Why you can trust Tom's Hardware
The 1080p medium results give a nice boost to framerates, if you would rather have smoother gameplay over fancier graphics. Overall performance is typically around 50% higher, give or take, than 1080p ultra. While we don't do 1080p high testing, that's also an option in most games, with performance sitting between the ultra and medium results — and image quality often (but not always) looks basically identical when comparing high and ultra settings.
Overall, the Arc A580 still sits third from the bottom out of the selected GPUs for our testing, beating the RX 6600 and RTX 3050. It's also still about 10% behind the Arc A750, which based on current pricing would be the better deal right now for an extra $10.
Where all of the ray tracing games were still below 60 fps at 1080p ultra (and a few were even below 30 fps), now everything is clearly playable — assuming no driver oddities, of course. Intel has been pretty good about fixing the worst offenders, though, and major new releases usually get game ready drivers. With the continued improvements in DX11 support and performance, Intel's drivers are now in a far better position than they were when Arc first launched.
Our rasterization test suite puts the Arc A580 in second to last place, with the RX 6600 now surpassing it. AMD's Infinity Cache provides bigger gains at 1080p medium, particularly on cards like the RX 6600/7600, and Intel's Arc GPUs seem to hit other bottlenecks — the A750 is only 7% faster than the A580 here.
We should also note that there was at least on performance regression in our test suite compared to prior testing. Watch Dogs Legion ran almost 20% faster on the Arc A750 back in June. We've notified Intel of the drop in performance, and hopefully things get restored. That only impacted 1080p medium settings, though — 1080p ultra and higher resolutions weren't affected.
All of the games here easily cleared 60 fps as well. A Plague Tale: Requiem was the lowest performing of the group at just 68 fps, while everything else managed at least 90 fps and six of the games broke 100 fps. Obviously, having a higher refresh rate 1080p display would be beneficial here, and adaptive sync / VRR (variable refresh rate) is a great option as well. Also, yes, Intel Arc GPUs support VRR — though not on monitors that use a G-Sync module.
1080p medium with ray tracing does a lot better than maxed out settings with ray tracing. Almost everything now clears 30 fps, though Cyberpunk 2077 still comes up short. FSR2 would fix that, or alternatively use lower RT settings — or just turn RT off and you'll get substantially higher performance.
Because ray tracing tends to be so demanding, the overall charts at 1080p medium look nearly identical to the 1080p ultra charts. Or put another way, every game is fully GPU limited, even at 1080p medium, with ray tracing enabled.
- MORE: Best Graphics Cards
- MORE: GPU Benchmarks and Hierarchy
- MORE: All Graphics Content
Current page: Intel Arc A580: 1080p Medium Gaming Performance
Prev Page Intel Arc A580: 1080p Ultra Gaming Performance Next Page Intel Arc A580: 1440p and 4K Gaming PerformanceJarred Walton is a senior editor at Tom's Hardware focusing on everything GPU. He has been working as a tech journalist since 2004, writing for AnandTech, Maximum PC, and PC Gamer. From the first S3 Virge '3D decelerators' to today's GPUs, Jarred keeps up with all the latest graphics trends and is the one to ask about game performance.
-
AgentBirdnest Awesome review, as always!Reply
Dang, was really hoping this would be more like $150-160. I bet the price will drop before long, though; I can't imagine many people choosing this over the A750 that is so closely priced. Still, it just feels good to see a card that can actually play modern AAA games for under $200. -
JarredWaltonGPU
Yeah, the $180 MSRP just feels like wishful thinking right now rather than reality. I don't know what supply of Arc GPUs looks like from the manufacturing side, and I feel like Intel may already be losing money per chip. But losing a few dollars rather than losing $50 or whatever is probably a win. This would feel a ton better at $150 or even $160, and maybe add half a star to the review.AgentBirdnest said:Awesome review, as always!
Dang, was really hoping this would be more like $150-160. I bet the price will drop before long, though; I can't imagine many people choosing this over the A750 that is so closely priced. Still, it just feels good to see a card that can actually play modern AAA games for under $200. -
hotaru.hino Intel does have some cash to burn and if they are selling these cards at a loss, it'd at least put weight that they're serious about staying in the discrete GPU business.Reply -
JarredWaltonGPU
That's the assumption I'm going off: Intel is willing to take a short-term / medium-term loss on GPUs in order to bootstrap its data center and overall ambitions. The consumer graphics market is just a side benefit that helps to defray the cost of driver development and all the other stuff that needs to happen.hotaru.hino said:Intel does have some cash to burn and if they are selling these cards at a loss, it'd at least put weight that they're serious about staying in the discrete GPU business.
But when you see the number of people who have left Intel Graphics in the past year, and the way Gelsinger keeps divesting of non-profitable businesses, I can't help but wonder how much longer he'll be willing to let the Arc experiment continue. I hope we can at least get to Celestial and Druid before any final decision is made, but that will probably depend on how Battlemage does.
Intel's GPU has a lot of room to improve, not just on drivers but on power and performance. Basically, look at Ada Lovelace and that's the bare minimum we need from Battlemage if it's really going to be competitive. We already have RDNA 3 as the less efficient, not quite as fast, etc. alternative to Intel, and AMD still has better drivers. Matching AMD isn't the end goal; Intel needs to take on Nvidia, at least up to the 4070 Ti level. -
mwm2010 If the price of this goes down, then I would be very impressed. But because of the $180 price, it isn't quite at its full potential. You're probably better off with a 6600.Reply -
btmedic04 Arc just feels like one of the industries greatest "what ifs' to me. Had these launched during the great gpu shortage of 2021, Intel would have sold as many as they could produce. Hopefully Intel sticks with it, as consumers desperately need a third vendor in the market.Reply -
cyrusfox
What other choice do they have? If they canned their dGPU efforts, they still need staff to support for iGPU, or are they going to give up on that and license GPU tech? Also what would they do with their datacenter GPU(Ponte Vechio subsequent product).JarredWaltonGPU said:I can't help but wonder how much longer he'll be willing to let the Arc experiment continue. I hope we can at least get to Celestial and Druid before any final decision is made, but that will probably depend on how Battlemage does.
Only clear path forward is to continue and I hope they do bet on themselves and take these licks (financial loss + negative driver feedback) and keep pushing forward. But you are right Pat has killed a lot of items and spun off some great businesses from Intel. I hope battlemage fixes a lot of the big issues and also hope we see 3rd and 4th gen Arc play out. -
bit_user Thanks @JarredWaltonGPU for another comprehensive GPU review!Reply
I was rather surprised not to see you reference its relatively strong Raytracing, AI, and GPU Compute performance, in either the intro or the conclusion. For me, those are definitely highlights of Alchemist, just as much as AV1 support.
Looking at that gigantic table, on the first page, I can't help but wonder if you can ask the appropriate party for a "zoom" feature to be added for tables, similar to the way we can expand embedded images. It helps if I make my window too narrow for the sidebar - then, at least the table will grow to the full width of the window, but it's still not wide enough to avoid having the horizontal scroll bar.
Whatever you do, don't skimp on the detail! I love it! -
JarredWaltonGPU
The evil CMS overlords won't let us have nice tables. That's basically the way things shake out. It hurts my heart every time I try to put in a bunch of GPUs, because I know I want to see all the specs, and I figure others do as well. Sigh.bit_user said:Thanks @JarredWaltonGPU for another comprehensive GPU review!
I was rather surprised not to see you reference its relatively strong Raytracing, AI, and GPU Compute performance, in either the intro or the conclusion. For me, those are definitely highlights of Alchemist, just as much as AV1 support.
Looking at that gigantic table, on the first page, I can't help but wonder if you can ask the appropriate party for a "zoom" feature to be added for tables, similar to the way we can expand embedded images. It helps if I make my window too narrow for the sidebar - then, at least the table will grow to the full width of the window, but it's still not wide enough to avoid having the horizontal scroll bar.
Whatever you do, don't skimp on the detail! I love it!
As for RT and AI, it's decent for sure, though I guess I just got sidetracked looking at the A750. I can't help but wonder how things could have gone differently for Intel Arc, but then the drivers still have lingering concerns. (I didn't get into it as much here, but in testing a few extra games, I noticed some were definitely underperforming on Arc.)