• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Integrated GPU a Waste??

M

maverick786us

2[H]4U
2FA
Joined
Aug 24, 2006
Messages
2,416
My eyes are on the upcoming SB CPUs that has the potential to OC 5Ghz on air or somewhere close to that figure.

I believe adding integrated GPU is a waste for gamers and enthusastics like us. I don't see even a single SB processor that does'nt come without an integrated GPU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_microprocessors

What benifit will these integrated GPUs hold for enthusastics like us? Will it provide any extra BUFFER to the high end GPUs that will be connected?

From that point onwards will every Intel PSU have an integrated GPU?
 
Last edited:
waste.

we are a small minority. the vast majority, probably way over 90% of machines do not use discrete vid cards. so we dont rate. more powerful on board or on chip graphics will ultimately be good for pc gaming, allowing more guys to be able to play, with less hardware.
 
maverick786us said:
My eyes are on the upcoming SB CPUs that has the potential to OC 5Ghz on air or somewhere close to that figure.

I believe adding integrated GPU is a waste for gamers and enthusastics like us. I don't see even a single SB processor that does'nt come without an integrated GPU.
Click to expand...

Sandy Bridge is a replacement for the mainstream 1156 socket, not enthusiast 1366. The P67 and H67 chipsets hardly have any PCIe lanes to be anything more then just mainstream platform, you're pretty much stuck with the ones that the processors system agent brings to table. It also still uses DMI versus QPI.
 
Intel graphics are shockingly bad from what i've used (laptops) unable to use even flash very well. So I am not sure if you'll even be able to play modern games with one of these micro GPUs.

I thought that the integrated GPU was only on the lower end CPUs (for laptops), then I saw it wasn't and got pissy. If I buy a CPU I don't want a POS gpu on it using power and costing money, making the chip hotter for a useless feature (for me). With the multiplier OC and such it is looking at this moment like a giant wet poop for the enthusiast sector. Unless they make a (cheaper) GPU free model and sort out the OC. Will the GPU have seperate values from the multiplier, or will it just raise up like the rest of it. It looks worrying, as the OC will be limited by a cut rate shitty GPU on chip...

One other thing to note is that the first lot will only have DirectX 10. The later ivy bridge will have DX11.

This part worries me:

It has security features that include the ability to remotely disable a PC or erase information from hard drives without permission from the current operator of the PC. This can be useful in the case of a lost or stolen PC. The commands can be received through 3G signals, ethernet, or internet connections.
Click to expand...

seriously...

There is the "Sandy Bridge B2" LGA 1356 that has no GPU on chip, which is meant for "high end desktops". Will have to wait and see...(comes out in 2012)
 
Last edited:
I believe integrated GPUs will be just like onboard graphics, that punished the CPU as well as memory

DeathPrincess said:
Intel graphics are shockingly bad from what i've used (laptops) unable to use even flash very well. So I am not sure if you'll even be able to play modern games with one of these micro GPUs.

I thought that the integrated GPU was only on the lower end CPUs (for laptops), then I saw it wasn't and got pissy. If I buy a CPU I don't want a POS gpu on it using power and costing money, making the chip hotter for a useless feature (for me). With the multiplier OC and such it is looking at this moment like a giant wet poop for the enthusiast sector. Unless they make a (cheaper) GPU free model and sort out the OC. Will the GPU have seperate values from the multiplier, or will it just raise up like the rest of it. It looks worrying, as the OC will be limited by a cut rate shitty GPU on chip...

One other thing to note is that the first lot will only have DirectX 10. The later ivy bridge will have DX11.

This part worries me:



seriously...

There is the "Sandy Bridge B2" LGA 1356 that has no GPU on chip, which is meant for "high end desktops". Will have to wait and see...(comes out in 2012)
Click to expand...

2012:mad::mad::mad::mad: that sux. I was planning to upgrade my backup rig with a high end CPU / GPU solution that can draw enough horse power so that i can do gaming at 2560 X 1600 resolution.
 
DeathPrincess said:
There is the "Sandy Bridge B2" LGA 1356 that has no GPU on chip, which is meant for "high end desktops". Will have to wait and see...(comes out in 2012)
Click to expand...

Intel has currently abandoned plans for that particular CPU. Instead, the high-end desktop versions of SB will use the same Socket LGA 2011 as the server versions of that same chip. What's more, at least initially, there will be no versions of the high-end non-Xeon LGA 2011 CPU that will sell for less than $1,000 because all of the initial non-Xeon LGA 2011 CPUs will be sold only as Core i7 Extremes (whose branding may be supplanted by the i9 branding). It might have been speculated that LGA 1356 might have had only enough space for 24 PCI-e lanes (since the LGA 1356 platform would have ditched the off-CPU-package, on-motherboard IOH in favor of an integrated on-CPU-die PCI-e controller hub), which would not have been much of an improvement over the 16 PCI-e lanes on the LGA 1155 CPUs.

And the P67 PCH will add up to eight PCI-e 2.0 lanes to the LGA 1155 CPU's 16 lanes. If the PCH were to offer no PCI-e lanes at all, there would have been no room whatsoever to add any additional PCI-e slots (other than the ones used by the primary graphics cards) or onboard PCI-e devices on LGA 1155 motherboards (and thus would have limited expansion to external devices only). That would have forced heavy reliance on external USB devices because the P67 chipset also lacks native support for the legacy PCI bus (the available PCI add-on motherboard solutions "steal" some of the chipset's PCI-e lanes).
 
Last edited:
Far from a waste. For the average person that works in an office or grandma or grandpa that just browses the web and checks e-mail they're perfect. For me not so much.
 
This is the first attempt at putting the GPU directly in with the CPU and it looks promising. There are some benchmarks floating around where it runs almost all modern games at very playable framerates, besting even the $50 entry level Radeons. Who knows, it could get better and better.

Definitely psyched about this for laptops
 
maverick786us said:
My eyes are on the upcoming SB CPUs that has the potential to OC 5Ghz on air or somewhere close to that figure.
Click to expand...

how do you figure, sports fan?

ive never seen anything more then blind speculation on overclockability of those chips. if this is more of the same you should let people know you pulled that number out of nowhere instead of stating it as fact. this is [H] not fox news.....

if you got that information from a good source i would be interested to read it myself.
 
For what I know , based from an Intel exposition in my Uni, SB will be able to further reduce 2D power, by automatically switching from the external GPU to the integrated GPU, and in 3d the opposite.
 
You do realize that non-gamers are allowed to buy SB also right?

I'm a gamer and I'm glad it has integrated GPU. Why? Beucase the GPU has shown that it can keep up pretty well with most dedicated MOBILE solutions. So when I get my next laptop, it will be capable of gaming without having to spend top dollar for it or have something big, bulky, and hot with poor battery life.
 
Last edited:
good for netbooks and laptops (which I don't believe should be used for any serious gaming anyways) ... with that said I'm waiting on socket 2011 for the extra PCI express lanes and other added perks also more cores.
 
stockwiz said:
good for netbooks and laptops (which I don't believe should be used for any serious gaming anyways) ... with that said I'm waiting on socket 2011 for the extra PCI express lanes and other added perks also more cores.
Click to expand...

There are separate SB CPUs for desktop as well as mobile. For desktop Intel should have released separate versions 1) Without integrated GPU (for people like us) and 2) with integrated GPUs (for mainstreamers)
 
That would just end up costing the Intel money (which would get dumped onto the consumer) because they'd have fewer available processors in both "mainstream" and "enthusiast" classes to bin into different models. Just accept that the graphics core is there in both low-end and high-end models, or you can ignore it at will, but it isn't forcing itself on anyone.
 
1429754-1253930_this_thread_again_super_super.jpg
 
It's pretty damn obvious that integrated graphics aren't beneficial to hardware enthusiasts. Clearly Intel isn't doing it because of us.
 
Then what is the future for us, where every enthusastic is eagerly waiting for SB to be released?
 
Last edited:
I am a big fan of Optimus. Thats a fantastic idea. The 4500 is decent enough for most work and the 400m series is sufficient for anything you would do on a laptop anyway. You can get a really wicked laptop setup with this for under $1k like this too..
 
ND40oz said:
It's right there in your link under the Unknown variants, Sandy Bridge B2, High-end desktop, no integrated GPU core.
Click to expand...

The only difference is that Sandy Bridge B2 will not use LGA 1356 - but instead, the very same LGA 2011 as the server versions of that chip.
 
It's not really waste. Look at it as an extra feature.:cool:

I'm a gamer, and I can appreciate having the integrated GPU to fall back on in case the discrete video card fails. That way I can still use the pc for non-gaming tasks while waiting for the replacement card to arrive.
 
Integrated Video is 99% of the time a waste. It's ok for web browsing but that's about it. LOL. The really wasteful part of Integrated Video is that it uses system RAM as VRAM and system ram isn't designed to be used that way so not only do you have a waste of memory resources but your video functions will be slower as well.

The other insidious thing to consider is that if Intel succeeds at 'fusing' video functions with CPU they can eventually drive independent discrete gpu manufacturers out of business. Of course AMD had this idea first with its 'Fusion' plan. So I guess Intel is just saying 'hey me too!'.

I really hope it doesn't succeed because I don't look forward to seeing discrete gpu manufacturers die and then having only cpu giants like Intel and to a lesser extent AMD dictating the progress of gpu technology. Well hold on a second, AMD already swallowed up ATI and killed of the brand so I guess it's already starting to happen. Next step I guess is an Intel buyout of Nvidia? That would be a nightmare scenario!
 
vjcsmoke said:
The other insidious thing to consider is that if Intel succeeds at 'fusing' video functions with CPU they can eventually drive independent discrete gpu manufacturers out of business.
Click to expand...
If that could have happened, it already would have with GPUs integrated into chipsets. Integrated graphics have been around for ages, and the discrete graphics market isn't going anywhere. There are still plenty of commercial applications where integrated is not and will never be good enough.
 
vjcsmoke said:
Integrated Video is 99% of the time a waste. It's ok for web browsing but that's about it. LOL. The really wasteful part of Integrated Video is that it uses system RAM as VRAM and system ram isn't designed to be used that way so not only do you have a waste of memory resources but your video functions will be slower as well.

The other insidious thing to consider is that if Intel succeeds at 'fusing' video functions with CPU they can eventually drive independent discrete gpu manufacturers out of business. Of course AMD had this idea first with its 'Fusion' plan. So I guess Intel is just saying 'hey me too!'.

I really hope it doesn't succeed because I don't look forward to seeing discrete gpu manufacturers die and then having only cpu giants like Intel and to a lesser extent AMD dictating the progress of gpu technology. Well hold on a second, AMD already swallowed up ATI and killed of the brand so I guess it's already starting to happen. Next step I guess is an Intel buyout of Nvidia? That would be a nightmare scenario!
Click to expand...

This is wrong on so many levels it's hard to figure out where to start but I'll try...

First off, the VAST majority of computers are using onboard video, so i'm not sure how you got your 99% waste figure.

Secondly, Intel has been making integrated video for many many many many many years, they're simply moving it from the chipset to the CPU. It's simply an evolutionary process of what we've already had for decades so how would it suddenly make nVidia and AMD go out of business?

Third, other than the name change from ATI to AMD, nothing has changed with their discrete lineup. If anything, the "RED" video cards haven't been this competitive since the days of the 9700/9800 Pro.

I'm really not sure how you're rationalizing your thought process on this (non) issue.
 
integrated GPU=waste imo.cant wait for the highend socket 2011 cpu's to be released
ive had a few i3's and i5's and never bother with the integrated GPU.
 
Will these integrated GPUs have a display processor of its own or just like onboard graphics, it will punish the CPU for display processor and Memory for Frame Buffer?
 
The point is that integrated GPU on the CPU is Intel's attempt to kill off discrete graphics cards. AMD has already announced their intention with 'AMD Fusion'. They took a big step towards that goal by swallowing up ATI. Next they killed off the ATI name. The only reason AMD hasn't stopped producing discrete video cards is because the 5xxx line was saving their bacon when their CPU line was taking a savage beating by Intel Core 2 Duo, i5 and i7 onslaught. Meanwhile the 6xxx series is going to be way too profitable not to roll out. Granted AMD has recently won back some mindshare concerning their cpus with affordable hexacores but AMD needs 6 cores to match what Intel does with only 4.

Luckily for AMD, Intel is too greedy to release midrange hexacores that would totally blow up and dominate AMD hexacores. Instead Intel chooses to keep their hexacores in the 900-1000 dollar stratosphere and thus shoot themselves in the foot and miss out on lots of sales they could have made with $500 lower clocked hexacores that enthusiasts would have bought up and OCed to 980x or above speeds anyways.

If you take a look at the big long term picture, if Intel ever buys up Nvidia - DISCRETE GRAPHICS WILL BE DEAD! These are just the beginning moves of Intel's long term plans. Hell Intel has had a roadmap for 24 core cpus since over 5 years ago. Are you really guillible enough to think they hadn't planned on swallowing up the GPU market if they could? Too bad for them Larrabee was such an enormous FLOP. That's going to set them back a few years, but with their money and resources, it's just a matter of time.

You might buy into integrated graphics on sandy bridge cpus as a step forward, hell that's what intel wants you and the rest of the sheep buying mobos with weakass integrated graphics to think. Soon they'll be buying the lameass integrated gpus on sandybridge too because hell they shop at Best Buy and the sales rep said it was COOL! What this really represents is just another way for Intel to earn more money selling a useless and underpowered feature on the way to their long term market goals.

PS Friends don't let friends use integrated graphics. Guess you never heard that one. Although I suppose integrated graphics would be good enough for the people who like to drive in the slow line... and back up traffic.
 
vjcsmoke said:
The point is that integrated GPU on the CPU is Intel's attempt to kill off discrete graphics cards. Long conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

Read post #29 and #30 again. Carefully.

We already have integrated graphics, we've had them for a long time. Why would moving those onto the cpu suddenly spell the end for discrete graphic cards?
 
E4g1e said:
The only difference is that Sandy Bridge B2 will not use LGA 1356 - but instead, the very same LGA 2011 as the server versions of that chip.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why it's replacing LGA 1366, the current socket for the highend desktop and 1-2P servers.
 
vjcsmoke said:
The point is that integrated GPU on the CPU is Intel's attempt to kill off discrete graphics cards.
Click to expand...
No, it's not. Your entire post is complete nonsense. Discrete graphics will never die so long as it can offer substantial performance increases over integrated graphics (which will most likely always be the case as far as the current paradigm of computers goes).
 
who the hell buys discrete graphics aside from power users?
By integrating their "mainstream" line of chips with integrated graphics, it allows intel a greater slice of the consumer market, whereas Dell's and HP's before would use an i5 with a 5570, now they are pretty much forced for the sub 1200 market to use intels integrated.

Just intel bullying their way into a greater slice of the market, it takes a chunk out of AMD/Nvida, and im sure some of the R and D is looking into new CPU architectures and process instructions.
 
Cat1yst said:
whereas Dell's and HP's before would use an i5 with a 5570, now they are pretty much forced for the sub 1200 market to use intels integrated.
Click to expand...
The i5s already have integrated graphics, not including the 750 and 760. Low-end OEM machines rarely if ever come with discrete graphics as it stands, and the fact that Intel is putting GPUs in their mainstream CPUs won't change that. I don't understand why all you people are freaking out about this. Functionally, there is no difference between having a GPU built into the GPU and having one built into the chipset. The end result is the same.
 
Zero82z said:
The i5s already have integrated graphics, not including the 750 and 760. Low-end OEM machines rarely if ever come with discrete graphics as it stands, and the fact that Intel is putting GPUs in their mainstream CPUs won't change that. I don't understand why all you people are freaking out about this. Functionally, there is no difference between having a GPU built into the GPU and having one built into the chipset. The end result is the same.
Click to expand...

I'd even go further to say there are benefits to on-die GPUs, since it seems to reduce power reqs and makes motherboards less cramped.
 
kencheeto said:
I'd even go further to say there are benefits to on-die GPUs, since it seems to reduce power reqs and makes motherboards less cramped.
Click to expand...
Of course there are benefits; that's why Intel is going this route in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top