This is how the Intel A370M graphics performs, will it outperform a GTX 1650?

A few days ago Intel finally made its ARC Alchemist graphics cards official, where the so-called ARC 3 will be the low-end or entry-level in both laptops and conventional graphics cards. Well, the first performance tests of the A370M versus the GTX 1650 for laptops are starting to come out. The result? At the moment it is not very good for one of them. What is it and what is happening?

The most enthusiastic tend to look with disdain at the lower ranges of graphics cards, since they are not the star products, but they are the best sellers. Let’s not forget that today there are a large number of PC players and professionals who, for one reason or another, use graphics cards that, although they are not integrated, do not reach the performance of more complex solutions. That is, what an iGPU offers is not enough for them, but they lack the budget for a more powerful one.

Not surprisingly, Intel has decided to focus on that market to begin with. Firstly, being the smallest chips, they are easier to manufacture and secondly, they are used by game and application developers to make the necessary optimizations, since it is the segment with the largest market share.

Intel A370M versus NVIDIA GTX 1650 Mobile, which is better?

At first glance it seems stupid to compare both graphics cards, but if we look closely at the specifications we will see that they have several points in common. The number of ALUs in 32-bit floating point is the same: 1024 and both have 4 GB of GDDR6 memory at 12 Gbps. However, it must be clarified that the NVIDIA GTX 1650 Mobile was launched when the chips of said VRAM had a density of 1 GB and, therefore, the bus is 128 bits, while in the Intel A370M they are 2 GB each. one and consequently the interface is 64 bits.

models of graphics cards developed by intel for laptops

What are the results when testing both graphics cards with different games? Let’s see:

  • In Microsoft Flight Simulator 2022, the ARC A370M gets 56 FPS and the NVIDIA GTX 1650 66. Both running at 1080p resolution and low graphics profile.
  • In Red Dead Redemption 2, again in Full HD, but at medium quality, the A370M gets 51 FPS and the GTX 1650 61 FPS.
  • Also at 1080p and medium quality we can see The Witcher 3 running at 70 FPS on the A370M and 88 FPS on the NVIDIA GTX 1650.
  • In Full HD, with the graphics options set to low, the A370M can barely run Cyberpunk 2077 at 31 FPS, while the NVIDIA card runs at 38 FPS.
  • Fortnite gets the same results as Red Dead Redemption 2, but at 1080p and with graphics options turned up.

From what you can see, the NVIDIA graphics card takes between 15% and 20%. Let’s not forget that the GTX 1650 can’t use DLSS and the arrival of Intel XeSS could give the A370M a boost.

What are these results due to?

We have to take into account that the Intel A370M starts with a bandwidth disadvantage compared to its rival and it is not the only factor. And it is that the fact that a graphics card has the bus with the memory cut is undoubtedly the biggest bottleneck it may have. We wonder why the ARC 3 for laptops have 64-bit buses when we know of desktop models with a 96-bit interface.

The other handicap has to do with the fact that the clock speed is somewhat higher on the GTX 1650 than on the A370M. As for certain parts of the 3D pipeline, especially those with a fixed function, the already veteran graphic renders a little more. Should we wait and give them the benefit of the doubt or has Intel let us down with their first gaming laptop graphics?

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *