73% of x86 Processors Now Integrate Graphics

[livebriand]

But how many of those are actually used? I mean, a lot of people with i5 and i7s use dedicated graphics. With the 1st gen i series, the Clarkdale i3 and dual-core i5s had integrated graphics, but the quad-core Lynnfield i5s and up didn't. On the other hand, I see quite a few OEM machines with i5 machines and integrated graphics, sometimes even i7s without dedicated graphics (or low-end dedicated at best). I mean, come on, an i7 2600 with a ati 6450? Makes my older machine with a i5 750 (yeah, last gen, and midrange at the time) and nvidia 550ti look pretty good (probably faster in most things too, unless heavy on CPU usage).

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]zilnicra[/nom]and this is news how? seriously, on a laptop the advantage to doing gpu on cpu is huge when it comes to power savings, sandybridge win[/citation]
Well, yes, with a laptop having the integrated even if you also have dedicated can be an advantage for power savings when you don't want the graphics. But on a desktop, power savings aren't a huge concern, and switching graphics don't exist. Most i5 and i7 machines have dedicated graphics anyway (though for some reason there are lots of i5 oem machines without them).

 

[livebriand]

[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]I think you're only paying...what...$5-$10 for the IGP (that's just a subjective guess that I pulled out of my @$$). Its good to have in case your discreet GPU dies...at least you'd have something to fallback to.[/citation]
But how often is that? Besides, gamers that are constantly upgrading the gpu probably have older gpus that they upgraded from lying around anyway, so they really really don't give a crap about intel gma. For instance, if my geforce 550ti died, I'd just put in my old geforce 210 (which is as powerful as the intel HD 2000 graphics in the i3) until I get a good card again.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]rodney_ws[/nom]Intel is going to do whatever it wants to do because it absolutely obliterated AMD in the last round of CPU wars. $400 mainstream processor? They can do it if they want to.[/citation]

they cant... the phenom II is what, 20-30% slower in some tasks, while others its 10% or less, realisticly, they could offer a main stream cpu for 20% more than the phenom II

bulldozer is equal to and exceeds allot of the main steam intel line. with win8 and revision 1, they will most likely give intel enough pressure they have to keep the price down, and with ivy bridge just being a die shrink, correct me if im wrong, it wont be an immaculate gain like everyone thinks, now the cpu after ivy will be the one to watch.

[citation][nom]legacy7955[/nom]Sorry but if you know ANYTHING at all about PCs you know that separate CPU and GPU is best not to mention the best value for the money. Those that buy integrated either don't care or don't know better.[/citation]

or dont have a need. if you dont play games or dont care about graphics integrated can give you a decent game play on older games and games that have ridiculously low requirements, like torchlight.

 

[Shin-san]

Makes sense because the bottom-end AMD Radeon is a lot better than Intel's graphics

 

[danwat1234]

[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]"73% of x86 Processors Now Integrate Graphics that are pretty weak"There, fixed.[/citation]
Here's hoping your wrong with AMD Trinity.

 

[Guest]

remember when math co-processors were seperate chips-no FPU on the CPU...and cpu cache was an optional seperate card...this is just furthering what's been going on since the start of the industry. sure discrete grahpics perform better now for those that need them, but that gap will close with time and for most the reduced cost and power/heat savings are worth it now

 

[gh0st]

73% of x86 processors... why do all the cellphone/tablet fanboys have to use this as an excuse to compare to arm?

 

[fazers_on_stun]

It would be interesting if they would state the volume of sales instead of a percentage, so we can compare to other processors such as ARM which has sold 1.4 billion processors in 2011Q3 alone.

IIRC in 2010 there were something like 360+ million PCs sold (mobile, DT). Dunno about tablets or server.

 

[mortsmi7]

And yet "Q3 Graphics Shipments Up 16.7% Over Last Quarter". Guess there are a few people still not on-board with integrated graphics.

 

[ChromeTusk]

Well, yes, with a laptop having the integrated even if you also have dedicated can be an advantage for power savings when you don't want the graphics. But on a desktop, power savings aren't a huge concern, and switching graphics don't exist. Most i5 and i7 machines have dedicated graphics anyway (though for some reason there are lots of i5 oem machines without them).

For the individual user or single family home, you might not see the savings. However, businesses have to multiply the power usage from dozens, to hundreds, or higher. Also factor in the cost of each computer using an IGP versus a dedicated graphics card.

 

[marraco]

In other words, 73% of x86 processors waste transistors, energy, wafer yields, and cost more than necessary.

 

[eddieroolz]

Well considering most of Intel's line now has a graphics processor and nearly all of AMD's newer products have APUs, this is only natural.