Intel Core Ultra 5 338H & Arc B370 Benchmarks - Almost as fast as the Acr B390

[Redaktion]

We had the chance to test the performance of the new Intel Core Ultra 5 338H including the Arc B370 GPU with 10 Xe cores in some benchmarks. The results are very promising and the performance difference to the Arc B390 is small.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-Ultra-5-338H-Arc-B370-Benchmarks-Almost-as-fast-as-the-Acr-B390.1225433.0.html

[opckieran]

Handhelds and ultralights have a new king! Truly epic efficiency here. Performance per watt is truly off the charts for x86. The news just keeps getting worse for AMD...

[Not almost as fast]

The Arc B390 has 20% more cores (12 vs 10) and is 21% faster (call it basically 20% -- nice linear scaling, btw). Not sure I'd call it "Almost as fast", because then one could also say that the RTX 4050 Laptop is almost as fast as the RTX 4060 Laptop, but it's a tier above (20% faster). I'd define a 10% difference as "almost as fast". Find a different term. Still good performance tho, thanks of the linear scaling, which also could mean that a, say, 16 Xe cores Arc iGPU could be 33% faster than the Arc B390, if it had the bandwidth, that is (LPDDR5X-9600 -> LPDDR5X-12800 would be required).

[:(]

The news just keeps getting worse for AMD...

According to MLID, next year nova lake ax (Intel's halo competitor) will come with 32 xe3p cores and offer 2.6x performance improvement at minimum. Which is roughly rtx 5070 ti / 5080 mobile performance.

[In some cases it can be]

Not sure I'd call it "Almost as fast", because then one could also say that the RTX 4050 Laptop is almost as fast as the RTX 4060 Laptop, but it's a tier above (20% faster). I'd define a 10% difference as "almost as fast".

Depends on the FPS you're comparing from 20% faster at 100 or 200 FPS is like 120 FPS or 240 FPS respectively. That's a whole 20 or 40 fps more. But 20% faster of 30 fps is only 36 FPS. Which I wouldn't really consider a completely different experience or one paying significantly more for.

Regarding rtx 4050 vs 4060, assuming tdps or power limits are roughly equivalent, people did say these cards were similar and still do. The only reason why people recommended
4060 over 4050 wasn't because of the 20% faster raster but because of the castrated vram amount in severely vram bottlenecked games. In games which go over 6GB vram buffer, it absolutely tanks FPS, like 1% lows down to 5 fps levels. But this issue is fixed in rtx 5000 series where 5050-5060-5070 all have same 8GB, so no real point spending more really..until you get to 5070 ti.

As such I'm personally against using percentages to determine arbitrary tiers in general, unless it's like 2x or at least 1.5x which is a big enough difference to be felt at no matter what fps you're comparing from.

[opckieran]

The news just keeps getting worse for AMD...

According to MLID, next year nova lake ax (Intel's halo competitor) will come with 32 xe3p cores and offer 2.6x performance improvement at minimum. Which is roughly rtx 5070 ti / 5080 mobile performance.

That's okay, maybe they'll have Gorgon Halo with +3% perf over Strix Halo 😅 and then after that, maybe a Zen 6 APU with, oh, yeah, that's right, RDNA 3.5... in 2027...

[the new king?]

"Handhelds and ultralights have a new king!"

For that price, it will be a king wo the kingdom 🤣

[RDNA 3.5 by 2027? nah]

Zen 6 APU with, oh, yeah, that's right, RDNA 3.5... in 2027...

Yeah, nah, I'm not even sure whether I should get an APU-obly RDNA 3.5 laptop now or instead a used or refurbished NVIDIA gaming laptop which at least has DLSS / ML upscaling (yes, it would be a whole different weight class, too), let alone a RDNA 3.5 by 2027.

@In some cases it can be
This is a whole different topic (6GB vs 8GB VRAM and how much Watt and the cooling is given to the 4050 Laptop vs 4060 Laptop), but on average it's something like this: 3dmark.com/search:
4050 (notebook): "Average score: 8289"
4060 (notebook): "Average score: 10506"
1.267 times = 10506/8289.

But this issue is fixed in rtx 5000 series where 5050-5060-5070 all have same 8GB, so no real point spending more really..until you get to 5070 ti.

Absolutely correct. If there wasn't the AI hype, they'd use 3GB GDDR7 memory chips by now (instead of the current 2GB ones), on at least the highest performing 128-bit GPU chips, where it really would make sense to use 3GB memory chips (8 GB VRAM would then become 12 GB VRAM (4 GDDR7 chips, each 3 GB), 12 GB VRAM would become 18 GB VRAM, etc. (3 GB chips are already being used in the 5090 Laptop, which, as a 256-bit chip, would normally only have 16 GB VRAM, but it has 24 GB VRAM)).

[RDNA 3.5 by 2027? nah]

The news just keeps getting worse for AMD...

According to MLID, next year nova lake ax (Intel's halo competitor) will come with 32 xe3p cores and offer 2.6x performance improvement at minimum. Which is roughly rtx 5070 ti / 5080 mobile performance.

Strix Halo is RTX 4060 Laptop performance. If Nova Lake AX is supposed to be 5080 Laptop of performance? This is, according to the table in the vid, 2.4x = 161.7/67.4 the performance of Strix Halo's 8060S iGPU. For this, Nova Lake AX would require a similar increase of 2.4x in bandwidth.

Let's see how it could be done:
Strix Halo: 256 GB/s = 256-bit * 8000 MT/s / 1000 / 8.
Nova Lake AX: 614.4 GB/s = 512-bit * 9600 MT/s / 1000 / 8.
Nice, this does exactly fit the 2.4x = 614.4/256!
But it would be an APU twice in size over Strix Halo and not be a Strix Halo competitor, but something in an entirely different class.