Hello,

The Intel Core i7-2700K has Intel HD graphics integrated in the CPU.

Since this is a high end processor, why are transistors of it being used up for mediocre graphics when one would normally get a proper graphics card for a high end system?

If you have an NVidia graphics card installed, do the Intel HD graphics in the CPU still do anything?

Thanks.

Since this is a high end processor, why are transistors of it being used up for mediocre graphics when one would normally get a proper graphics card for a high end system?

Not everyone is building a gaming rig. For a high-end non-gaming desktop, it's nice not to have to shell out for a discrete GPU, as well as the space and heat that discrete GPUs entail.

If you have an NVidia graphics card installed, do the Intel HD graphics in the CPU still do anything?[/quote]
Not much. It may be able to assist on CUDA tasks, but I don't know if the drivers actually enable that.

Not everyone is building a gaming rig. For a high-end non-gaming desktop, it's nice not to have to shell out for a discrete GPU, as well as the space and heat that discrete GPUs entail.

Definitely useful for laptops too, where discreet GPUs both generally suck and increase the cost of the laptop significantly.

Since this is a high end processor, why are transistors of it being used up for mediocre graphics when one would normally get a proper graphics card for a high end system?
If you have an NVidia graphics card installed, do the Intel HD graphics in the CPU still do anything?

Because integrated transistors are so cheap it's ok to have a low power adapter. Power savings are also interesting.
I'd be extremely surprised if some application could use both integrated and discrete at the same time. QuickSync gets disabled BTW - perhaps this has been fixed?

Since this is a high end processor, why are transistors of it being used up for mediocre graphics when one would normally get a proper graphics card for a high end system?

90% of CPU surface is cache. Might as well throw in some GPU and stuff, doesn't really change much.

Most motherboards come with GPU anyway, or at least offer a GPU model. For majority of users that is all that's needed.

When it comes to Intel it's a strategic move. Since AMD/ATI partnership, their push into mobile, the laptop market etc. it's a way to erode AMD's GPU market through OEM deals.

i7 are also used for heavy workloads other than gaming. If anything, the i5 is faster than i7 in just about every gaming benchmark. And such rigs typically do not have specialized GPU, but can still benefit from having at least basic graphics pipeline (Flash, IE, video playback, DX/OGL-based blit acceleration, ...).


Overall, Intel's graphics line is a big series of failures. For some reason they just can't get anything competitive done, so they probably shove what they have this way. Also, they have 70%+ market share when it comes to GPUs. So they know what market needs.

Also todays intel onboard gfx are prolly as good as yesterdards nvidia/amd cards

my onboard intel GFX, certainly feels as fast as my last GFX card (nvidia GF - 9500 IIRC)

If anything, the i5 is faster than i7 in just about every gaming benchmark.

The i7 has more clock speed and more L2 cache than the i5, and both have the GPU (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge). How can the i5 be faster for gaming?

I meant L3 cache (there's no button to edit posts anymore on GDNet??).

[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1326472468' post='4902380']
If anything, the i5 is faster than i7 in just about every gaming benchmark.

The i7 has more clock speed and more L2 cache than the i5, and both have the GPU (according to http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sandy_Bridge). How can the i5 be faster for gaming?
[/quote]

I don't know, but benchmarks have been out for a while. Compare 2500k vs. 2600k, i5 gets a frame or two more in almost every test.

The chromium build benchmark is completely different, with i7 being almost twice as fast as i5.

Games tend to be quite poor at effective CPU utilization.

[quote name='Lode' timestamp='1326718750' post='4903211']
[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1326472468' post='4902380']
If anything, the i5 is faster than i7 in just about every gaming benchmark.

The i7 has more clock speed and more L2 cache than the i5, and both have the GPU (according to http://en.wikipedia....ki/Sandy_Bridge). How can the i5 be faster for gaming?
[/quote]

I don't know, but benchmarks have been out for a while. Compare 2500k vs. 2600k, i5 gets a frame or two more in almost every test.

The chromium build benchmark is completely different, with i7 being almost twice as fast as i5.

Games tend to be quite poor at effective CPU utilization.
[/quote]
Yeah for games there is little difference now with the latest i7 and i5's it seems:
Our tests demonstrate fairly little difference between a $225 LGA 1155 Core i5-2500K and a $1000 LGA 2011 Core i7-3960X,

Getting back on topic I think this reflects my opinion on integrating graphics into the cpu:
NVIDIA (myself included) is unimpressed, saying that “Sandy Bridge” is a “turboprop in an age of jet engines.”

p.s. AFAIK Windows 7 only supports one or the other so either you go with Nvidia or Intel graphics do to unstabilities of hybrid video?
Makes sense since even with SLI you need identical video cards to get them to play together nicely!