What is the point of integrated graphics???

[Tig2575]

A lot of the hubbub about Ivy Bridge has to do with how much better its integrated graphics core is than Sandy Bridge, and people often talk about how Haswell will handle graphics integration, especially in comparison to AMD's current line of "A"PU's.

I understand that integrated graphics might be nice if you're using a netbook or something, but what in the world is the point of it if you're using a desktop, the vast majority of which have a discrete graphics card? Ivy Bridge may be a godsend to notebooks, but Intel also produces CPU's for desktop computers, too! Why would any of us care about a miniscule GPU buried away in our processor, when we're never going to use it because we have our own dedicated graphics processor?

 

[mercer95]

Also on the new motherboards you can use on-board graphics and integrated graphics alongside your main gpu.

 

[dodger46]

Also on the new motherboards you can use on-board graphics and integrated graphics alongside your main gpu.

Like an SLi board?

 

[Chad Boga]

Having an IGP can be handy if you are waiting a few months for a particular video card to get released and you just want to do non-gaming tasks in the meantime.


Because I didn't have that option, I was "forced" to buy something that I didn't really want at the time, as I couldn't hold off on getting a new computer, so had to take the compromise choice on the GPU.

 

[niknovacain]

I am not 100% sure about this but correct me if I am wrong. If you have integrated graphics and a mobo with an hdmi port you can have 2 HDMI displays going for one card setups that only have 1 hdmi port. So, I am running a gtx 480 with 1 hdmi ports to my 27'' monitor. Then I can have another HDMI hooked to another 1080p full HD monitor for my second display connected via the mobo port.

Edit: Actually this doesn't make sense. I bet you can still hook up via the mobo hdmi even without integrated graphics?

 

[dodger46]

I am not 100% sure about this but correct me if I am wrong. If you have integrated graphics and a mobo with an hdmi port you can have 2 HDMI displays going for one card setups that only have 1 hdmi port. So, I am running a gtx 480 with 1 hdmi ports to my 27'' monitor. Then I can have another HDMI hooked to another 1080p full HD monitor for my second display connected via the mobo port.

Edit: Actually this doesn't make sense. I bet you can still hook up via the mobo hdmi even without integrated graphics?

I would expect you'd have to choose between IGP and discrete GPU in the BIOS, pretty cool if you could run two displays for different apps tho!

 

[DryCreamer]

Tig,

don't mean to be a troll, but you are wrong, the VAST majority of desktop computers use IPG, Intel alone has ~52% of the total market share in what people use for graphics cards, Nvidia has ~24% and AMD has ~22%. Intel has basically as much of the market for graphics cards as AMD and Nvidia combined, and not all of those AMD and Nvidia PCs are discreet cards as AMD is making piles of money selling their new in the CPU IGP solutions.

the proof is in the pudding:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Loses-Graphics-Market-Share-AMD-and-NVIDIA-Grow-181728.shtml

Dry

 

[DryCreamer]

^^^ and those numbers were from 2010, the numbers for '11 would probably show a growth for Intel and AMD.

Dry

 

[Tig2575]

Also on the new motherboards you can use on-board graphics and integrated graphics alongside your main gpu.

In what way?

Tig,

don't mean to be a troll, but you are wrong, the VAST majority of desktop computers use IPG, Intel alone has ~52% of the total market share in what people use for graphics cards, Nvidia has ~24% and AMD has ~22%. Intel has basically as much of the market for graphics cards as AMD and Nvidia combined, and not all of those AMD and Nvidia PCs are discreet cards as AMD is making piles of money selling their new in the CPU IGP solutions.

the proof is in the pudding:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Loses-Graphics-Market-Share-AMD-and-NVIDIA-Grow-181728.shtml

Dry

Thanks for the info, Dry - you can color me surprised

 

[IntelEnthusiast]

In the 9 years that I have been with Intel® the vast majority of systems that I have talked with people about have all used integrated graphics of one type or another. Heck even most of the computers that I have advised on for home users systems will use integrated graphics. The only time when to start to look at putting in a video card is when they are gamer or power some type of power users.
The Intel® HD 4000 graphics are powerful enough to provide even some of the gamers and power users enough performance to run their applications. So if you are a heavily gamer or someone who is doing heavily graphics work (i.e. video editing) then you might look at adding a video card but otherwise the on board graphics are good.


Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team

 

[mykebrian]

i think it's for the people who wants less power consumption

 

[jaguarskx]

The Intel HD 4000 simply raises the bar of integrated graphic core performance in laptops for those people who cannot afford or do not want to spend a lot of money on a discrete graphic card in order to play games. At around a 40% - 45% increase in performance compare the Intel HD 3000, that represents a pretty good step up for a basic graphic core.

However, it is still slower compared to the Radeon HD 6550D graphic core in AMD's Llano A8 series APUs. AMD's upcoming Trinity APU will likely be the CPU of choice for laptop gamers on a limited budget. I haven't really seen any benchmarks of the graphics core in Trinity, but I would guess the performance should be pretty decent.

The Radeon HD 6550D is overall a little slower than the desktop Radeon HD 5570 graphics card (about 90% of the HD 5570). Conservatively speaking, Trinity will probably have a 30% increase in performance. If that holds true, then the best Trinity graphics core will be about as powerful as a Radeon HD 4670 desktop graphics card (with DX11 support) which is roughly equal to 80% of a Radeon HD 5670's performance.

 

[Chad Boga]

If in the next year or two, IGP's can get to the level of a discrete HD5770, then I will really start to pay attention.

 

[DryCreamer]

Chad,

Saying the IGP will reach 5770, I don't know. if they are stilling going to be built into the CPU, how will they keep it cool? I mean, the GPU's have shrunk enough that they can fit on the same die, but...

Maybe the Intel guy up above can answer that.

Dry

 

[Chad Boga]

Chad,

Saying the IGP will reach 5770, I don't know. if they are stilling going to be built into the CPU, how will they keep it cool? I mean, the GPU's have shrunk enough that they can fit on the same die, but...

Maybe the Intel guy up above can answer that.

Dry

Obviously IGP's will eventually exceed the HD5770, but the relevant question to me is, are we talking one to two years or 5 years.

It seems that a lot of people get worked up about IGP performance that is hardly what I would want in a desktop anyway.

 

[WR2]

Trinity A10-5800K APU's IGP is going to be the Radeon HD 7660D.
We'll know in about 3 weeks just how close it sneaks up to the HD 5770.

 

[DryCreamer]

^^^ AMD needs to do something... if the APU's general computing ability is still less than Intel IPC, then what incentive would we have to not just buy an old Sandy Bridge dual core and a $60 (US) 5770 that is half the cost of a new A10?

sure the integrated solution will use less energy, but when you are crunching video files on PC, most end user consumers don't consider the energy use because its so short term, versus the upfront cost of the parts.

Dry

 

[Tig2575]

Best answer selected by Tig2575.