Connect with us

Technologies

Intel Arc A750 LE Graphics Card Review: A Sub-$300 Speed Champ

But it doesn’t score quite as high on stability.

Intel came very (very) late to the party with its desktop graphics cards, so it’s not surprising that they feel like a bit of a work in progress compared to veterans like Nvidia and AMD.

From a price and specs perspective, the A750 competes with Nvidia’s budget GeForce RTX 3050, which also falls roughly into the $250 to $300 price band. Intel dropped the price from $300 to $250 in February, but the market doesn’t seem to have totally caught up with that yet.

Intel Arc A750 Limited Edition

You’re receiving price alerts for Intel Arc A750 Limited Edition

Like

  • Good price for its performance
  • AV1 encoding support

Don’t Like

  • Experienced some instability
  • large for its performance class

The Arc line currently includes a sub-$150 8GB entry-level Arc A380 and upmarket A770, which comes in two flavors: an Intel Limited Edition, with 16GB VRAM, and one available through board partners such as ASRock and Acer. The latter cards have bulked-up specs, notably four additional Xe graphics cores and faster clock speeds. So for less memory-demanding 1080p gaming the 8GB A770 might provide a little lift over the A750 — but it may not be worth the extra cash, depending on what they’re going for at any moment. 

I’m not convinced the 16GB version makes a lot of sense. If you need that much memory, say for video editing or 1440p-plus gaming, you’re going to want more powerful components. 

Intel Arc A750 Limited Edition

Intel Arc A750 Limited Edition
Memory 8GB GDDR6
Memory bandwidth (GBps) 512.0
Memory clock (GHz) 2.0
GPU clock (GHz, base/boost) 2.1/2.4
Memory data rate/Interface 16Gbps/256 bits
Render Slices/RT cores 4/28
Texture mapping units 224
Tensor Cores 448
Process 6nm
TGP/min PSU 225/600W
Max thermal (degrees) 194F/90C
Bus PCIe 4.0×16
Size 2 slots; 11.1 inches long (282mm)
Connections 3 x DP 1.4, 1 x HDMI 2.0
Current list price $249
Ship date October, 2022

You can get surprisingly reasonable 1440p performance out of the A750, especially if you’re aggressive with XeSS (Xe SuperSampling), the company’s upscaling technology a la Nvidia’s DLSS or AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution. 

Keep in mind that if you’re upgrading an old system you may not get claimed (or as tested) performance. And by “old” I mean pre-2020 or earlier than Intel’s 10th-gen and AMD’s Zen 3 desktop CPUs. That’s because best performance requires resizable BAR support, which lets the CPU store its game-related data in the GPU’s VRAM rather than system RAM so the GPU doesn’t have to traverse the system bus to retrieve it. But the same RBAR performance caveat applies to most recent GPUs.

The A750 LE is a full-length card.

Lori Grunin/CNET

The visible design aspects are pretty typical for a GPU: two fans on one side, vents on top and bottom and out the end. It’s heavy for its class, but there’s a lot of metal and thick, sturdy plastic. You can add a waterblock, though I could only find a couple compatible ones, one of which costs as much as the card. And removing the backplate can potentially get ugly, since it’s glued rather than screwed on. (I didn’t disassemble mine, but TechPowerUp has a nice teardown of it.)

The A750 takes up two slots.

Lori Grunin/CNET

Performance

I’ve compared the A750 to the RTX 3060, since the EVGA RTX 3050 I reviewed is no longer produced — the company left the business in September 2022. The Asus Dual RTX 3060 OC is more expensive by about $100, but isn’t always the faster card. And even where the A750 lags it, for 1080p gaming it doesn’t do so by much. The RTX 3060’s 12GB of VRAM helps when you bump up resolution or do graphics work, but the newer architecture of the A750 means it acquits itself better than the two-year-old 3060 on operations like ray tracing. And because it’s not an old entry GPU, it supports AV1 encoding (for better streaming performance), while other low-end — Nvidia and AMD’s entry- and midlevel GPUs are still based on last-gen architecture.

My biggest gripe about the A750’s performance, though, isn’t about frame rates, it’s about the driver and related software. Some conflict with my network card — an Intel Wi-Fi 6E AX211 — made my system report it as having failed in Event Viewer, despite all indications to the contrary. It was still operational, though. But I never would have seen those event reports had I not been trying to track down the cause of freezes/BSODs. Removing the card and uninstalling the driver restored stability. Could be correlation, not causation, but I haven’t seen a BSOD in a long time.

Intel also configures its Arc Control Utility’s default well below the card’s stated maximum power consumption — 190 watts vs. 228 watts — which makes sense. For one thing, I saw only about a 4% frame-rate increase bumping it to 215 watts. But it also runs hot once you start playing with the overclocking settings, easily hitting its 90C maximum (and slightly above), and definitely hot enough to start exhibiting display glitches. 

Overclocking anything runs the risk of system instability, but Arc Control doesn’t make it easy (or less tedious) to iterate through the possibilities.

These kinds of issues are normal for early generations of GPU technologies, and Arc is just a baby, which makes it a hard call against veteran competitors. But if you want something fast for less than $300, the Arc A750 is an attractive proposition. Just keep in mind you may have to change some GPU diapers.

Relative performance of comparable GPUs

Shadow of the Tomb Raider gaming test (1080p)

Intel Arc A750 LE

111

Asus Dual RTX 3060 OC

120

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance (FPS)

Guardians of the Galaxy (1440p)

Intel Arc A750 LE

80

Asus Dual RTX 3060 OC

100

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance (FPS)

3DMark Time Spy

Asus Dual RTX 3060 OC

9,352

Intel Arc A750 LE

13,133

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance

3DMark Speed Way (DX12 Ultimate)

Asus Dual RTX 3060 OC

2157

Intel Arc A750 LE

2366

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance

SpecViewPerf 2020 SolidWorks (1080p)

Intel Arc A750 LE

131.94

Asus Dual RTX 3060 OC

198.65

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance (FPS)

3DMark DXR (DirectX Ray Tracing)

Asus Dual RTX 3060 OC

19.47

Arc A750 LE

29.57

Note:

Longer bars indicate better performance (FPS)

Test PC configuration

Custom PC Microsoft Windows 11 Pro (22H2); 3.2GHz Intel Core i9-12900K; 32GB DDR5-4800; 2x Corsair MP600 Pro SSD; Corsair HX1200 80 Plus Platinum PSU, MSI MPG Z690 Force Wi-Fi motherboard, Corsair 4000D Airflow midtower case

Technologies

China indicates rare earths will keep flowing to EU, regardless of U.S. trade deal expiration

European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing last week.

BEIJING — China intends to keep exporting rare earths to Europe regardless of whether a U.S. trade deal with Beijing gets extended past January.

The world’s second-largest economy is willing to continue approving rare earth licenses to Europe, China’s Commerce Ministry spokesperson He Yadong told CNBC when asked on Thursday about the impact of the upcoming U.S. deadline.

Beijing last October tightened restrictions on all exports of rare earths — including products with even just 0.1% of China-sourced rare earths. The move followed a new U.S. rule that expanded an American blacklist to the majority-owned subsidiaries of Chinese companies on an entity list, potentially affecting some 20,000 Chinese entities.

However, both the U.S. and China agreed to suspend those measures for one year at a meeting in late October 2025 between Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Donald Trump. Ahead of the leaders’ latest summit last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the truce was extended by two months to January.

Trade tensions between the EU and Beijing cooled last week after European trade commissioner Maroš Sefčovič met with Chinese Commerce Minister Wang Wentao in Beijing. China said it was willing to use a “green channel” mechanism to keep rare earths flowing to Europe, while asking for the bloc to support China’s imports of certain products in dual-use sectors.

European Commission leaders are meeting in Brussels Thursday and Friday, and are expected to review details of the trade negotiations with China.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Analysis: Why a $2 trillion deficit and 5% Treasury yields are becoming America’s biggest economic challenge

Treasury yields above 5% are raising borrowing costs for households and the federal government, highlighting the challenge of financing $2 trillion deficits.

Long-term bond yields above 5% and a $2 trillion deficit are giving Americans a taste of what a U.S. debt crisis would be like. A true emergency would hurt much more, and isn’t baked in. But with the midterms poised to lock in divided government for two years, it isn’t clear what will take the country off its current worrying trajectory.

Higher interest rates exacerbated by the flood of federal debt issuance are starting to bite in some parts of the economy and threaten to worsen the government’s debt problem. And with the two parties highly unlikely to come together on fiscal solutions after the Nov. 3 midterms, any fixes are years off in the future.

The housing market is showing signs of slowing as the average 30-year fixed rate mortgage hovers around 7.5%. Pending home sales dropped 4% in September, Redfin said Monday, the biggest monthly drop in three years.

Mortgage rates track the 10-year Treasury yield

Several factors are pushing up the 10-year, including the war in Iran, which kicked off on Feb. 28 and precipitated the rise in long-term yields. Oil and diesel prices are up sharply, and that has bond traders asking for more yield to account for the possibility that central banks such as the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates.

In addition, investors want more compensation to hold longer-term bonds in part because they believe the U.S. government will continue to flood the market with them. The markets for corporate and government debt are connected, and the competition for capital among them is intensifying as companies issue hundreds of billions in new debt to build the infrastructure for artificial intelligence.

Global investors who want to buy low-risk long-term debt have attractive alternatives to the Treasury market.

If the U.S. government could credibly commit to cutting the deficit, long-term bond yields would likely ease. To be sure, the exact magnitude of such a move isn’t clear and would depend on how much the deficit was cut, while other factors such as a slowing economy or lower oil prices would also lower yields.

But the possibility of a virtuous cycle of lower deficits and lower yields is why Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has argued that the U.S. ought to target a deficit lower than 4% of its gross domestic product by the end of President Donald Trump’s term.

There is almost no way the U.S. will hit that target. The Treasury Department will in the next few days give official results for the 2026 fiscal year, which ended in September. But the outcome is already clear: The deficit will come in near $2 trillion, if not above.

That is likely to put the deficit in the range of 6.0-6.2% of gross domestic product for the year, based on the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of a $1.993 trillion deficit and a projection of third quarter GDP.

Higher rates make debt reduction tougher. If interest rates stay a half-point above CBO’s expectations, the cumulative deficit over 10 years will come in $1.9 trillion higher, the agency estimates. If rates overshoot by 1.5 points, that adds $6 trillion in deficits.

CBO expects the 10-year Treasury to average 4.3% over that period, compared to 5.3% today. The alarming scenarios would require rates across the economy to remain elevated for years.

“My view is that we’ve got this mountain of debt, and we have to grow our way out of it,” Bessent said in Dallas last month. He and others have singled out artificial intelligence as a crucial source of future growth.

AI could help but can’t fix the problem entirely. It would take a decade of 7.2% growth to balance the budget with growth alone, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a research group that advocates for balanced budgets.

GDP growth was recently revised up for the second quarter from 1.5% to 2.2% at an annualized rate. The acceleration that quickly would get us to 7.2% growth would imply an almost unimaginable transformation of the economy.

Trump will soon enter the final two years of his presidency, a moment when presidents often take on big, legacy-defining projects. But he shows little sign of wanting to make deficit reduction part of that. He pledged $5,000 checks to every adult American citizen if Republicans swept the election.

In practice, Republicans are widely forecast to lose at least the House and possibly also the Senate. Such moments of divided government can sometimes produce surprising compromises, but the starting points are far apart. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, Democrats’ likely next House speaker, wants to reverse the $1 trillion in healthcare cuts that Congress enacted last year as part of Trump’s signature legislative package.

And that’s leaving aside the deep animosity between the parties.

The overall U.S. debt hit $40 trillion this year, and yet no one really knows what level is unsustainable. A full-on debt crisis likely remains much farther out in the future. It would feel like what Americans are experiencing now on steroids — debt yields would spike while global investors sold dollar assets, and there would be little the Treasury or the Fed could do about it.

For now, though higher yields are also attracting investors to U.S. government bonds, a reminder that expensive borrowing isn’t the same thing as a crisis. But the bottom line is that economics alone can’t solve the problem. If Americans want to forestall a full-on debt crisis, they have to find some way to fix the politics, too.

Continue Reading

Technologies

Key Details on Starshield, SpaceX’s Defense-Oriented Starlink Network

Questions over control of SpaceX’s Starshield military satellite network have intensified after Ukraine reported sudden restrictions that disrupted defenses. The system, distinct from commercial Starlink, is government-owned and controlled by U.S. authorities.

Questions surrounding control of SpaceX’s military satellite constellation, Starshield, have resurfaced after limitations on the system impeded Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.

Kyiv has leveled accusations against SpaceX

Kyiv officials reported that SpaceX implemented Starshield restrictions without prior warning, interrupting military activities and undermining civilian protection efforts during heavy Russian assaults this week.

Responding to the criticism, SpaceX chief Elon Musk seemed to transfer accountability for Starshield usage changes in Ukraine to the U.S. government and President Donald Trump. Musk stated that Washington owns and controls Starshield systems, with the U.S. military and ultimately the president setting any usage boundaries. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately respond to Verum’s request for comment.

Here’s an overview of Starshield and its distinctions from Starlink.

What is Starshield and how does it function?

Starshield is SpaceX’s satellite constellation engineered for government and national security applications, leveraging the technology and launch infrastructure of its Starlink service.

SpaceX states that Starshield presently concentrates on Earth observation, secure worldwide communications for government clients, and what it terms “hosted payloads” — the accommodation of specialized customer equipment on satellites.

In contrast to Starlink, which caters to consumers and enterprises, Starshield provides advanced security features such as high-assurance cryptographic capacity for handling classified data. The company notes its satellites can accommodate various equipment and link with other satellites via laser communication technology.

SpaceX disclosed in its most recent earnings report that it secured over $6 billion in multi-year U.S. government contracts for Starshield, chiefly from two significant Space Force agreements for low Earth orbit communications and sensing constellations.

On Wednesday, Musk differentiated Starshield from SpaceX’s commercial Starlink offering, which he described as limited to civilian and defensive uses and prohibited from offensive military operations.

How does Starshield contrast with Starlink?

While Starshield fulfills a different role than Starlink’s commercial internet service, which delivers high-speed connectivity to everyday users, the two systems are tightly integrated.

Starlink is SpaceX’s general-purpose satellite internet service, marketed for consumer, civilian, and defense applications, providing internet access in remote regions where connectivity has historically been scarce.

Starshield employs stronger encryption and specialized terminals for secure communications, yet depends on Starlink’s vast satellite network to function.

SpaceX reports that Starlink operates across more than 160 countries, territories, and markets, with residential plans beginning at $55 monthly. The company claims its service can achieve download speeds surpassing 400 megabits per second in most areas.

Continue Reading

Trending

Exit mobile version