Intel Arc Graphics Performance Revisited: DX9 Steps Forward, DX12 Steps Back (Updated)

Intel Arc Graphics Performance Revisited
(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Intel’s Arc Alchemist GPUs launched toward the latter part of 2022, vying for a spot among the best graphics cards. You can see where they land on our GPU benchmarks hierarchy as well, but that's only part of the story. Intel has been busily updating drivers on a regular basis since launch, and rarely does a fortnight pass without at least one new driver to test.

And that's the crux of the story: How much better are Intel’s latest drivers compared to the original launch drivers? The company made a lot of noise about its improved DirectX 9 performance, claiming 43% higher performance on the A750 with recent drivers compared to the original 3490 launch drivers — and at the same time dropping the price of the A750 to $250 down from $290. What about newer games, though?

We set about testing (and retesting) every Arc graphics card, including the Arc A770 8GB using an ASRock model that we haven't quite got around to reviewing just yet, due to all the retesting that's been going on.

We began our testing a couple of weeks back, right after the 4123 Intel drivers became available. Last week, version 4125 drivers came out, but a quick check on one of the Arc cards indicates the only changes are related to some recent game launches and that the performance otherwise remains the same as the 4123 drivers for our test suite.

Update: Intel just released the 4146 drivers on February 28, 2023. These fix a problem that we noticed with Red Dead Redemption 2 crashing on the Arc A750, among other things. We have included the results for that one game from the newer drivers (as before we couldn't get a result).

Plugging the Holes in the Arc

Jarred Walton
Senior Editor

Jarred 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.

  • PlaneInTheSky
    The reason I stick with Nvidia is because Nvidia has native DX9.0 support. AMD and Intel do not.
    It has nothing to do with performance for me.

    There are so many older DX9.0 titles you can pick up for $1-$5. They always work great on Nvidia, on AMD it is hit or miss. It has nothing to do with performance, many are locked at 60fps anyway and the ones that aren't run at 100+ fps on potato hardware. It is about compatbility.

    The Nvidia control panel allows you to set V-sync per game, per application, it works wonderfully on older DX9.0 titles also.

    And it doesn't really matter to me that Intel gets better at DX9.0 performance. It is not about that, it is still not native support. Why would I pick a translation layer over actual native support Nvidia offers. There's no reason to pick Intel.

    This whole "drivers are getting better, just wait" situation is the exact same reason I switched from AMD to Nvidia back in the day and never went back. I really loathed AMD driver issues and I now base my GPU decisions on driver quality first, and performance second. And Nvidia wins on this every single time. And I am not alone in this, AMD and Intel tend to offer more FPS per $, but Nvidia wins out on stability, compatibility, NVENC, CUDA, etc, and Nvidia dominates as a result.
    Reply
  • ohio_buckeye
    Except nvidia’s price gouging lately. Being realistic though amd or Intel would likely do the same if they could.

    I’ll be interested to see Intel’s 2nd generation cards.
    Reply
  • digitalgriffin
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    The reason I stick with Nvidia is because Nvidia has native DX9.0 support. AMD and Intel do not.
    It has nothing to do with performance for me.

    There are so many older DX9.0 titles you can pick up for $1-$5. They always work great on Nvidia, on AMD it is hit or miss. It has nothing to do with performance, many are locked at 60fps anyway and the ones that aren't run at 100+ fps on potato hardware. It is about compatbility.

    The Nvidia control panel allows you to set V-sync per game, per application, it works wonderfully on older DX9.0 titles also.

    And it doesn't really matter to me that Intel gets better at DX9.0 performance. It is not about that, it is still not native support. Why would I pick a translation layer over actual native support Nvidia offers. There's no reason to pick Intel.

    This whole "drivers are getting better" situation is the exact same reason I switched from AMD to Nvidia back in the day and never went back. I really loathed AMD driver issues and I now base my GPU decisions on driver quality first, and performance second. And Nvidia wins on this every single time. And I am not alone in this, AMD and Intel tend to offer more FPS per $, but Nvidia wins out on stability, compatibility, NVENC, CUDA, etc, and Nvidia dominates as a result.

    Non-native dx9 support? What have you been smoking? A large part of the whole article is talking about how dx9 emulation has been replaced by a real dx9 driver.

    And AMD made some big gains in dx9 and openGL in the last two years. So AMD are a heck of a lot closer to Nvidia gen on gen with similar disparities compared to dx 12.
    Reply
  • kerberos_20
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    The reason I stick with Nvidia is because Nvidia has native DX9.0 support. AMD and Intel do not.
    source that amd doesnt have native dx9 support?
    Reply
  • PlaneInTheSky
    source that amd doesnt have native dx9 support?

    Source: Microsoft

    https://i.postimg.cc/PxHthn4c/sdfsfsfsfsfs.png
    Reply
  • KyaraM
    ohio_buckeye said:
    Except nvidia’s price gouging lately. Being realistic though amd or Intel would likely do the same if they could.

    I’ll be interested to see Intel’s 2nd generation cards.
    AMD already is doing it. The 7900XT is not that much better than the 4070Ti, and loses in RT, and costs more. And even without that, everyone complains about Nvidia prices, but AMD is right up there, too, selling for 1 grand and all.
    Reply
  • PlaneInTheSky
    digitalgriffin said:
    And AMD made some big gains in dx9 and openGL in the last two years.


    AMD already said they don't give a crap about all their DX9 driver issues and won't devote time to older games.

    I am voting with my wallet, just like everyone else buying Nvidia. People sometimes ask why AMD (and now Intel) sell so poorly while offering similar or better FPS per $. You really don't need to read the tea leaves to discover why, it is because Nvidia has better compatibility, driver stability, support, NVENC, CUDA, etc.

    Intel is off to a really poor start. AMD's driver issues have haunted them for years, and they will haunt Intel for years. Drivers matter at least as much as the hardware.

    https://i.postimg.cc/L8v7hK2w/sdfsfsfsfsf.jpg
    Reply
  • kerberos_20
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    Source: Microsoft

    https://i.postimg.cc/PxHthn4c/sdfsfsfsfsfs.png
    oh dude, that page is dated as hell...that is for legacy intel/amd hardware and pretty much for mobile devices, you could scroll down abit and see this

    The last drivers for these devices are those available on WU and on the OEM/IHV’s websites; many date from Vista, and many of these final version drivers exhibit problems on Windows 8. In addition, nVidia has recently stated that they will not support their DX9 (Vista and older) mobile (notebook) parts for Windows 8. They continue to support their desktop DX9 parts
    Reply
  • kerberos_20
    PlaneInTheSky said:
    AMD already said they don't give a crap about all their DX9 driver issues and won't devote time to older games.

    I am voting with my wallet, just like everyone else buying Nvidia. People sometimes ask why AMD (and now Intel) sell so poorly while offering similar or better FPS per $. You really don't need to read the tea leaves to discover why, it is because Nvidia has better compatibility, driver stability, support, NVENC, CUDA, etc.

    Intel is off to a really poor start. AMD's driver issues have haunted them for years, and they will haunt Intel for years. Drivers matter at least as much as the hardware.

    https://i.postimg.cc/L8v7hK2w/sdfsfsfsfsf.jpg
    yes there were issues when amd switched from crimson to adrenalin...fixed already btw
    Reply
  • PlaneInTheSky
    yes there were issues when amd switched from crimson to adrenalin...fixed already btw

    Right, it's the same story every year. AMD has major driver issues every year, and every single year there are people coming out of the woodworks claiming that "everything is fixed now", and "it's improving".

    GPU are very costly. They need to work and need to work perfectly. It would requires years, years, of perfect drivers for AMD to regain the trust of all the people who had stability issues, crashes and DX9.0 issues, for AMD to ever regain these users who are now used to Nvidia drivers, Nvidia that offers compability and stability.

    And Intel better watch out if they think drivers are secondary to hardware, because AMD's reputation of having bad drivers haunts them in sales.
    Reply