Any Intel CPU without their iGPU?

ksec

Senior member
Mar 5, 2010
340
1
91
#1
This just pop into my head, because I don't see a Intel CPU, at least on Mobile and Desktop, that is CPU only. The only CPU only Chip are Xeon D / E5, which is workstation / Server.

So are we now all forced to buy and paid for the iGPU which represent I guess 50% of the die space?

I am getting a little fed up with Apple using too much iGPU and not discreet. May be / I hope AMD Zen will bring back this to be market.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
1
106
#2
It's called the Intel tax. Every PC gamer with a new i7 pays an Intel tax by buying $150+ worth of transistors they will never use. If you you wish to avoid the Intel tax, then you have to go with the HEDT platform, which ironically is also $150+ more expensive for the platform. So you're still paying the Intel tax. They do it.... because they can. Just be happy they dont raise the tax to $200 next year.
 
Mar 10, 2004
27,986
107
126
#3
If you have an 1150 socket board or earlier, you can generally buy the cheaper Xeon chips and use them.

Such as an E3-1231-V3 socket 1150 chip. I use one in a Z-97A board. Basically an i7-4770 for $50 less.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117316

It's only with Skylake that Intel separated the two, I think.

Even then, some MFGs have made desktop boards that will take a Skylake Xeon.

You can put this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117613

In here
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/E3-PRO-GAMING-V5/

And game away.
 
Oct 10, 1999
11,915
0
76
#5
This just pop into my head, because I don't see a Intel CPU, at least on Mobile and Desktop, that is CPU only. The only CPU only Chip are Xeon D / E5, which is workstation / Server.

So are we now all forced to buy and paid for the iGPU which represent I guess 50% of the die space?

I am getting a little fed up with Apple using too much iGPU and not discreet. May be / I hope AMD Zen will bring back this to be market.
It's great for Apple since they keep profits higher. And most people don't really care. They care more about battery life than gaming on a limited gaming library.

Zen won't do anything with regard to this because Apple won't use AMD CPUs.
 

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
14,177
129
55
#6
Intel makes two desktop chips (excluding Atoms): the two-core with iGPU, and the four-core with iGPU. That's it. The Xeons without iGPU just have it fused off.
 

freeskier93

Senior member
Apr 17, 2015
486
0
51
#7
If you have an 1150 socket board or earlier, you can generally buy the cheaper Xeon chips and use them.

Such as an E3-1231-V3 socket 1150 chip. I use one in a Z-97A board. Basically an i7-4770 for $50 less.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117316

It's only with Skylake that Intel separated the two, I think.

Even then, some MFGs have made desktop boards that will take a Skylake Xeon.

You can put this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117613

In here
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/E3-PRO-GAMING-V5/

And game away.
Wonder if anyone has done a performance comparison between the 1231 v3 and 1230 v5. Both have the same frequency, TDP, cache size, etc. Wonder if the $50-$100 more you'll pay (between CPU and motherboard) for the 1230 v5 is worth it.
 

zir_blazer

Senior member
Jun 6, 2013
866
0
81
#8
It's called the Intel tax. Every PC gamer with a new i7 pays an Intel tax by buying $150+ worth of transistors they will never use. If you you wish to avoid the Intel tax, then you have to go with the HEDT platform, which ironically is also $150+ more expensive for the platform. So you're still paying the Intel tax. They do it.... because they can. Just be happy they dont raise the tax to $200 next year.
The IGP being a "Intel tax"? You are completely wrong.

Intel at some points provided Processor models with no IGP disabled (If its physically there or not is irrelevant, is not a feature anymore), including a K Series Processor. What was the price difference between the model with IGP (Core i5 2500K, Xeon E3 1240V3, Xeon E3 1240V5) vs the model without (Core i5 2550K, Xeon E3 1245V3 and Xeon E3 1245V5, respectively)? Around 10-20 U$D. So, you are getting half of the Processor die for 10% of the total Processor cost, and is a no brainer when you come to think about modern Intel IGPs capabilities.
I would think that anyone that is stubborn about not wanting the IGP, doesn't really have an idea about how useful it can really be. Current PC gaming trends includes streaming and the Intel IGPs actually kick arse there thanks to QuickSync, since you aren't spending CPU or discrete GPU resources to use it.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,387
40
126
#9
Yea, there is hardly a 150.00 tax for the igpu. Just because it uses half (depending on model) or so of the die space doesn't mean it doubles the price of the processor.

Edit: the problem I see with the igpu is that even after all this work, I dont think the Intel igpu is particularly efficient, considering all the die space they devote to it, and even with edram it still barely beats low end discrete.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2004
27,986
107
126
#10
Wonder if anyone has done a performance comparison between the 1231 v3 and 1230 v5. Both have the same frequency, TDP, cache size, etc. Wonder if the $50-$100 more you'll pay (between CPU and motherboard) for the 1230 v5 is worth it.

Just a note that with the 1231-V3 I was able to set the multi to 38 with the Z97-A board. It ran just fine under heavy loads with all 4 cores at 3.8ghz.

So the Xeon did overclock to it's turbo multiplier.

In fact, all of the locked Haswell chips will do that.

A 4790S will happily run heavy loads with 4 cores at 4ghz, for example.
 
Last edited:

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
5,735
68
126
#11
So are we now all forced to buy and paid for the iGPU which represent I guess 50% of the die space?
Let's not go there. I mean thinking there's a "conspiracy" of some sort. Silicon itself is also very cheap compared to the final selling price.

Also, 90%+ of the consumers opt for iGPU. So they are actually paying for the development of the iGPU.

Imagine if Intel did not have an iGPU. They'd lose substantial marketshare to AMD.
 
Mar 10, 2004
27,986
107
126
#12
I love the igp as a spare or second video card. It's good for testing purposes, or to get you by if your dgp dies on you.

Now with DX12, we may get some more use out of it.
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,529
2
106
#13
Going to repeat what many others have said, but, actually manufacturing cost of a CPU is a very small percentage of the total cost. Doubling the size of the die adds very little to the total cost of the CPU. Intel's pricing structure is not based on how much it costs to build every chip they make, otherwise a desktop Celeron and mobile i7u would cost the same, since they're the same chip.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,176
1
106
#14
The IGP being a "Intel tax"? You are completely wrong.

Intel at some points provided Processor models with no IGP disabled (If its physically there or not is irrelevant, is not a feature anymore),
It's not irrelevant. Intel makes CPUs by the millions. The added cost of all those quadrillions of useless IGP transistors is spread out across all SKUs. Even when the IGP is fused off, you are still paying for it just as surely as you are paying for a portion of their R&D in every chip you buy.
 

Sheep221

Golden Member
Oct 28, 2012
1,844
0
81
#15
It's not irrelevant. Intel makes CPUs by the millions. The added cost of all those quadrillions of useless IGP transistors is spread out across all SKUs. Even when the IGP is fused off, you are still paying for it just as surely as you are paying for a portion of their R&D in every chip you buy.
Before IGPs, CPUs cost about the same per unit, IGP is awesome, because no need for bad motherboard IGPs or discrete cards where they are not needed. IGP comes at no cost initially and during using it adds probably just few watts of draw to rest of the CPU. While my main rig has no IGP, I do use it in all other rigs, it's the best invention ever and if you are not gaming hardcore, it's nobrainer to have one. I'm glad that every CPU by now has it.
 

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,632
0
91
#16
5820K is what you want.
 
Nov 20, 2005
14,609
0
126
#18
is a no brainer when you come to think about modern Intel IGPs capabilities.
The only capability I care about on an Intel IGP is the capability to not use it. They are worthless for modern AAA games.
 

Yuriman

Diamond Member
Jun 25, 2004
5,529
2
106
#19
Am I correct in thinking that Intel has some difficulty filling their fabs' capacity? It's not like needing more wafers to make a given number of CPUs is displacing other products, and the fabs have certain fixed costs that don't change with utilization.
 

Deders

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2012
2,402
0
91
#20
IGP does come in useful if you want to sell your GPU ahead of a new release, or if you are truobleshooting/RMAing your GPU.

There is also Quicksync for those who use it.
 

zir_blazer

Senior member
Jun 6, 2013
866
0
81
#21
It's not irrelevant. Intel makes CPUs by the millions. The added cost of all those quadrillions of useless IGP transistors is spread out across all SKUs. Even when the IGP is fused off, you are still paying for it just as surely as you are paying for a portion of their R&D in every chip you buy.
Indeed, they make millions of CPUs. How many of them do you think that are going to be used with a discrete GPU? The IGPs have utterly destroyed the entry level discrete GPUs, the only people that needs a discrete GPU now are the ones that actually uses it, since mainstream use cases are fully covered by the IGP. The gaming crowd is a minority of the PC users, and are not worth to develop and validate a new die with no IGP. You are in a sinking market, deal with that.
And as I stated before, Intel charges you 10-20 U$D for the IGP if you compare equivalent models with and without (Mainly Xeons, but there were Core iX examples). The IGP is actually cheaper than the stupid Unlocked Multiplier from K series Processors, which Intel usually charges you 30 U$D for, more if you add the required Z Chipset cost, and doesn't even require any R&D cost to capitalize.



The only capability I care about on an Intel IGP is the capability to not use it. They are worthless for modern AAA games.
I can't take seriously comments for people that talks about gaming and don't even consider those use cases where the IGP QuickSync does wonders to encode on the fly while recording gameplay or streaming, something that many modern gamers do.
If you don't like the Intel IGP, go into BIOS and disable it. If you don't want to have the IGP at all, buy the HEDT platform instead. The Xeon E5 1620-V3 is nearly equivalent to a Core i7 4790/6700 and cost around the same.
If you dislike that there are wasted transistors, you may as well rant a bit about how the GPUs evolved from fixed function devices to a GPGPU that can do compute and a lot of other things that are worthless for modern AAA games too. Or the Video Encode/Decode engines that the GPU have, for that matter.
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,805
1
91
#22
No sense whining about something smaller than a fingernail that nobody forces you to use.
 
Aug 25, 2001
42,427
208
126
#23
Did anyone mention the Sandy Bridge 2550P CPU? It didn't have an (active) iGPU, it was fused off like the Xeons were.
 

Zodiark1593

Platinum Member
Oct 21, 2012
2,232
0
76
#24
Even though they're far less powerful, modern iGPUs can actually pull their (admittedly light) weight for less demanding games nowadays. The same cannot at all be said for the old GMA series that struggled to run low settings on even old games. The Radeon 5450 demolished the GMA 4500 HD several times over by comparison.

Also, while I would certainly not use it for archiving blu ray rips (right tool for the job and all that) it is certainly a godsend for streaming and for Final Cut users, video editing. Nice to be able to hit record and not lose half your framerate.
 
Last edited:
Aug 25, 2001
42,427
208
126
#25
Even though they're far less powerful, modern iGPUs can actually pull their (admittedly light) weight for less demanding games nowadays. The same cannot at all be said for the old GMA series that struggled to run low settings on even old games. The Radeon 5450 demolished the GMA 4500 HD several times over by comparison.
I even played PSX emulators on my AMD 780G chipset IGP. Which is, I think, around or slower than a 5450.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY