• refalo@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    15 days ago

    Just having alternative options anywhere near the performance of even several year old nvidia cards is worth it for the competition IMO.

  • Thorry@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    15 days ago

    Still pretty impressive. Intel has also been struggling to get something that is both fast and cheap enough to be competitive. It’s a very hard market to get into, especially with Nvidia dominating. It’s only because Nvidia has been raising prices a lot over the past years, that there’s room for competition at the lower end.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    15 days ago

    Incredibly underwhelming results, it’s readily beaten by a wide margin even by Intel’s GPU. For its price point, it’s by far the worst contender. Let’s see how much can be fixed with drivers and the company learning how to better make these kinds of chips.

    *The results are from 潮玩客’s Bilibili video. The first value corresponds to the average frames per second (FPS), whereas the second value represents the 1% Low FPS, a metric for measuring the slowest 1% of frames observed during the benchmark.

    • vanillama@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      Thank you for sharing this table, since you mention drivers, do you remember if Intel’s GPU was also this bad at launch before improvements to the drivers or is this even worse?