integrated graphics on cpus, for a gamer

[raknarius]

seems all cpus have integrated graphics now days, new kaveri is coming out next year with seemingly amazing integrated graphic performance. for a gamer though whos going to buy a 400 dollar dedicated graphics card, does it really matter, is it adding to my performance, is it worth waiting for, or is it completely useless and non relevant. If so, I notice some intel cpus might have it disabled, is it faster, cheaper or also pointless.

 

[FlyingHelmet-1373206]

iGPUs are useless when using a dedicated card

 

[rgd1101]

unless you are play 720p, yes it does.

 

[Supahos]

Honestly if you're going to throw a $400 gpu at it I might would consider building one on a Xeon processor instead of an I7, same general chip just without IGP enabled.

 

[jaguarskx]

Integrated graphic core (iGPU) for what it is and what it is capable of doing is not bad in general. However, it's a waste of time comparing their performance to anything greater than a $50 graphic card. Even a $50 graphics card will perform better than iGPUs.

The great thing about iGPU is it increases the baseline game performance of inexpensive laptops. This is especially true about Intel's iGPUs. Not because they are more powerful than what AMD has to offer, but because of how far Intel's "graphics solution" has advanced in just a few years. Intel has traditionally ignored graphics performance beyond what it suitable for an office environment with the GMA generation of iGPUs. But that changed when they released the Sandy Bridge generation of the Core i3/i5/i7 CPUs.