harna :
That was always going to be the danger for Intel as the AMD chips have more resources on board. Conversely IMO Intel has not worked hard enough on their graphics chips so the gulf could widen dramatically.
In my opinion, Intel has been pretty good at delivering integrated graphics performance. Intel's iGPU performance is behind AMD's iGPU performance. While I believe the performance gap will narrow, AMD will always be in the lead. After all, after that $5 billion acquisition of ATI (double of what ATI was worth), I would expect AMD to always be in the lead with regards to their iGPU because they can always borrow technologies from their discrete cards. Which is what they do anyway.
The HD 3000 graphics core is Intel's real attempt at providing good performance in an integrated solution. Sure it was not as powerful as AMD's Llano APU Radeon HD 6550D graphic core, but the Intel HD 3000 more or less breaks Intel's traditional focus on integrated graphic cores just for business use / multimedia. The fact that Intel HD 3000 more or less was able to equal the performance of the desktop Radeon HD 5450 is pretty impressive considering the performance (or lack thereof) of their previous graphic cores like the GMA 4500HD.
Based on the benchmarks in the following Anantech article, Intel has been able to step up their game (so to speak):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6332/amd-trinity-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-part-1/2
There are a total of 22 game benchmarks in that review. Based on those benchmarks the Radeon HD 6550D is on average 158.3% more powerful than the Intel HD 3000. That is a pretty large gap. When comparing the Intel HD 4000 to the Radeon HD 7660D, AMD still has no problems beating Intel. However, the performance gap has narrowed down to an average performance difference of 105%. Still a wide gap, but much better than before.
To put a different spin on the benchmarks... The performance increase going from the Radeon HD 6550D to the Radeon HD 7660D is on average 17.3%. The performance increase going from the Intel HD 3000 to the Intel HD 4000 is on average 35.5%.
It will be interesting to see how the upcoming iGPU from both AMD and Intel will perform. The speculation on Haswell's iGPU is anywhere from a 50% to 100% increase in performance compared to the Intel HD 4000. So far, I haven't heard of any speculations on Richland's iGPU performance. Naturally there will be a performance increase over the Radeon HD 7660D, but how much remains to be seen. Since the major improvements to Intel's Haswell CPU is lower power consumption and increased graphics performance, I think Intel will further decrease the iGPU performance between Haswell and Richland. However, overall AMD's iGPU will still hold the lead, by how much is the big mystery for now.
In the end the winner is not AMD or Intel. The winner is the average consumer who is looking for a reasonably priced laptop (because desktop gamers mostly rely on discrete graphic cards) and has decent integrated graphic capabilities so that they can at least play games at low resolution (1366 x 768) and hopefully medium quality graphics.