Lets go against the flow: the latest intel graphics are a big deal. Why? ... They allow people like me to play their minecraft and civilization, without shelling out for a discrete GPU. Why do you care? Well, casual gamers ...

Casual users are turning more and more to laptop desktop replacements, and the new intel chips at least make it a market that's accessible to developers rather than one that has to be ignored because it's just not compatible with anything.

Speaking about casual users... maybe the recession is really bad here where I live but no casual user I'm in contact with has sufficient budget to afford a Core. After Bulldozer was launched (fail, sure), first-gen Core i3 550 is now in budget but seriously... intel processors... for casual users?

Speaking about casual users... maybe the recession is really bad here where I live but no casual user I'm in contact with has sufficient budget to afford a Core. After Bulldozer was launched (fail, sure), first-gen Core i3 550 is now in budget but seriously... intel processors... for casual users?

To get a cheap desktop PC here, I'd probably use the Dell website. When I use their site and answer "How fast does it need to be?" with "Normal - everyday use" (the lowest option), they suggest me a desktop sporting an Intel SandyBridge CPU (worth US$75 by itself) which provides "Intel HD Graphics" built in, for a total build cost of ~$700.
For comparison - my gaming PC cost me $2000 and my netbook cost me $700, so I'd view a $700 desktop PC as being quite cheap.

So, going by this, Intel HD Graphics seem set to be a standard feature in most new desktops, even low-end ones -- and I'd start assuming that "casual users" buying PC's from now onwards will have access to (slow) GL2.1/DX10 functionality out of the box, with the minimum amount of performance being comparable to a PS3's GPU.

So, going by this, Intel HD Graphics seem set to be a standard feature in most new desktops, even low-end ones.

Maybe desktops but definitely not laptops. I just had some relatives show me their brand new laptops and ask me if they were good enough to play COD3 MW3. They assumed they would be since this was a "new" laptop (besides their old PS3 can and it didn't cost them anything over $700) but sadly I had to dissapoint them and explain why NO you won't be able to play any game like that

Maybe desktops but definitely not laptops.

Again, using the Dell website, I looked for their cheapest laptop and was suggested a $500 machine with a SandyBridge CPU providing Intel HD Graphics... So yes, laptops too.

BTW, COD3 didn't even come out on PC

[quote name='Eelco' timestamp='1326722473' post='4903230']
Lets go against the flow: the latest intel graphics are a big deal. Why? ... They allow people like me to play their minecraft and civilization, without shelling out for a discrete GPU. Why do you care? Well, casual gamers ...

Casual users are turning more and more to laptop desktop replacements, and the new intel chips at least make it a market that's accessible to developers rather than one that has to be ignored because it's just not compatible with anything.

Speaking about casual users... maybe the recession is really bad here where I live but no casual user I'm in contact with has sufficient budget to afford a Core. After Bulldozer was launched (fail, sure), first-gen Core i3 550 is now in budget but seriously... intel processors... for casual users?
[/quote]
The bang per buck of the sandy bridge (2500K) is on par with AMD's best value offering.

But either way; 'casual gamer' and 'casual users' are different things. Im a casual gamer, but a hardcore user. Most of the market is willing to pay extra for a faster CPU (even though they dont realize they had better spend their money on an SSD, but anyway), and only a relatively small fraction of the market is willing to spend on a GPU.

Speaking about casual users... maybe the recession is really bad here where I live but no casual user I'm in contact with has sufficient budget to afford a Core. After Bulldozer was launched (fail, sure), first-gen Core i3 550 is now in budget but seriously... intel processors... for casual users?

What do you think casual users would use? Abacuses?

The bang per buck of the [216 USD] sandy bridge (2500K) is on par with AMD's best value offering.

Also note you can get a low-end sandy bridge chip for as low as 37USD -- this isn't a feature that's constrained to the high-end gamer-oriented chips only.

Like others, I've seen it on quite a few everyday laptops, and on all PCs that use Intel stuff.

A few years back my sister was surprised when her budget laptop (about $350) could play modern games; it had an HD3000 chip in it. When she found out she could play The Sims 3 on her laptop, and that it looked beautiful, it became her big time sink.

I bought my kids a cheap PC with integrated Intel HD graphics for under $500 for the entire setup, and they are playing games including SW:TOR at a reasonable graphics quality.


Again, the Intel HD graphics chipsets that have been out since about 2004 are very cheap, ubiquitous, and very good for our industry as it enables casual players to experience games they never could without it.

I am always very surprised of finding out how different the US IT landscape is.
The price ranges are very different here.
I keep my doubts anyway...

Again, the Intel HD graphics chipsets that have been out since about 2004 are very cheap, ubiquitous, and very good for our industry as it enables casual players to experience games they never could without it.

I agree that low end chipsets are a useful thing for many people, and good enough for most purposes, though I would add that this isn't just about "Intel HD" - the same is true (to a less extent) for Intels other chipsets (e.g., GMA), and both NVIDIA and AMD have low end chipsets.