Games

16751 readers

767 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
No humor/memes etc..
No affiliate links
No advertising.
No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
No self promotion.
No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
No politics.

Comments.

No personal attacks.
Obey instance rules.
No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works

Intel's Arc graphics cards have quietly become excellent (www.digitaltrends.com)

submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works to c/games@sh.itjust.works

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Intel’s Arc A770 and A750 were decent at launch, but over the past few months, they’ve started to look like some of the best graphics cards you can buy if you’re on a budget. Disappointing generational improvements from AMD and Nvidia, combined with high prices, have made it hard to find a decent GPU around $200 to $300 — and Intel’s GPUs have silently filled that gap.

They don’t deliver flagship performance, and in some cases, they’re just straight-up worse than the competition at the same price. But Intel has clearly been improving the Arc A770 and A750, and although small driver improvements don’t always make a splash, they’re starting to add up."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know much about the performance of the a770 so I don't really know if that's right, but I wouldn't trust userbenchmark at all. they favor Nvidia massively and their ratings are super inaccurate. here's an article on some of it: https://www.gizmosphere.org/stop-using-userbenchmark/

[–] TendieMaster69@sh.itjust.works -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I don't trust anyone saying userbenchmark is biased without their own set of information to back up their claim. Using reddit drama as an excuse to not use a tool is weak.

The article you posted claims this:

"However, consider this: UserBenchmark mentions the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Super in their GPU section as faster than the Radeon RX 5600 XT."

This claim in the article is factually incorrect at the current time.

https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-1660S-Super-vs-AMD-RX-5600-XT/4056vs4062

[–] mantaba@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sounds unfair to criticize an article from 2021 for not being up to date with the ever changing metrics of Userbenchmark.

The point stands. Userbenchmark has announced and made changes to their own metric calculations because Ryzen Cpus were getting better scores than intel. It has a very clear anti-AMD stance that is clear on the written reviews and linked videos like the one in your screenshot.

Just from this comparison, I have no clue how Userbenchmark achieved the 8% given the values they're posting below. 8% is still also reasonably below what other reviewers posted at the time. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/sapphire-radeon-rx-5600-xt-pulse/27.html https://www.techspot.com/review/1974-amd-radeon-rx-5600-xt/

This just to say that they are pretty clearly biased and do not shy away from altering their metrics to favour one product over the other.

[–] TendieMaster69@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sounds unfair to criticize an article from 2021 for not being up to date

An article from 2021 which hasn't been updated is by definition not up to date. Neither of the articles you posted even have the 3060ti on the list. Nothing you wrote actually debunks my refutation.

[–] mantaba@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You attacked the credibility of the article just for having some out of date information. Just because something they reference is out of date, does not mean the article is less relevant. It's still things that happened and they should weight on how you view Userbenchmark as a source of information.

I am replying to your userbenchmark defense. Of course the articles I posted have nothing to do with the 3060ti, they were meant to source my claim that even the 8% on your posted screenshot doesn't seem like an accurate evaluation when comparing these 2 GPUs

[–] TendieMaster69@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago

Just because something they reference is out of date, does not mean the article is less relevant.

Yes it does.