the $100ish entry level market. What‘s available in that segment right now is old tech and I‘m positive OEM would love a modern low TDP contender in that market.

Hopefully this would force nVidia and AMD to update their offerings in that segment.
 

pcnthuziast

Posts: 1,088   +792
The miners and scalpers can have em. This will be a failing endeavor for Intel and by 2023 they'll be out of the discrete gfx market.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,371   +2,414
Get it out, get it sold cheap because inevitably the software side will not be as advanced as Nvidia or AMD's just yet, and get this show on the road.

The sooner Intel can get up to speed the better. We have seen how it goes the past 18 months if you have only two players in the game. Add a third if they had respectable supply, it is the perfect time to launch if they hurry up.
 

psycros

Posts: 3,494   +4,181
"..a card slotting into a second-from-top tier that's capable of duking it out with Nvidia's RTX 3070 and AMD's RX 6700 XT."

And it will cost more then either, because their Intel.
 

Lounds

Posts: 863   +763
"..a card slotting into a second-from-top tier that's capable of duking it out with Nvidia's RTX 3070 and AMD's RX 6700 XT."

And it will cost more then either, because their Intel.
Intel have their own fab and no market share so you'd like to think they could under cut their competition by a lot.
 
"..a card slotting into a second-from-top tier that's capable of duking it out with Nvidia's RTX 3070 and AMD's RX 6700 XT."

And it will cost more then either, because their Intel.

Have you tried getting a budget AMD cpu in the last 12 months, they don't exist.

At the top end of the CPU market AMD rule but they want top end prices these days.

Performance for cost Intel win hands down it is no competition at all in the CPU market. If you want AMD you have to pay for it.

Don't get me wrong there is a possibility Intel would charge more for their gpu's, that is in the unlikely event that they came along and blew everyone else out of the water.

That is how it works, Intel were untouchable for years so they took the piss with prices but they got brought back down earth.

Fact remains if you are building a PC today and have a limited budget better getting an Intel cpu and spending more on the gpu.

 

psycros

Posts: 3,494   +4,181
Have you tried getting a budget AMD cpu in the last 12 months, they don't exist.

At the top end of the CPU market AMD rule but they want top end prices these days.

Performance for cost Intel win hands down it is no competition at all in the CPU market. If you want AMD you have to pay for it.

Don't get me wrong there is a possibility Intel would charge more for their gpu's, that is in the unlikely event that they came along and blew everyone else out of the water.

That is how it works, Intel were untouchable for years so they took the piss with prices but they got brought back down earth.

Fact remains if you are building a PC today and have a limited budget better getting an Intel cpu and spending more on the gpu.

Weird, because literally everyone else says there's either no real difference in price-to-performance between AMD and Intel or that AMD is actually a slightly better value.
 
Weird, because literally everyone else says there's either no real difference in price-to-performance between AMD and Intel or that AMD is actually a slightly better value.

To be clear if you are talking gaming Intel win cost for performance, if you use your computer for other things like rendering and editing then AMD again win. But this can be blurred by certain software.

I am not an Intel fanboy at all, I was planning building a modest gaming pc for a long while, always planning on going AMD. But when the day came I went for a 10400f, it was just for the money (£140) the way to go.

Today if you plan on spending under £250 for a CPU there just isn't an AMD option?

Even last gen 3100, 3300x 3500x are impossible to get and would pay well over the odds for one off a scalper.

These are just facts?
 

Lounds

Posts: 863   +763
Weird, because literally everyone else says there's either no real difference in price-to-performance between AMD and Intel or that AMD is actually a slightly better value.
I think you're forgetting if intel could have gotten away with it they would have sold us 4 core i5's for another 10 years if they could have gotten away with it. AMD shook up the market and PC gamers and the hobbyist builder know this and respect AMD for doing something that intel never would have. The reason we have a competitive market is because Lisa Su wants to be the number one CPU company in desktops, laptops and the server market.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 768   +650
Honestly while this is great news to see more competition, Intel needs to price this aggressively to compete IMO. They are unproven and of the elephant in the room will be driver quality and timeliness of updates. Good hardware is useless with rubbish drivers.

This card should be $399 to compete IMO, but I'm sure desperate buyers will gladly pay whatever Intel charges so I expect a ludicrous $499 price tag.
 

Vanderlinde

Posts: 33   +17
These DG's from intel are nothing more then a derivative from their computational devision. Chips that did'nt make it to be fully as a computational chip; simular as Radeon's MI's vs Vega.

It will take intel quite a while to even match or catch up on all fronts; lets just hope they somehow succeed this time. Competition even if it's bad is still good (for consumers).
 

ypsylon

Posts: 366   +286
Myself, not expecting anything major from Intel cards in this first outing. Synthetic benchmarks from Twitter are hardly worth of mention. News like this require full solar system weight of salt, not just pinch or truckload. Even reaching bottom of the barrel nVidia will require more than few Raja PR Twitter stunts.

Synthetics are easy to fool. They take all available hardware and load it to full, but no GPU no matter how advanced ever works that way. Software was always Achilles heel of Intel. No support from big players in gaming or rendering and it'll be like Matrox GPUs of old when Voodoo and first nVidia were top dogs. So what Matrox hardware was often more interesting and ahead of the time. Matrox cards were nice for office work (2D doesn't require anything complicated), but were totally useless at gaming.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,528   +2,507
To be clear if you are talking gaming Intel win cost for performance, if you use your computer for other things like rendering and editing then AMD again win. But this can be blurred by certain software.

I am not an Intel fanboy at all, I was planning building a modest gaming pc for a long while, always planning on going AMD. But when the day came I went for a 10400f, it was just for the money (£140) the way to go.

Today if you plan on spending under £250 for a CPU there just isn't an AMD option?

Even last gen 3100, 3300x 3500x are impossible to get and would pay well over the odds for one off a scalper.

These are just facts?
Odd, Scan has them all in stock - Ryzen 5000 series (all), Ryzen 3000 (including the 3500x, however the 3600x is cheaper).

I am curious: What board did you put your 10400F in ?
 

Irata

Posts: 1,528   +2,507
"..a card slotting into a second-from-top tier that's capable of duking it out with Nvidia's RTX 3070 and AMD's RX 6700 XT."

And it will cost more then either, because their Intel.
Actually, Intel historically had no problem selling products at low prices if they want to capture a market, so they might (and have to) sell DG2 cheap.
 

McMurdeR

Posts: 299   +292
Intel have their own fab and no market share so you'd like to think they could under cut their competition by a lot.

Interestingly they're not using their own fabs for these chips, but will they rely on third parties to build and distribute the boards? This is where they could either have a distinct advantage or a major bottleneck.

If Intel can establish a solid distribution pipeline it would be a partial victory - once they have a foothold in the market they can focus on building more competitive products.

Every gamer out there who wishes to buy GPUs at fair prices should be hoping that Intel succeeds.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,130   +4,375
Every gamer out there who wishes to buy GPUs at fair prices should be hoping that Intel succeeds.
Unfortunately, it seems current GPU market prices are being driven more by scalpers than competition between manufacturers in the marketplace.

If reviews show that the Intel cards are decent and should Intel price them fairly which, IMO, the likely will not especially if they continue pricing practices like they formerly did with their CPUs, all I can say is that we better hope that they are not attractive cards to scalpers.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,516   +3,794
Weird, because literally everyone else says there's either no real difference in price-to-performance between AMD and Intel or that AMD is actually a slightly better value.
Ummm...have you missed the many articles talking about the 10400f and 10600k calling both notably better value then the ryzen 5600? When the 11400f is $160 to the ryzen 5600's $300 and the 11700f is $338 to the 5800's $450 while offering comparable performance, its hard to classify the AMD chips as better value. Sure AMD has better performance in production benchmarks, but 80-100% better? Nope.
I think you're forgetting if intel could have gotten away with it they would have sold us 4 core i5's for another 10 years if they could have gotten away with it. AMD shook up the market and PC gamers and the hobbyist builder know this and respect AMD for doing something that intel never would have. The reason we have a competitive market is because Lisa Su wants to be the number one CPU company in desktops, laptops and the server market.
I think you forget that AMD was perfectly happy selling you an athlon with a clock multiplier one higher for nearly twice the price in the form of the FX-62, and had 0 issue spending billions on ATi and stalling on K10's development until intel finally woke up and hammered AMD in the face with the core 2 duo.

The same AMD that willfully ignored consumer complaints about ATi's graphics drivers numerous problems with frame time issues until nvidia released FCAT and obliterated AMD in pretty much every test. The same AMD that again willfully ignored consumer complaints about the poor quality of both GCN 1.4 and rDNA's performance issues until the tech media began covering it. The same AMD that abandoned evergreen once GCN overshadowed it, over three years before the fermi drivers would end, and evergreen was left in an abysmal state that so annoyed consumers that AMD had to release a beta driver to try and fix these issues.

The same AMD that created bulldozer, bold faced lied about its performance, then abandoned the high end market for half a decade. The same AMD then came back, released some good chips, and is now asking you to pay $300 for a six core CPU when not two years earlier they were offering 8 cores for $220.

Let's stop pretending AMD are some saints being downtrodden by the big evil intel. AMD is a corporation, and will happily fleece you or abandon you if you are not profitable enough. Their hiking of CPU prices the moment they came out ahead of intel is proof enough. Intel is not a good deal because they lowered prices, they are a good deal because AMD raised their prices to ridiculous levels.
 

Gimp65

Posts: 29   +55
The miners and scalpers can have em. This will be a failing endeavor for Intel and by 2023 they'll be out of the discrete gfx market.
you are completely clueless. Naturally they will not be out of the discrete GPU market by 2023, please enlighten us all why you would think so.