asrock is the cheapest of the big name manufacturers, cuts the most corners etc
even pure unfiltered chinkshit like colorful is better
that being said im sure this card is fine, you're already in a budget segment so it doesn't matter
They're pretty good these days. But like a decade ago they used to be the low-end and experimental arm of Asus
And I mean both of those to the extreme. As far as low-end is concerned they had crap that made Biostar look good. And on the experimental front they made things like motherboards with both PCIe and AGP as well as shit like that one AMD motherboard that supports 6 years worth of chips from Athlon 64 to Bulldozer FX
Budget hardware, there's nothing really wrong with them. Pay less, get less.
It's literally just Asus but rebranded for a lower price point and with less frills for people who won't shell out for bells and whistles. And Asus hardware tends to be considered some of if not the best, depending on what component we're talking about.
I had no idea they made GPUs, though. That's news to me. Asrock is mostly known for their motherboards
How can hardware be native to an API? The point of it is to act as the middleman between the software and the hardware. It was never supposed to map directly to hardware.
>the performance cost would be anything but negligible
Fun fact: DXVK is faster than native DX9, at least on AMD. It would probably run much better than Intel's wrapper thing but the problem is that it doesn't play well with anticheats like VAC.
Very technically impressive game that got announced in 2006 I think. It was giving Crysis a run for it's money. Intel bought the studio to use the game as a showcase for their upcoming cards. Intel scrapped the idea for video cards in 2008ish I think, and the game was cancelled. The studio broke off and tried to buy the rights for the game back but Intel wouldn't let them.
Dude what the frick is wrong with intel? >be game developer >working on sick game you are pouring your passion and livelihood into >intel offers to buy out your indie studio and give you some big bucks >you are all happy as pigs in shit >intel cancels their plans for their cards >"Aww oh well, but can we still make our game? We put in so much effort into it!" >"No, get fricked homosexuals"
I would have holocausted every single Intel employee and wiped the company off the face of the Earth. I would have done the KyoAni and set their corporate offices on fire hoping to kill as many of them in the most painful way possible.
This happens more often than you think nowadays. Big corporations are the biggest c**ts when it comes to this shit, they will outright destroy your studio and sell the chair you are sitting on. The publishers of old like Atari would usually try to find a solution, either rush the project and release it as is, sell the project to another publisher or let the developers find a solution on their own.
Intel drivers are way worse than AMD ever got shit for. Their integrated GPU Intel Xe would not even boot Doom Eternal thanks to their awful drivers, Intel Xe graphics had stutter/frametime issues since forever, to the point despite having higher framerates than the old integrated Vega graphics, the Vegas would deliver smoother performance
>Intel beats anything AMD has >But this ONE special and expensive AMD one beats everything else!
The cache is the only thing saving them, and only in games, while being trash in everything else
>buy $400 cpu >plug it into your new $200 motherboard >flip the psu on and push the power button >giant heat sink immediately glows bright yellow, fans at 100% after 0.01ms >all the caps in your PSU pop, the cable catches on fire, all the breakers in your house trip and transformer outside explodes >check your benchmark score >1% higher than the newest ryzen cpu >amd tards btfo once again
It really depends if people will buy Intel's GPUs, because so far people have stated the performance is extremely inconsistent across the board, people are pretty much paying for alpha drivers
That's cool and all, but not knowing if many games will even run on a GPU makes it simply inferior compared to alternatives that have that as a non issue for the vast majority of the games.
Anon, this piece of shit is overpriced at that price.
It gets outperformed by an RX 6400, which is $10 more (also overpriced) and actually supports every API you would want to use.
Gays nexus also reported Arc GPUs wouldn't work with any monitor they picked up, and they had to go through many of them to find one that worked. It's an absolute trainwreck of a product
You won't be getting good performance if it needed to hold more than that anyway. This is a 1080p max card on new games only until Intel sorts out running anything besides vulkan and dx12. I suppose dxvk might let you use intel gpus for old game at higher res but that plugin is tuned for the two main brands' cards already.
I mean sure, but it's just weird seeing GDDR6 and PCIE 4.0 which are generally newer features seen more on high end hardware and 6gb vram on the same card. Before GDDR6 and PCIE 4, we had 16gb vram.
Building a driver dev team from nothing because they ignored having a full team all the years they could have been building them up with their Igpus. graphics cards were an afterthought until they saw all the money in scalping.
I mean sure, but it's just weird seeing GDDR6 and PCIE 4.0 which are generally newer features seen more on high end hardware and 6gb vram on the same card. Before GDDR6 and PCIE 4, we had 16gb vram.
Vram amount has to match the amount of data the card can actually process. Putting 16 GB on this and actually trying to use it would be a mess.
>Intel
>asrock
It's like puking on a pile of shit
whats wrong with asrock
it's ghetto ass trash trust me I have a challenger 6700 XT it aint much but it works
>it's ghetto ass trash
>it works
I dont see the problem. whats ghetto about it
well its a 3 card fan that reaches 92 degrees on occasion
>3 card fan
Pretty sure he meant 3 slot card.
or a 3 fan card?
Cool
Ass-rock
asrock is the cheapest of the big name manufacturers, cuts the most corners etc
even pure unfiltered chinkshit like colorful is better
that being said im sure this card is fine, you're already in a budget segment so it doesn't matter
I thought Powercolor was the worst.
For amd the shittiest of shitters is XFX
Powercolor is pretty on par with sapphire if you get high sku cards, you're thinking of xfx.
Nothing. Their Taichi motherboards are consistently top rated. They were also the first to release beta bios for extended chipset support on AMD.
They are only good for motherboards.
But in this particular case also, they are putting their name on an already fricking terrible videocard.
They're pretty good these days. But like a decade ago they used to be the low-end and experimental arm of Asus
And I mean both of those to the extreme. As far as low-end is concerned they had crap that made Biostar look good. And on the experimental front they made things like motherboards with both PCIe and AGP as well as shit like that one AMD motherboard that supports 6 years worth of chips from Athlon 64 to Bulldozer FX
how much does a 1650 cost these days? something like $200? could maybe be worth it for a really cheap config
>that one AMD motherboard that supports 6 years worth of chips from Athlon 64 to Bulldozer FX
zoz
what was the reasoning behind making such thing?
Budget hardware, there's nothing really wrong with them. Pay less, get less.
It's literally just Asus but rebranded for a lower price point and with less frills for people who won't shell out for bells and whistles. And Asus hardware tends to be considered some of if not the best, depending on what component we're talking about.
I had no idea they made GPUs, though. That's news to me. Asrock is mostly known for their motherboards
ASSSSSSSSSS
Asrock is fine for mid-tier hardware
>A380
I see less numbers there for the price, what's the problem?
>no native directx9
>has to use emulation
Aren't we on like DX12 now? Who cares?
Well some people might want to use a cheap shitty card like this for old games
I'm sure whatever extra memory is needed to run your 20 year old games is negligible compared to the performance the card offers.
>performance the card offers.
>your 20 year old games
CS:GO is the most popular game on Steam and exclusively supports DX9
The card regularly crashes on anything not dx12 or vulkan.
>Thousands of old PC games exist
>Who cares, just play new games
I do.
I still regularly play shit like L4D2 and CSGO.
Because this is not consoles, we don't pay for ~~*remasters*~~ here
>Has to use resizeable bar to get anywhere near AMD and Nvidia numbers
How can hardware be native to an API? The point of it is to act as the middleman between the software and the hardware. It was never supposed to map directly to hardware.
How bad is it at running older games?
Pretty terrible. I mean it isn't really good at current games either. The A7something is a little more competitive but has a lot of problems too
I'm curious if using Vulkan wrappers will do any good for older APIs on Intel
it will probably prevent crashing but the performance cost would be anything but negligible.
>the performance cost would be anything but negligible
Fun fact: DXVK is faster than native DX9, at least on AMD. It would probably run much better than Intel's wrapper thing but the problem is that it doesn't play well with anticheats like VAC.
I know it does Av1 well, but how about h265?
who frickin knows how well it does anything with how dumpy the drivers are
Now that Intel is actually doing video cards, will they un-cancel Project Offset?
nani sore
Very technically impressive game that got announced in 2006 I think. It was giving Crysis a run for it's money. Intel bought the studio to use the game as a showcase for their upcoming cards. Intel scrapped the idea for video cards in 2008ish I think, and the game was cancelled. The studio broke off and tried to buy the rights for the game back but Intel wouldn't let them.
thanks
Dude what the frick is wrong with intel?
>be game developer
>working on sick game you are pouring your passion and livelihood into
>intel offers to buy out your indie studio and give you some big bucks
>you are all happy as pigs in shit
>intel cancels their plans for their cards
>"Aww oh well, but can we still make our game? We put in so much effort into it!"
>"No, get fricked homosexuals"
I would have holocausted every single Intel employee and wiped the company off the face of the Earth. I would have done the KyoAni and set their corporate offices on fire hoping to kill as many of them in the most painful way possible.
This happens more often than you think nowadays. Big corporations are the biggest c**ts when it comes to this shit, they will outright destroy your studio and sell the chair you are sitting on. The publishers of old like Atari would usually try to find a solution, either rush the project and release it as is, sell the project to another publisher or let the developers find a solution on their own.
Intel drivers are way worse than AMD ever got shit for. Their integrated GPU Intel Xe would not even boot Doom Eternal thanks to their awful drivers, Intel Xe graphics had stutter/frametime issues since forever, to the point despite having higher framerates than the old integrated Vega graphics, the Vegas would deliver smoother performance
Please buy it sirs
>inlel
lmoa
>Intel beats anything AMD has
>But this ONE special and expensive AMD one beats everything else!
The cache is the only thing saving them, and only in games, while being trash in everything else
>But this ONE special and expensive AMD one
Don't intel top of the line CPUS cost 700$?
Let's take a look at the power draws.
>276 watts on a stock fricking CPU
holy kek
Rocket Lake was even worse lmao
>buy $400 cpu
>plug it into your new $200 motherboard
>flip the psu on and push the power button
>giant heat sink immediately glows bright yellow, fans at 100% after 0.01ms
>all the caps in your PSU pop, the cable catches on fire, all the breakers in your house trip and transformer outside explodes
>check your benchmark score
>1% higher than the newest ryzen cpu
>amd tards btfo once again
>mfw i5 12400
Imagine spending more than $300 on a cpu
>$140
Hope that forces other two homosexuals corporations to drop their low end cards prices.
It really depends if people will buy Intel's GPUs, because so far people have stated the performance is extremely inconsistent across the board, people are pretty much paying for alpha drivers
This. Nshittya and ayyymd won't bring down prices until Intel actually completes in the lower price brackets
>completes
Competes*
bro the fricking card just use 40w instead fricking 200w what nvidia uses
That's cool and all, but not knowing if many games will even run on a GPU makes it simply inferior compared to alternatives that have that as a non issue for the vast majority of the games.
and it runs the game worse
it wont
Anon, this piece of shit is overpriced at that price.
It gets outperformed by an RX 6400, which is $10 more (also overpriced) and actually supports every API you would want to use.
Gays nexus also reported Arc GPUs wouldn't work with any monitor they picked up, and they had to go through many of them to find one that worked. It's an absolute trainwreck of a product
I thought Intel already abandoned this shit. They should just focus on integrated graphics chipsets, AMD is stomping their ass on that front
If they figure the dedicated GPU shit out, it will help them to make better iGPUs, that's how AMD can pull what they have been doing in the APU space.
and once they've figured that out AMD is already on RDNA 6
Intel is a huge company and part of why their iGPUs are shit are driver related issues, which would be improved with their dGPU division.
That is what happens when you make a baseline driver that's for emergency use only beyond basic video output and video decoding.
>only 6gb of vram
What
You won't be getting good performance if it needed to hold more than that anyway. This is a 1080p max card on new games only until Intel sorts out running anything besides vulkan and dx12. I suppose dxvk might let you use intel gpus for old game at higher res but that plugin is tuned for the two main brands' cards already.
I mean sure, but it's just weird seeing GDDR6 and PCIE 4.0 which are generally newer features seen more on high end hardware and 6gb vram on the same card. Before GDDR6 and PCIE 4, we had 16gb vram.
1 year too late. They could had a great launch if they released last summer. What took them so long?
Building a driver dev team from nothing because they ignored having a full team all the years they could have been building them up with their Igpus. graphics cards were an afterthought until they saw all the money in scalping.
Vram amount has to match the amount of data the card can actually process. Putting 16 GB on this and actually trying to use it would be a mess.
Let me guess, you "need" more.