paschal

March 09, 2009 at 7:03pm

I understand some of this diatribe. It makes plenty of sense with the increasing amount of video encoding going on to have a GPU that takes more and more of that process off of the CPU, hense many points for the Add in card to continue its progression so that we can process 100 gigs of video and continue to use our machine like nothing else was going on.

On the other hand it is like saying that the home server will go down the tubes just like wireless home networks. When you build a home FILE server, and I emphasize FILE, all of the hard video work should have been done before the file got there. And yes I know there are reasons to have high power video even on a server, but not for the mass market variety. As we grow the need for mass storage in the household, we are finding that thanks to articles like in Max PC, we can turn budget PC's into decent power home servers, and our only need for video is a decent video interface that performs well enough. So a micro ATX board that is reliable and gives video as well as a $40 video card and costs $60 out the door....should I buy a $200 video card for that server.....do not think so. All I need that server to do is direct the 1's and 0's to go from point a to point b or c or d. The $200 card is on the receiving PC.

Max PC made an excellant point demonstrating that old junker PC's headed for a landfill or a givaway to Grandma may have more horsepower than bright and shiny new stuff you can buy in the marketplace.

 Now I can't shut up without the Green factor statement. With some new equipment, hard drives, mobo etc you can go ground up and be very conservitive on power...... I read some numbers on what I am building but until I get the in line power sucker meter in line, I will not brag.

Nextel2010

March 07, 2009 at 8:48pm

GPU in the CPU is integrated graphics, any way you want to call it.  Suits me fine, since as other readers said, not everyone needs or wants the late$t hottest graphics card.  I've built many computers for people, and they are fine with integrated graphics.  In fact, they often are pleased with the cost savings.  Not one person has ever called me to complain that the graphics are slow, etc.  Now, if I know that person was going to be playing the latest games at max res, I would order components accordingly, including a fast video card (and bill according).  I don't see integrated graphics, either on the mb or embedded in the cpu, going away.

wk

March 07, 2009 at 11:56am

my latest purchased laptop contain Ati HD3200 IGP which is definitely not spectacular but at least it permits for some games to run smoothly (i.e. fifa 2009, call of duty 2 ...) and it yield 1200 score using 3D mark 06. that is definitely better than Intel integrated solutions.

MPC is my home page

Seana7a7

March 07, 2009 at 3:13am

The faster onboard graphics dies the better for everyone.

digital demon

March 06, 2009 at 10:48pm

I just talked my girl into installing Steam and buying World of Goo and watched her play it fine on her laptop with integrated graphics. As long as there are people that do nothing but surf the internet and play casual games, there will always be a market for those that don't need 800Mhz, 1 gig of DDR3 and 240 stream processors worth of graphics power.

jcollins

March 06, 2009 at 3:31pm

GPU on CPU isn't integrated?  They're idiots.  Jon Peddie Research obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

soccer1105

March 06, 2009 at 3:21pm

I hope that they're right...but I really think they're wrong.  I see IGPs becoming more and more popular.  Eventually, everyone except for the most extream gamers will be sporting integrated graphics. IMHO.