Report: Integrated Graphics Living on Borrowed Time
Posted 03/06/09 at 04:30:08 PM by Paul Lilly
Integrated graphics has run its course and will soon become virtually extinct, according to a new report by Jon Peddie Research (JPR). The prediction? In just four years time, IGPs won't even make up 1 percent of all GPUs shipped.
That's in stark contrast to 2008, in which integrated graphics accounted for 67 percent of all graphics chips shipped. But JPR sees IGPs stronghold weakening to just 20 percent by 2011, resulting in a significant gains for both the discrete GPU market and emerging CPU+GPU technologies.
If JPR is correct, it will be interesting to see how Intel fares in an IGP-less world. The No. 1 CPU chip maker also accounts for roughly half of all desktop and notebook graphics, a position made possible due to the demand for IGP chipsets. Both Intel and AMD (Fusion) are working on CPUs with embedded graphics, which JPR believes will be a strong segment starting sometime between 2010 and 2012. For Intel's part, the company thinks it will be ready to serve the desktop (Clarkdale) and notebook (Arrandale) markets with CPUs with embedded graphics cores by the end this year, and AMD's Fusion is expected sometime in 2011.
A joke and not a joke
Submitted by paschal on Mon, 03/09/2009 - 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 $200 card is on the receiving PC.
Max PC made an excellant point demonstrating that old junker PC's headed for a landfill or a givaway to Grandma may have more horsepower than bright and shiny new stuff you can buy in the marketplace.
Now I can't shut up without the Green factor statement. With some new equipment, hard drives, mobo etc you can go ground up and be very conservitive on power...... I read some numbers on what I am building but until I get the in line power sucker meter in line, I will not brag.
Integrated Graphics
Submitted by Nextel2010 on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 8:48pm
GPU in the CPU is integrated graphics, any way you want to call it. Suits me fine, since as other readers said, not everyone needs or wants the late$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.
May be not
Submitted by wk on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 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
Die a Painfull Death
Submitted by Seana7a7 on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 3:13am
The faster onboard graphics dies the better for everyone.
Why?
Submitted by MeTo on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 5:16am
You must be a nVidia fan boy. 75% of the computers have onboard graphics and they work fine for what the computer was ment to be used for. The only time home users need a video card is to play 3D games and there looseing ground to the console games so we don't realy need video cards in our PC.
console retard! Games are
Submitted by sasquatch42 on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 8:05am
console retard!
Games are always better on the PC
I say no
Submitted by digital demon on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 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.
GPU on CPU isn't
Submitted by jcollins on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 3:31pm
GPU on CPU isn't integrated? They're idiots. Jon Peddie Research obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.
I don't think so
Submitted by soccer1105 on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 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.
Only If
Submitted by XSV DBLs on Fri, 03/06/2009 - 8:20pm
Only if chip manufacturers would stop making crappy IGPs. Plus there are a lot of applications for independent graphics processors other than gaming.
Only Intel makes truly
Submitted by sasquatch42 on Sat, 03/07/2009 - 8:08am
Only Intel makes truly crappy graphics, both the HD3200 and the 9400M are decent IGP's for doing anything more than email and less than "real" gaming
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature






