Integrated GPU a Waste??

[vjcsmoke]

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.

Bingo. Most consumers aren't smart enough to realize the performance difference between integrated on chip and discrete graphics. Intel makes more money, bigger market share, and discrete gpu sales die off even further.

Walk into any best buy and 75% of the computers they have on sale use integrated graphics instead of a discrete video card. That's 75% of the new computer market that discrete graphics cards have been cut out from.
The gpu on cpu is the continuation of this pattern. Dumb it down, water it down, earn bigger profit margins because most manufacturers are cheapos who just want to make more money and most of your 'Best Buy' customers don't know any better.

Jut look at how consoles are already dominating the gaming market with FAR INFERIOR hardware. As a result the PC ports of console games suffer from dumbed down graphics, gui, and gameplay. Integrated GPUs are going to bring that same dumbing down, watered down effect to the PC.
Endgame will result in Death of the discrete GPU. Intel laughs all the way to the bank. It's not going to happen overnight but companies like Intel have the patience and resources to implement long term strategies. It's just a matter of time and it's no conspiracy. Look around you, it has already started.

 

[HarkovAdm]

Look around you, it has already started.

Without any good excuse to buy decent computer hardware and construct a new machine, it isn't very fun to buy. These new Intel chips aren't about squeezing as much performance out of the die area as possible, and I can hardly blame Intel. There is very little incentive for them to greatly outdo their current Nehalem/Westmere performance king (poor competition from AMD and very few games or other hardware that actually demand more performance per clock). I mean the original Nehalem i7 didn't exactly sell like hotcakes for these reasons and Intel knows that.

TLDR: AMD needs to come up with something big to give Intel a kick in the ass so they actually focus on performance instead of integrated gpu / power efficiency bullshit

 

[djsb]

If Intel is the mastermind of such a sinister conspiracy to force cheap integrated graphics on the high end market, then why are they pairing them with the P65 and P67 chipsets that require discrete graphics, again?

 

[Zero82z]

Walk into any best buy and 75% of the computers they have on sale use integrated graphics instead of a discrete video card. That's 75% of the new computer market that discrete graphics cards have been cut out from.
The gpu on cpu is the continuation of this pattern. Dumb it down, water it down, earn bigger profit margins because most manufacturers are cheapos who just want to make more money and most of your 'Best Buy' customers don't know any better.

Again, your argument is completely silly. Moving the IGP to the CPU doesn't change anything. Machines with IGPs already dominate the market. Intel is doing this to reduce costs, not to increase marketshare. They already used to sell chipset and CPU combinations with video integrated into the chipset, and to consumers, there is no difference between that and having the GPU inside the CPU packaging instead.

Like I have already said, the discrete GPU market is an entirely different one, since people who buy discrete cards have performance requirements, whereas people who buy computers with IGPs just need something basic enough to run the Windows UI and play back video. IGPs will never become powerful enough to replace discrete GPUs.

 

[thefreeaccount]

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?

I don't think that Intel is all that interested in the benefits of integrated graphics for the next 1~2 years; they are looking further into the future.

Everyone knows that more cores > more mhz and therefore the CPU as we know it is already dead. With Itanium, Intel tried to leap 20 years ahead of everyone else and outright replace CISC with a vector processor. When that failed, they tried to keep their CPU, but tack a huge vector processing unit onto the side of it (Larabee). That didn't work either, so now they are forced to go with the most conservative approach.

It may seem that adding an anemic GPU onto a powerful CPU isn't worth the effort today, but that GPU is going to grow until we ask why anyone is still bothering to chain it to a slow/outdated CISC interface. Then the circle will be complete - Itanium will return from the Halls of Mandos, the light of the Two Trees will shine, and the world will be remade.

Edit: Oh, and if you bought AMD? Yeah, you can kinda expect to burn in a fire forever.

 

[maverick786us]

For all those die hard enthusastics / gamers who postpond their purchase because they were excited about these SB CPUs to be release, will they be benifitted with these integrated GPUs? Or do they have to face the music that upcoming SBs might not benfit them and they have to further wait for LGA2011 that is scheduled to release on 3Q of next yr?

 

[Dangman]

For all those die hard enthusastics / gamers who postpond their purchase because they were excited about these SB CPUs to be release, will the be benifitted with these integrated GPUs? Or do they have to face the music that upcoming SBs might not benfit them and they have to further wait for LGA2011 that is scheduled to release on 3Q of next yr?

Well as others have said, depends on how you look at things: Some die hard enthusastics / gamers may like having an onboard GPU as a backup just in case their main card dies. I know I do. Some die hard enthusastics / gamers, like some people here, might see the integrated GPU as the harbinger of death for dedicated gaming GPU. etc, etc.

In addition, there's no info whatsoever showing that integrating the GPU onto the CPU is gonna dramatically affect the performance of the CPU itself. In fact, the Core i3 and Core i5 6xx CPUs provide excellent performance with many situations actually outpacing the older C2D CPUs. And they OC just as well if not better than their older C2D brother.

So overall, I don't see how the integrated GPU is a waste exactly. Perhaps you can explain why exactly integrated the GPU onto the CPU is a "waste". Waste of what? resources? power usage? costs? etc.

 

[maverick786us]

Well as others have said, depends on how you look at things: Some die hard enthusastics / gamers may like having an onboard GPU as a backup just in case their main card dies. I know I do. Some die hard enthusastics / gamers, like some people here, might see the integrated GPU as the harbinger of death for dedicated gaming GPU. etc, etc.

In addition, there's no info whatsoever showing that integrating the GPU onto the CPU is gonna dramatically affect the performance of the CPU itself. In fact, the Core i3 and Core i5 6xx CPUs provide excellent performance with many situations actually outpacing the older C2D CPUs. And they OC just as well if not better than their older C2D brother.

So overall, I don't see how the integrated GPU is a waste exactly. Perhaps you can explain why exactly integrated the GPU onto the CPU is a "waste". Waste of what? resources? power usage? costs? etc.

Waste in the sense, will it affect CPU perfomance or make it hot by consuming more power? Although 32NM CPUs are promised to be as much cool and quiet as Core 2 Duo. But I don't know how the integrated GPUs will change this

 

[Dangman]

Waste in the sense, will it affect CPU perfomance or make it hot by consuming more power? Although 32NM CPUs are promised to be as much cool and quiet as Core 2 Duo. But I don't know how the integrated GPUs will change this

Integrated GPUs isn't gonna change all that. The Core i3 530 uses less power than the Intel C2D E7600 despite having the onboard GPU. In many cases, the Core i3 and Core i5 6xxx CPUs have lower temperatures than their C2D brothers. And again, it's also been shown time and time again that the Core i3 and Core i5 6xx series CPUs provide better performance than most of their Intel C2D brothers despite having the onboard GPU.

So assuming that this trend continues, having the integrated GPU on the CPU itself isn't gonna make it run hotter, consume more power, or affect CPU performance.

So in other words, you're worrying about nothing. There isn't any info whatsoever showing that integrating the GPU onto the CPU will provide serious disadvantages for enthusiasts or anyone else for that matter.

 

[rekd0514]

This thread makes me laugh. People are arguing that IGP are pointless and Intel should focus on better CPUs. I'm sure that none of you even need more than what is currently available right now with the i7 cpu anyways. Parallel programming still has a ways to go before anything can take advantage of more cores anyways. The new quad cores will likely be faster and use less power and that's is what everyone wants.

The IGP cpu such as the i3 530 has it's applications just like your gaming/encoding rig does. They are great for things like a Windows Home Server, HTPC, or average user. They aren't going to replace the GPU market anytime soon. Also when you install a GPU it disables the IGP anyways, so it really isn't a big deal. They still have options for no IGP, so everyone is happy. Intel is doing exactly what they need to be IMO.

The cpus that have the best value and satisfy everyone's needs are as follows IMO.

i3 530/540 with H55/H57 board which ever is cheaper - Windows Home Server, HTPC, or average user
i5 750/760 with P55 and dedicated GPU - IMO best value out of any CPU out right now satififies virtually every consumer's needs for a great price
i7 920/930 X58 for SLI enthusiasts - slight upgrade over the i5 750 for quite a bit more money and usually uneeded cost

 

[Zero82z]

Waste in the sense, will it affect CPU perfomance or make it hot by consuming more power? Although 32NM CPUs are promised to be as much cool and quiet as Core 2 Duo. But I don't know how the integrated GPUs will change this

You don't have to use the integrated GPU if you don't want to. If you don't use it, it'll either consume a negligible amount of power or none at all. The presence of an IGP doesn't affect the performance of the CPU at all.

 

[PGHammer]

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?

Integrated graphics (even Intel's) need not be a waste - it still depends on what you will use it for. If you spend a lot of time in Linux (even gaming on Linux), there are some solid GPUs for the task that come onboard (including Intel G41, surprisingly). The next generation of OpenGL/3D acceleration technology for Linux is called Gallium, and is based primarily on Intel's onboard GPU design (however, in the true spirit of open-source, it's also making its way to other brand's GPUs, both onboard and otherwise, especially those from Intel competitor AMD). On the Windows side, it's those same two companies mostly (Intel has the entire G4x range in LGA775, along with i3/i5 in LGA1156; meanwhile AMD has G7xx, appearing in both the mobile and desktop spaces). AMD's G-series also tag-team in Hybrid Crossfire with offboard AMD GPUs (no GPU partner will tag-team with any Intel onboard GPU as of yet); however, that market, as has typically been the case, is like-brand specific.

If you are referring to borrowing from what is normally unused *system memory*, all you need is to use a newer version of Windows than XP, as both Vista *and* 7 include transparent sharing of portions of system memory with any GPU, onboard or otherwise (both x32 and x64 versions include the capability; x64, however, has the advantage of having a larger memory pool to draw from). Newer motherboards allow you to cap how much system memory is shared with a GPU in Vista/7 (typically, this is usually because an x32 version of either is in use *and* you are using the onboard GPU) and this appeared first in systems with onboard graphics (as far as BIOS implementation goes) - because I run 7 x64 and use a PCIe x16-based card, I leave the limits unlocked, despite a seemingly small 3 GB of system memory.

Also, onboard graphics need not obviate a decent (or even gamer-level) single card-based GPU solution - most Intel G4x-based motherboards, despite being mATX, also include full-length PCIe x16 Gen2 or Gen2+ slots (my own P5G41-M LX2 comes factory-set with the PCIe slot as the lead GPU, despite the G41 chipset).

So, as long as you leave yourself an upgrade path (which has been my recommendation with *any* motherboard with onboard graphics, for any use), you have no real reason to leave motherboards with onboard GPUs out of your decision matrix.

 

[PGHammer]

This thread makes me laugh. People are arguing that IGP are pointless and Intel should focus on better CPUs. I'm sure that none of you even need more than what is currently available right now with the i7 cpu anyways. Parallel programming still has a ways to go before anything can take advantage of more cores anyways. The new quad cores will likely be faster and use less power and that's is what everyone wants.

The IGP cpu such as the i3 530 has it's applications just like your gaming/encoding rig does. They are great for things like a Windows Home Server, HTPC, or average user. They aren't going to replace the GPU market anytime soon. Also when you install a GPU it disables the IGP anyways, so it really isn't a big deal. They still have options for no IGP, so everyone is happy. Intel is doing exactly what they need to be IMO.

The cpus that have the best value and satisfy everyone's needs are as follows IMO.

i3 530/540 with H55/H57 board which ever is cheaper - Windows Home Server, HTPC, or average user
i5 750/760 with P55 and dedicated GPU - IMO best value out of any CPU out right now satififies virtually every consumer's needs for a great price
i7 920/930 X58 for SLI enthusiasts - slight upgrade over the i5 750 for quite a bit more money and usually uneeded cost

Even with LGA775 (still around, though long in the tooth) there's G4x (specifically G41 and G43). Neither has to roadblock a PCIe x16 graphics card (in fact, most motherboards, except those aimed directly at the corporate desktop, also include a PCIe x16 Gen2 slot - my own mobo [see sig below] is a prime example; it has the PCIe slot as the factory default, then PCI (with the onboard an option that you have to change; in short, you have to enable it)). An Intel-chipset motherboard, where the onboard graphics is not only NOT the default, but not even enabled by default.

Just make sure you have that upgrade path - fortunately, that is now actually getting easier to do.

 

[TehQuick]

Works for me in a laptop, especially with switchable graphics - Intel for working on battery, and nvidia gpu for working on the mains

 

[3far4shot]

Like always, i don't believe this will be to big within the gaming and enthusiast community. Discrete GPU's still have a huge place for people like us. I think APU's from both Intel and AMD are going to be greatly appreciated in the mainstream market no doubt.

I am curious to see how the desktop Sandy Bridge will perform, though one question i have is, do all CPUs based on the SB architecture have a integrated GPU? or can we just get some CPU's focused only on CPU processing power and nothing else? and if so, are they going to perform better then what's currently out on the market?

Besides the mobile aspects of it, i'm not to hyped about it overall.

 

[stockwiz]

Intel makes far more money selling systems to the masses then to the 5% of enthusiasts, that's why they did it. Integrating the GPU saves them money, period. These won't replace standalone GPUs. Don't see what the big deal is.

 

[PGHammer]

If it ever replaces the standalone GPU, it will do so at the very bottom end of the standalone market (which is, historically, where integrated graphics has *always* aimed for; even Sandy Bridge won't change that, as it's the planned replacement for G4x).

In fact, I'm going to go into a deeper analysis of the non-graphical features of G41 (which, as I pointed out, Sandy Bridge is going to replace). First off, G41 does not block the use of discrete graphics, and never has (only the absolute bottom end of G4x designs, or portable designs, have no PCIe x16 slot). ASUS alone has no less than five G41-based motherboards in their lineup - all include the discrete-graphics option. (As I pointed out in an earlier post, mine not only has a discrete-graphics option, in my case, discrete graphics is the default from ASUS!) So why would Sandy Bridge vary from standard G4x practice?

Second, G41/ICH7 (the standard tag-team) includes eight USB 2.0 ports (4+4 configuration) and four SATA 3.0 Gb/s ports (all of which are RAIDable in 0, 1, 5, 10, or JBOD). It has a single PATA port, and no floppy port (which few Intel chipsets of any flavor support today). The one big feature a gamer would want that *isn't* supported by G41/ICH7 is DDR3 (which *is* supported by G41/ICH8, the next level up; since all my RAM is DDR2, I have no need, desire, or use for DDR3 support, so why pay extra for it?).

Lastly, G41 in no way roadblocks me from using (or upgrading to) any other LGA775 CPU (including 45 nm C2E, if that floats my boat). Needless to say, the other 45 nm more palatable options are also on the table (including Celeron DC E3300, the Wolf(dale) pup in Celeron clothes, and Q9300, the bang-for-buck Yorkfield). That's a heck of a wide range for a $53USD (including tax) motherboard.

Being [H] need not also mean being broke.