March, 2013
Intel integrated graphics
I was amazed and surprised when I began reading about the i5-2500K to discover
that Intel was putting a graphics processor in the CPU chip.
It was further amazed to see how much chip real estate was being devoted to the IGP.
And I was further amazed to discover that the on chip graphics was entirely adquate
for my needs and I could avoid buying or installing a video card.
Your mileage may differ.
Gamers and "enthusiasts" have always turned up their noses at graphics chips built into
motherboards, and apparently continue to do so with graphics built into the processor.
They may have good reason, I simply don't know since I am not a gamer by any stretch
of the imagination.
The on chip graphics (at least the 3000 and 4000 processors) support "multi head"
monitor setups (if the motherboard provides connections for the monitors).
History
As near as I can tell, integration of graphics on the processor chip began with the i3
chip which contained either the Intel "HD graphics 2000" or 2500 processor.
The i5 chip contains the 3000 processor, and the i7 chip contains the 4000 processor.
The question that burns in my mind is, "Why is Intel doing this?". I have yet to
find any explanation of their rationale, but here are some possibilities, derived only
from my own speculations:
- Intel can put more transistors on a die than they know what to do with.
They feel that more than 4 processor cores are wasted and that a graphics processor
will be more useful and sell more chips than additional cores.
- A different spin on the above: Most systems make little if any use of multiple
cores, but will certainly make use of a graphics processor. An integrated graphics
processor gives customers what they need and want.
- Nvidia is an up and coming competitor, and their meat and potatoes is selling
graphics chips. An integrated graphics solution will cut into their profits and
keep them from competing with Intel in the CPU arena.
- AMD is doing integrated graphics, so Intel had better be also.
Conclusions
I find it easy to embrace the idea that an integrated GPU serves the needs of the customers
well. I find the on-chip graphics well suited to my needs and I imagine that it suits
the needs of most office environment computers quite well. And I suspect that this is
a far greater segment of the market than enthusiasts and gamers, but I don't have hard
numbers. I like the ability to build a system without a power hungry and heat generating
graphics card. I wonder just what the thermal implications are of the graphics processor
competing with the processor cores for heat dissipation.
Have any comments? Questions?
Drop me a line!