Intel Core Ultra with only on-chip Arc GPU, OK for Resolve?

Need to update my laptop at some point and the new Lunar Lake (Meteor Lake) laptops seem interesting. Now, I'm a bit confused about what config is needed to support Resolve. Intel ARC GPUs seem to work with Resolve, but what about when they are integrated on-chip? Laptops with just the on-chip ARC GPUs, will Resolve work with these or do I need a config with an additional, separate GPU?

From the reports around here the support for ARC still seems a bit flaky.
If you want Windows, I'd rather have a look at SnapDragon Elite X.

Flaky is OK if it works (as in Resolve starts). Don't want to move to Snapdragon as I still hang on to old Photoshop CS6.

Are the new CPUs using a new GPU? I just assumed it was the same QuickSync engine we have had for years?

This is the gold standard for hardware decode on PC.

Puget Systems is the only review I have seen so far for 15th gen in Resolve

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/artic ... on-review/

"Moving on to DaVinci Resolve, the new Core Ultra 200S series is not significantly faster than the previous generation Intel processors, although part of this is because significant portions of Resolve are heavily GPU-accelerated, so raw CPU performance doesn’t show up as much in the overall score. The 285K is 1% ahead of the 14900K (and, oddly, 1% behind the 14700K), but that is well with our standard margin of error. This also makes it a touch slower than the 9950X, though which of those is best depends a bit on workflow. Like Premiere Pro, Intel is superior in LongGOP Quick Sync accelerated workflows and Intraframe workflows, while AMD wins in RAW workflows (and, less importantly, in AI and GPU-based Effects).

Intel’s Core Ultra 265K is very disappointing in this benchmark, scoring 5% below the 14700K. This does still put it on parity with the more expensive 9900X and 7% ahead of the comparable 9700X, but the 14700K is more performant and can likely be had for cheaper. However, it is important to look at where the discrepancy is happening, and in most CPU-bound workflows (LongGOP, Intraframe, RAW) the 265K is on-par or slightly ahead of the 14700K. It falls behind primarily in Fusion, where the 14700K performs anomalously well. We are not sure if this is due to real performance differences or possibly some sort of early BIOS issue that will be resolved post-launch. Otherwise, the 265K is only behind in the GPU-heavy AI and GPU Effects scores.

The Core Ultra 5 part falls behind the 14600K, again largely due to Fusion performance. The 14600K also has an above-average LongGOP score in our testing here, but even for Intraframe codecs, the 245K’s best subscore, it is only barely ahead of the 14600K. In most cases, this still does leave it advantaged compared to the 9600X, with 6% higher performance overall, but we wouldn’t generally recommend the 245K over a 14600K for DaVinci Resolve."

This test was with a 4080 16gb GPU


Sadly 15th gen is really the only option I would consider today. It took intel years to admit the defect in 13/14 gen. It could be a year before we really know if their software patch is effective

https://community.intel.com/t5/Blogs/Te ... 239/page/2

if you edit h.265 4:2:2 Intel and Apple silicon are your only hardware decode options

https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/artic ... udio-2122/

Are the new CPUs using a new GPU? I just assumed it was the same QuickSync engine we have had for years?

OK, just to clarify, I'm thinking about laptop versions here.

I assume it has the same QuickSync functionality but at least on my current laptop I cannot choose the "QuickSync GPU" (in the form of the Iris Xe) as the "main" GPU, I can only direct encode/decode to that, still need a "proper" GPU to run Resolve.

Now with the change in terminology (only?) with the new generation, the laptop GPU is named "Arc" but wondering if the SoC "Arc" GPU is viewed as a "proper" GPU by Resolve so that it can also works as the main GPU?

Looking for a light/portable system for off-grid work so would very much appreciate the (apparently) good battery life of Lunar Lake chipset but the price of these laptops move out of my budget range if I also need a 4060 or similar to run Resolve.

The performance numbers by Puget are not really of importance here as the laptop would not be the main work computer, just for checking material and perhaps light, onthe-go edits etc. As Puget run (apparently) the desktop version with an RTX40xx GPU, the test does not really answer my question.

Looking for a light/portable system for off-grid work so would very much appreciate the (apparently) good battery life of …

If that is at the core of your considerations, I'd have a look at a MacBook Pro, even if you have never considered Apple before.

Even the older (Much older IGPUs) could run Resolve.

The question is more is it fast enough for you. Resolution? Ram? All play into this.

If your current laptop can't use the IGPU for Resolve it's likely a driver issue. Laptop vendors don't really send out IGPU driver updates. You're forced to get them directly from Intel. Intel cut off the really old chips but I think they're still supporting 8th gen and newer. Certainly supporting 11th gen.

I think all Iris are more than new enough.

Move to Apple will not happen .

So still looking for an answer: "Will Resolve run on a Lunar Lake system (256V/258V) with just the on-chip ARC GPU"?

Like I said Resolve has been running on Intel IGPUs for a long time. I think since Resolve 12.5. That doesn't mean it will run extremely well.

You need to think about what you mean by run. The further you are from the GPU intensive stuff the better it'll run.

You may even want to use a slightly older version, since most of the newest features are really resource-hungry and need a strong GPU with good neural processing. The latest 15.3.1 is a pretty good choice for a tame laptop. But you can also try 18.6.6. The nice thing about BM is that you can go back, even if your newer Libraries won't be compatible. So, do some testing before you settle on a system version.

But the most important point is the codec and resolution you want to work with. HD in 30 fps should work pretty well on most recent laptops, even in AVC and 8 bit. But HEVC in UHD and 60 fps will need a pretty beefy machine, which also won't last long off mains power.

Good luck!

"Will Resolve run on a Lunar Lake system (256V/258V) with just the on-chip ARC GPU"?

So the Intel Core Ultra 7, 256V/258V both use the Intel Arc 140V GPU (Xe2 architecture).

For confirmation that Xe2 will at least run Resolve 19, here's a video from Intel:

The face analysis they are showing here is pretty slow, but I don't expect any such issues for just plain editing.

So the Intel Core Ultra 7, 256V/258V both use the Intel Arc 140V GPU (Xe2 architecture).

For confirmation that Xe2 will at least run Resolve 19, here's a video from Intel

Thanks, so seems there is hope. Let's hope this is a config supported officially by BM, the disclaimer list at the end of the video was pretty impressive.

The face analysis they are showing here is pretty slow, but I don't expect any such issues for just plain editing.

Yes, performance was anything but stellar in the example.

1: Resolve runs decently on intel chips already as already stated, not like a dedicated GPU but definitely editable. I have a 1360p intel i7/32GB Ram on an LG Gram 17, great large screen for editing with resolve (16:10), I am able to (depending on the video source format), edit decently in resolve with videos that aren't incredibly heavy with effects, but you need render cache quite often if you have effects or anything "extra". It's not desktop speed, and fusion/effects will slow it much more, but it's doable.

2: What Uli said above. I know you aren't considering apple but the way they are designing the MacBook pros really does specifically target your scenario, incredible battery life while still being able to edit/create (not plugged in) at desktop level speeds. There isn't a windows laptop (or PC), that is even close to being as good as Apple right now with regard to efficiency/editing experience. PCs will catch up but, right now, Apple Silicon looks to be the best of both worlds, powerful, and power efficient.

I'm a PC guy myself but I have had plenty of Apple products in the past, I'm really OS agnostic at this point, whoever will make my life easier and give me the best experience will usually get my money.

If you insist on Windows, have a closer look at Snapdragon Elite X for energy efficiency.
Intel is not catching up in that game.