I got a feeling B580 loves IPC. Maybe its time for Intel to reoptimize the driver base code. They spent too much time fixing game support.

Game support should still be the highest priority. If you check from the chart, even Zen 2 is bottlenecking 4060. So having current behavior is not a deal breaker.

The HWUnboxed investigation about the CPU overhead is also why you should always review budget GPUs with right sized CPUs. I know many reviewers use high end CPUs to reduce as much bottlenecks as possible, but no one will ever use something like a 9800X3D with a USD250 GPU

One key takeaway from the video; it also effectively defeats the point of this budget GPU outside of new builds, as you will need to spend extra on a faster CPU (both AMD/Nvidia drivers have much less driver overhead). It even hurts certain Intel platform owners more as they will be required to spend not an insignificant sum of money for a complete platform upgrade to take full advantage of the GPU

This post has been edited by chocobo7779: Jan 5 2025, 07:54 AM

This is bad news for budget gamers. GPU pricing is getting ridiculous and the market needs a budget GPU win. TSMC, Nvidia and AMD causing high prices. On top of the price, we are still getting 8GB. Intel throwing price could help lower the prices. Hope Intel fixes the problem fast.

This post has been edited by TristanX: Jan 5 2025, 08:32 AM

More often than not most people dont upgrade CPU as they dont "feel" the performance difference. This unlike a GPU upgrade where games can go from unplayable to smooth FPS.

For these people upgrading an older system, a Nvidia or AMD GPU (esp AMD) will have less overhead limitations.

This post has been edited by babylon52281: Jan 5 2025, 04:20 PM

Such testing methodology isnt wrong per se as it removes the CPU equation from being a limiting factor thus what they want to show is a clear FPS difference. ie if using a 9800x3d you might be able to see a 10FPS difference from a rival but if using say 12400F this will drop to 1-2 FPS and you might go "Meh..." and buys overpriced nvidias

Ideally, reviewers should be doing 2 type of tests; a high end 9800x3d test to show a clear FPS difference and a older/lower end system for budget GPU to show real world scenario where these are likely to be used. However such a test will degenerate into a "buy whichever model is the cheapest in your region/country" which doesnt help them to push certain narrative (go AMD! go Arc! anti-nvidia!).

Well there is actually difference even in javascript execution. I went from Zen 2 > Zen 3 > Zen 5, all upgrades enhanced the web site loading by noticeable margin thanks for the wide use of client side rendering these days. Zen+ is really laggy especially in Electron apps due to low single threaded performance.

This post has been edited by kingkingyyk: Jan 5 2025, 05:18 PM

Truth be told, hardware reviewers should AT LEAST use a mid-range CPU (e.g Intel Core i5 Series or AMD Ryzen 5 Series) for GPUs below $400 range so those who's PC is more or less the same range can expect what they're getting. CPUs like the 9800X3D should be reserved for GPUs above the $400 range imo.

You have specific use case where 90% users wont find. Most wont notice a lag of up to 4 secs more where your difference between CPU and even those do wont be too bothered.

Yes and no. As I explained above you wont be too picky where its a 1-2 FPS but it wont do for a review as the diff isnt clear cut then. Its like comparing 2 olympic runners raw speed after removing all equipment difference between both as you want to know who is actually faster.

or some youtuber like this, rarely got ppl testing low end cpu with good gpu

Incorrect. Companies have been pushing web "native" app to everywhere.
Teams, Skype, Discord, Spotify are all using javascript as UI.
Driver software like NVIDIA Geforce Experience, ASUS Framework, WD Dashboards, are javascript too. You can find people ranting about the high CPU usage on the NodeJS process, not so for CEF.
Feeling slow with your Windows 11 start menu? It is javascript!

Javascript is notoriously inefficient and only single threaded.

This post has been edited by kingkingyyk: Jan 6 2025, 11:11 AM

Again yes and no. Not everything uses javascript and high CPU usage isnt something 'regular' PC users would notice other than CPU fan ramping up louder. They might notice certain background programs runs a bit slower when loading too many things ongoing but generally people wont understand what is a 'NodeJS' to care about a few more secs delay to warrant a CPU upgrade.

And Win11 is sluggish becoz... its Win11, with all the unnecessary bells & whistles and AI and telemetry. Its been done to death why Win11 is a hog. I have dual boot Win10 & Win11 and regularly switch around and while I do 'feel' a general sluggishness its not to a point I feel going back to Win10 permanently.

I find Windows 11 runs best with a local account, since it doesn't bug you each time about turning on backups, eats resources in the background, annoy you with Windows Updates etc.

Even with local acct, if your installing via the MS intended way you will still have lotsa telemetry stuff & other automated processes getting thru. If install via Rufus it will help to deactivate a lot of these or prevent them being installed. If use Tiny11 even less hog but Im not comfy with using modded OS.

FWIW Im running clean Win11Pro with all those turn off as much possible. Not sure if can do that on Win11Home tho.

EDIT: Actually if it asks you (like Win7/10), its a good thing as you got an option not to, but Win11 allows (without your ok) to run in background which pisses a lot of users.

This post has been edited by babylon52281: Jan 6 2025, 04:08 PM

HUB have conlanfirmed it is a driver overhead issue. Again software, people!

Used Rufus to install 11 so all good there. Also using the Pro version to further tweak Windows to behave more like an OS than a software full of bloat and nonsense I don't use.

Getting a bit sidetracked about CPU upgrade thingy but admittedly if there is any reason why a regular PC user who had even a slightly older system (with REBAR) would want to upgrade the CPU, is bcoz they made the mistake to get an ARC GPU



So heres a tip, if you had upgraded to a B580 and your system is say 5 years older, you need to upgrade the CPU as well to fully utilise this GPU. You can lose up to 40% if you dont. For older Intel users you might have to change the platform too.

In that case you might wonder, if you had that much money why didnt you go for a 7800XT/4060TI 16GB. Oops

4060Ti 16GB variant's price range is very near to the 4070, making it pointless and a little stupid. Sure, you get the VRAM advantage but it's still limited by the GPU's narrow 128-bit bus and will still struggle when it comes to latency. As for the 4060 8GB, the GPU will struggle a lot in graphics-intensive games whereas the ARC B580 doesn't. Sure right now the 4060 is on sale but it's now a last-gen GPU and it's a really stupid decision to buy it. Also, not everyone has the money or even want to get the 4060Ti 16GB or a 2-generation old RX7800XT. It's not worth the compromise. Lastly, the ARC B580 is still a marginally faster GPU compared to the 4060 8GB despite its drawbacks. With an asking price of ~RM1300 for the cheapest 3rd party model, a decent 4060 8GB will still cost a little over RM1500 and I can tell you spending a little more for less VRAM and "better performance" is plain stupid.

If you normally play esports title u can try to find new or used Arc A750 for a good price because i bought one newly last year for rm770 and it runs so well in esports titles. Althrough it doesn't run well in UE5 titles, but in some games like Cyberpunk 2077 it's as good as 3060TI. What i dont like is a lot of ppl discredit A750 and A770 after they released Battlemage, just to find out that it has so much issues at launch, just like back when Alchemist was released. I even saw someone picked up usd A750 at 100usd used, this is crazy consider a new 4060 is 300usd now.

This post has been edited by yiidonger: Jan 8 2025, 04:32 PM