Intel Arc B580

My latest 'free' computer motherboard has an i7-6700K, with integrated graphics. I tried to run Resolve 20 but it complained about my not having a real GPU. I ended up getting an Intel Arc B580 for around $300, which I thought was a better value than getting a used GPU off eBay. Going to look at this version, as I haven't gone through the tutorials yet, so the assistants would be quite helpful.

> If that happens, we will see it in triple-A games first. If some new titles have significant lower hardware specs than expected. Recently I booted up Insurgency: Sandstorm. With a 5800X and an Intel Arc B580 at 1080p and high graphics, the game runs at around 200 FPS. Meanwhile, pretty much any modern UE5 title (with the exception of Ready or Not and Split Fiction, from what I've seen) runs horribly - the interesting thing is that no matter how much you tweak the .ini files or change the graphics settings you can't get something like STALKER 2 or The Forever Winter or Borderlands 4 to run as well as UE4 with the graphics similar to those old games. Instead you get something that runs at like 10% of the render resolution and still doesn't get 60 FPS (I'm not exaggerating, literally the performance I got in The Forever Winter). There's no good technical reason for things to be that way (Unity still exists, and the games made in it struggle less) other than the devs or the higher ups choosing higher fidelity but more expensive rendering technologies and using upscaling and framegen not as something that helps laptops or when you need the spare GPU capacity (e.g. encoding a video recording of the gamE), but rather as something that's supposed to be used to even get to 60 FPS in the first place. I don't know what needs to change for things to get better.

I was looking at used video cards to use with Davinci Resolve, then I noticed that Intel's latest GPU was a good value. Last week I bought an Intel Arc B580 card. What's the problem with Apple's .mov files and DaVinci? I just ran into this last night. Handbrake has too many options, so I'll definitely try out your utility.

I have a B580 too. The cool thing about it is architecturally speaking it is basically a mini version of the Ponte Vecchio (PVC) datacenter GPU. You can run most of the datacenter GPU workloads, albeit scaled down to fit the compute/memory constraints of the B580. It's a great vehicle for software development. But you can't buy PVC anymore so it's unclear what you are developing for...

I have a B580 in my desktop. Unfortunately AMD still has broken PCIe level reset and so their GPUs don't work well for assignment to a VM, Intel and Nvidia cards both work fine. The perf is fine - it was a $350 CAD GPU after all. I am certainly interested to see where Intel ends up going with their lineup. Having a third player in the GPU space is definitely a good thing.

Same with Chinese GPUs: https://videocardz.com/newz/chinas-lisuan-begins-shipping-6n... Sure those particular ones are still using TSMC but at least people are doing something to prevent everything from being such oligopolies: which is also why I own an Intel Arc A580 and B580. Any step towards market competition is nice to hear about.

> It's not like you can afford an average decent mid/upper range GPU these days thanks to the AI bros. I mean, Nvidia was greedy even before then and AMD just did “Nvidia - 50 USD” or thereabout. Intel Arc tried shaking up the entry level (retailers spit on that MSRP though) but sadly didn’t make that big of a splash despite the daily experience being okay (I have the B580). Who knows, maybe their B770 will provide an okay mid range experience that doesn’t feel like being robbed. Over here, to get an Nvidia 5060 Ti 16 GB I'd have to pay over 500 EUR which is fucking bullshit, so I don’t.

> 2 GPU vendors Intel Arc GPUs exist, I have a B580 in my desktop and it works well enough.

> Sure we don't play the most abusively unoptimized AAA games like RDR2. Wait, RDR2 is badly optimized? When I played it on my Intel Arc B580 and Ryzen 7 5800X, it seemed to work pretty well! Way better than almost any UE5 title, like The Forever Winter (really cool concept, but couldn't get past 20-30 FPS, even dropping down to 10% render scale on a 1080p monitor). Or with the Borderlands 4 controversy, I thought there'd be way bigger fish to fry.

My current GPU is an Intel Arc B580 and before then it was the A580. They aren't perfect but now that they're coming down to MSRP, they're pretty good budget friendly options. I would have also unironically gotten a Core Ultra CPU if the pricing was actually... well, not insane for the value (or lack thereof) that they have. A 245K would still be an improvement over my current 5800X, though I have no idea what they were thinking of with that pricing - if their CPU prices were as competitive as their GPU prices (vendors ignoring MSRP be damned), that sidegrade release might have not been as horrible. They're still modern CPUs that work pretty well. Though when I buy Intel, it's mostly so I don't give even more money to Nvidia and support competition in the market (otherwise my build would be all AMD).

Besides no mention about GPUs, there was no mention about their future server CPUs. He said only that they will attempt to squeeze more money from the existing Granite Rapids, which uses CPU cores that are obsolete in comparison with AMD Zen 5 and in comparison with Intel's own CPU cores from consumer products. The emphasis for future products has shifted mainly on laptops (Panther Lake) and less importantly on desktops (Nova Lake). It is true that lately the only profitable division of Intel has been the one selling "client" CPUs, mainly for laptops, but instead of making any attempt to revitalize the other divisions it seems that the new CEO only wants to abandon those markets. I do not care much about Intel CPUs, because they did not show anything interesting on their public roadmap, but I would have been interested to see better GPUs. I have recently bought an Arc B580, for the reason that while all the other vendors have reduced their FP64 performance, Intel has increased it, matching or exceeding in performance per dollar the GPUs that could still be bought 5 years ago (like Radeon VII) for which no replacement has existed at other vendors.

I had both an A580 (not an A770, but at least something from that generation) and then later a B580, at one point even both in the same computer, side by side, when I wanted to use one for games and the other for encoding: https://blog.kronis.dev/blog/what-is-ruining-dual-gpu-setups https://blog.kronis.dev/blog/more-pc-shenanigans-my-setup-un... https://blog.kronis.dev/blog/two-intel-arc-gpus-in-one-pc-wo... When paired with a worse CPU like a Ryzen 5 4500, the experience won't always be good (despite no monitoring software actually showing that the CPU is a bottleneck). When paired with a better CPU (I got a Ryzen 7 5800X to replace it, eventually with an AIO cause the temperatures were too high under full load anyways), either of them are pretty okay. In a single GPU setup either of them run most games okay, not that many compatibility or stability issues, even in older indie titles, though I've had some like STALCRAFT: X complain about running on an integrated GPU (Intel being detected as such). Most software also works, unless you want to run LLMs locally, where Nvidia will have more of an advantage and you'd go off the beaten path. Most annoying I've had were some stability issues near the launch of each card, for example running the B580 with their Boost functionality on in their graphics software sometimes crashed in Delta Force, no longer seems to be an issue. Temperature and power draw seem fine. Their XeSS upscaling is actually really good (I use it on top of…

I actually have a B580 that I replaced my old A580 with. I didn't manage to get it for MSRP (because living in Europe does tend to increase the price quite a bit, a regular RTX 3060 is over 300 EUR here), but I have to say that it's a pretty nice card, when most others seem quite overpriced or outside of my budget. When paired with an 5800X the performance is good, the XeSS upscaling looks prettier than FSR and pretty close to DLSS, the framegen also seems to have higher quality than FSR (but more latency, from what I've seen), the hardware AV1 encoder is lovely and the other QSV ones are great, though I do wish that I could get a case big enough and a new PSU to have both A580 and B580 in the same computer and use the B580 for games and A580 for the other stuff (not quite sure how well that combination would work, if at all). Either way, I'm happy that I got the card, especially with a decent CPU (even the A series with my previous Ryzen 5 4500 was an absolute mess, no software showed the CPU being maxed out but it very much was a bottleneck) and do kind of hope that I'll get the likes of performance that you get in War Thunder, or even GTA V Enhanced Edition for the years to come (yes, the raytracing works there as well) or even more recent games like Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2. If the upscaling/framegen support was even better in most game engines and games, then it could be stretched further or at least used as a band aid for the likes of Delta Force or Forever Winter -…

i915 is still the main kernel mode driver on Linux for every Intel GPUs up to Alchemist. xe kmd is used by Battlemage by default (as of 6.12). There's a Mesa DRI driver, called i965 (originally made for Broadwater chipset, thus the 965 numbering), which has since been replaced by either: - Crocus for anything up to Broadwell (Gen 8) - Iris for anything from Broadwell and newer Then there's a Video Acceleration driver, which is (also) called i965. I think this is what you're referring to. There are: - i965 (aka Intel VAAPI Driver), which supports anything from Westmere (Gen 5) to Coffee Lake (Gen 9.5) - iHD (aka Intel Media Driver), is a newer one, which supports anything from Broadwell (Gen 8) - libvpl, an even newer one, which supports anything from Tiger Lake (Gen 12) and up Battlemage users had to use libvpl until recently because Media Driver 2024Q4 with BMG support was only released 2 weeks ago. Using libvpl with ffmpeg may requires rebuilding ffmpeg, as some distro doesn't have it enabled (due to conflict with legacy Intel Media SDK, so you have to choose). I have B580 for my Linux machine (6.12), and xe seems pretty stable/performant so far.

> The maths there is pretty undeniable, but it is not where I'd make the split. Having a machine that can run some modest local LLMs, like the Gemma 4 12B, is really worth it. Seems like a GPU with 12GB+ VRAM is going to be a much more affordable way to achieve that? Even a B580 should get reasonable perf there.

> The B580 barely competes with a GTX1080, which I am still using. That's nonsense, the B580 is substantially faster. https://howmanyfps.com/graphics-cards/comparisons/geforce-gt...

> None of their products are competitive We must live in different universes, then. Intel's 140V competes with and often outperforms AMD's 890M, at around half the power consumption.[1] Intel's B580 competes with AMD's RX 7600 and NVIDIA's RTX 4060, at a fraction of the price of the 4060.[2] They're not doing so well with desktop and laptop CPUs, although their Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake CPUs are still decent performers within their segments. The upcoming Panther Lake architecture is promising to improve this. If these are not the signs of competitive products, and that they're far from "circling the drain", then I don't know what is. FWIW, I'm not familiar with the health of their business, and what it takes to produce these products. But from a consumer's standpoint, Intel hasn't been this strong since... the early 00s? [1]: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Radeon-890M-vs-Arc-140V_12524_... [2]: https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Arc-B580-Benchmarks-and-...