Live data from Hacker News

Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

guru3d.com

231–240 of 274 posts

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#231
post #73

Really confused why the Intel and AMD both continue to struggle and yet still refuse to offer what Nvidia wont, i.e. high ram consumer GPUs. I'd much prefer paying 3x cost for 3x VRAM (48GB/$1047), 6x cost for 6x VRAM (96GB/$2094), 12x cost for 12x VRAM (192GB/$4188), etc. They'd sell like hotcakes and software support would quickly improve. At 16GB I'd still prefer to pay a premium for NVidia GPUs given its superior…

This card does have double the VRAM of the more expensive Nvidia competitor (the A1000, which has 8 GB), but I take your point that it doesn't feel like quite enough to justify giving up the Nvidia ecosystem. The memory bandwidth is also... not great. They also announced a 24 GB B60 and a double-GPU version of the same (saves you physical slots), but it seems like they don't have a release date yet (?).

Yeah am currently building a new PC , and have been waiting and waiting for B60 Pro release dates from partners - here is an offering from ASRock:

https://www.asrock.com/Graphics-Card/Intel/Intel%20Arc%20Pro...

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#232
post #94

I really wonder who this is for? It's not competing with amd/nvidia at twice the price on terms of performance, but it's also too expensive for a cheap gaming rig. And then there are people who are happy with integrated graphics. Maybe I'm just lacking imagination here, I don't do anything fancy on my work and couch laptops and I have a proper gaming PC.

An obvious use case is high-end NVRs. Low power, ample GPU for object detection/tracking, ample encoders for streaming. Should make a good surveillance platform.

With SR-IOV* there is a low cost path for GPU in virtual machines. Until now this has (mostly) been a feature exclusive to costly "enterprise" GPUs. Combine that with the good encoders and some VDI software and you have VM hosted GPU accelerated 3D graphics to remote displays. There are many business use cases for this, and no small number of "home lab" use cases as well.

Linux is a first class citizen with Intel's display products, and B50/60 is no different, so it's a nice choice when you want a GPU accelerated Linux desktop with minimum BS. Given the low cost and power, it could find its way into Steam consoles as well.

Finally, Intel is the scrappy competitor in this space: they are being very liberal with third parties and their designs, unlike the incumbents. We're already seeing this with Maxsun and others.

* Intel has promised this for B50/60 in Q4

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may not be disabling them maliciously -- they may be "binning" them -- running tests on the parts and then fusing off/disabling broken pieces of the silicon in order to avoid throwing away a chip that mostly works.

Yep, that's likely the case - but they still charge double for the reduced-performance binned chip, just because it's a "professional" GPU (which, last I heard, really just means it can use the pro variant of the GPU drivers)

Funny enough, maybe the fusing itself (if they go a bit above-and-beyond on it) is exactly why it is a pro model.

I.e. maybe Nvidia say "if we're going to fuse some random number of cores such that this is no longer a 3050, then let's not only fuse the damaged cores, but also do a long burn-in pass to observe TDP, and then fuse the top 10% of cores by measured TDP."

If they did that, it would mean that the resulting processor would be much more stable under a high duty cycle load, and so likely to last much longer in an inference-cluster deploy environment.

And the extra effort (= bottlenecking their supply of this model at the QC step) would at least partially justify the added cost. Since there'd really be no other way to produce a card with as many FLOPS/watt-dollar, without doing this expensive "make the chip so tiny it's beyond the state-of-the-art to make it stably, then analyze it long enough to precision-disable everything required to fully stabilize it for long-term operation" approach.

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#234

https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-arc-pro-b50-linux >Overall the Intel Arc Pro B50 was at 1.47x the performance of the NVIDIA RTX A1000 with that mix of OpenGL, Vulkan, and OpenCL/Vulkan compute workloads both synthetic and real-world tests. That is just under Intel's own reported Windows figures of the Arc Pro B50 delivering 1.6x the performance of the RTX A1000 for graphics and 1.7x the performance of the A1000…

Comparing price to performance in this space might not make much sense as it would seem. One of the (very few) interesting qualities in the A1000 is that it's single slot, low profile, workstation GPU. Intel kept the "powered by the PCIe slot" aspect, but made it dual slot and full height. Needing a "workstation" GPU in a tiny form factor (i.e. not meant to slot and power full sized GPUs) was something one could sque…

I'm still waiting for one of Nvidia/AMD/Intel to realize that if they make an inference-focused Thunderbolt eGPU "appliance" (not just a PCIe card in an eGPU chassis, but a sealed, vertically-integrated board-in-box design), then that would completely free them from design constraints around size/shape/airflow in an ATX chassis.

Such an appliance could plug into literally any modern computer — even a laptop or NUC. (And for inference, "running on an eGPU connected via Thunderbolt to a laptop" would actually work quite well; inference doesn't require much CPU, nor have tight latency constraints on the CPUGPU path; you mostly just need enough arbitrary-latency RAMVRAM DMA bandwidth to stream the model weights.)

(And yeah, maybe your workstation doesn't have Thunderbolt, because motherboard vendors are lame — but then you just need a Thunderbolt PCIe card, which is guaranteed to fit more easily into your workstation chassis than a GPU would!)

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#235
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparing price to performance in this space might not make much sense as it would seem. One of the (very few) interesting qualities in the A1000 is that it's single slot, low profile, workstation GPU. Intel kept the "powered by the PCIe slot" aspect, but made it dual slot and full height. Needing a "workstation" GPU in a tiny form factor (i.e. not meant to slot and power full sized GPUs) was something one could sque…

I'm still waiting for one of Nvidia/AMD/Intel to realize that if they make an inference-focused Thunderbolt eGPU "appliance" (not just a PCIe card in an eGPU chassis, but a sealed, vertically-integrated board-in-box design), then that would completely free them from design constraints around size/shape/airflow in an ATX chassis. Such an appliance could plug into literally any modern computer — even a laptop or NUC. (…

GIGABYTE recently did this with their new 'AI' box

https://www.gigabyte.com/Graphics-Card/GV-N5090IXEB-32GD

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#236
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put 32GB on that card and everybody would ignore performance issues. With 16GB everybody will just call it another in the long list of Intel failures.

I wonder why everyone keep saying "just put more VRAM" yet no cards seem to do that. If it is that easy to compete with Nvidia, why don't we already have those cards?

There does seem to be a grey market for it in China. You can buy cards where they swap the memory modules with higher capacity ones on Aliexpress and ebay.

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#237
post #217
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of local AI hobbyists, just visit /r/LocalLLama to see how many are using 8GB cards, or all the people asking for higher RAM version of cards. This makes it mysterious since clearly CUDA is an advantage, but higher VRAM lower cost cards with decent open library support would be compelling.

There is no point in using a low-bandwidth card like the B50 for AI. Attempting to use 2x or 4x cards to load a real model will result in poor performance and low generation speed. If you don’t need a larger model, use a 3060 or 2x 3060, and you’ll get significantly better performance than the B50—so much better that the higher power consumption won’t matter (70W vs. 170W for a single card). Higher VRAM wont make the…

>2x 3060

Are there any performance bottlenecks with using 2 cards instead of a single card? I don't think any one the consumer Nvidia cards use NVlink anymore, or at least they haven't for a while now.

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#238
post #123

https://www.phoronix.com/review/intel-arc-pro-b50-linux >Overall the Intel Arc Pro B50 was at 1.47x the performance of the NVIDIA RTX A1000 with that mix of OpenGL, Vulkan, and OpenCL/Vulkan compute workloads both synthetic and real-world tests. That is just under Intel's own reported Windows figures of the Arc Pro B50 delivering 1.6x the performance of the RTX A1000 for graphics and 1.7x the performance of the A1000…

Put 32GB on that card and everybody would ignore performance issues. With 16GB everybody will just call it another in the long list of Intel failures.

It's already got 2x the ram and roughly 1.5x the performance of the more expensive NVidia competitor... I'm not sure where you are getting your expectations from.

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#239
post #73

Really confused why the Intel and AMD both continue to struggle and yet still refuse to offer what Nvidia wont, i.e. high ram consumer GPUs. I'd much prefer paying 3x cost for 3x VRAM (48GB/$1047), 6x cost for 6x VRAM (96GB/$2094), 12x cost for 12x VRAM (192GB/$4188), etc. They'd sell like hotcakes and software support would quickly improve. At 16GB I'd still prefer to pay a premium for NVidia GPUs given its superior…

> I'd much prefer paying 3x cost for 3x VRAM Why not just buy 3 card then? These cards doesn't require active cooling anyways and you can just fit 3 in decent sized case. You will get 3x VRAM speed and 3x compute. And if your usecase is llm inference, it will be a lot faster than 1x card with 3x VRAM.

We will buy 4 cards if they are 48 GB or more. At a measly 16 GB, we’re just going to stick with 3090s, P40s, MI50s, etc.

> 3x VRAM speed and 3x compute

LLM scaling doesn’t work this way. If you have 4 cards, you may get 2x performance increase if you use vLLM. But you’ll also need enough VRAM to run FP8. 3 cards would only run at 1x performance.

Re: Intel Arc Pro B50 GPU Launched at $349 for Compact Workstations

#240
post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still waiting for one of Nvidia/AMD/Intel to realize that if they make an inference-focused Thunderbolt eGPU "appliance" (not just a PCIe card in an eGPU chassis, but a sealed, vertically-integrated board-in-box design), then that would completely free them from design constraints around size/shape/airflow in an ATX chassis. Such an appliance could plug into literally any modern computer — even a laptop or NUC. (…

GIGABYTE recently did this with their new 'AI' box https://www.gigabyte.com/Graphics-Card/GV-N5090IXEB-32GD

That misses the "vertically integrated" part. (As does everything else right now, which was my point.)

The thing you linked is just a regular Gigabyte-branded 5090 PCIe GPU card (that they produced first, for other purposes; and which does fit into a regular x16 PCIe slot in a standard ATX chassis), put into a (later-designed) custom eGPU enclosure. The eGPU box has some custom cooling [that replaces the card's usual cooling] and a nice little PSU — but this is not any more "designing the card around the idea it'll be used in an enclosure" than what you'd see if an aftermarket eGPU integrator built the same thing.

My point was rather that, if an OEM [that produces GPU cards] were to design one of their GPU cards specifically and only to be shipped inside an eGPU enclosure that was designed together with it — then you would probably get higher perf, with better thermals, at a better price(!), than you can get today from just buying standalone peripheral-card GPU (even with the cost of the eGPU enclosure and the rest of its components taken into account!)

Where by "designing the card and the enclosure together", that would look like:

- the card being this weird nonstandard-form-factor non-card-edged thing that won't fit into an ATX chassis or plug into a PCIe slot — its only means of computer connection would be via its Thunderbolt controller

- the eGPU chassis the card ships in, being the only chassis it'll comfortably live in

- the card being shaped less like a peripheral card and more like a motherboard, like the ones you see in embedded industrial GPU-SoC [e.g. automotive LiDAR] use-cases — spreading out the hottest components to ensure nothing blocks anything else in the airflow path

- the card/board being designed to expose additional water-cooling zones — where these zones would be pointless to expose on a peripheral card, as they'd be e.g. on the back of the card, where the required cooling block would jam up against the next card in the slot-array

...and so on.

It's the same logic that explains why those factory-sealed Samsung T-series external NVMe pucks can cost less than the equivalent amount of internal m.2 NVMe. With m.2 NVMe, you're not just forced into a specific form-factor (which may not be electrically or thermally optimal), but you're also constrained to a lowest-common-denominator assumption of deployment environment in terms of cooling — and yet you have to ensure that your chips stay stable in that environment over the long term. Which may require more-expensive chips, longer QC burn-in periods, etc.

But when you're shipping an appliance, the engineering tolerances are the tolerances of the board-and-chassis together. If the chassis of your little puck guarantees some level of cooling/heat-sinking, then you can cheap out on chips without increasing the RMA rate. And so on. This can (and often does) result in an overall-cheaper product, despite that product being an entire appliance vs. a bare component!

Post reply on HN