I would like to flip Intel the bird, a la Linus flipping off NVidia

[2timer]

Seriously Intel, seriously? The market segmentation on your HD Graphics is appalling. For HD Graphics 3000, I have to spend $120, and that's just the beginning.

It's a shame that you can't even put mid level HD Graphics on a Pentium processor. And I can't think of any reason for that, except pure greed.

My guess is that, if past experience is any guide, with Haswell GT2 graphics will only be available at $125. And for that Intel, f*** you. AMD is getting my business from now on.

 

[dud]

Watch out ... the Intel fanboys won't take this well ...

 

[colonelciller]

/popcorn

btw OP, I agree with the sentiment

 

[Dark Shroud]

I love my Core i7 system, but when ever I build a low end system for someone I go AMD APU now. You can't beat the cost & performance they give to people.

It does irritate me to no end that Intel hasn't made the HD 3000 minimum for their i3s at least.

 

[Exophase]

It's not like AMD puts their best IGPs in their cheapest APUs either. The HD 7480D in the super cheap A4-5300 is substantially worse than the HD 7660D in the more expensive APUs, which start at $129 (on Newegg anyway).

Don't know why you're looking at Sandy Bridge-based CPUs either, Pentiums and Celerons switched to IB a while ago. Unfortunately since ark just says "HD Graphics" I don't know how it compares with HD 2500 or HD 4000 and no one really wants to review this. I'm struggling to find reviews for it, or even the lower end Trinity chips for that matter. Chances are neither Intel nor AMD send out review samples for these..

 

[2timer]

I love my Core i7 system, but when ever I build a low end system for someone I go AMD APU now. You can't beat the cost & performance they give to people.

It does irritate me to no end that Intel hasn't made the HD 3000 minimum for their i3s at least.

I'm right there with you. It amazes me that Intel doesn't even offer HD Graphics 3000 across the i3s.

Remember, HD 3000 is mid level - not the "premium."

I guess we'll be hearing the "But Intel has to recoup it's R&D costs somehow" refrain shortly. And that's true. I have no problems paying top dollars for premium products. Except that HD Graphics is kind of mediocre. To me it's ridiculous to be this stingy.

 

[amenx]

I have no problems paying top dollars for premium products. Except that HD Graphics is kind of mediocre. To me it's ridiculous to be this stingy.

Buy a lower end GPU ($80 for HD6670) and forget about HD graphics.

 

[ALIVE]

Buy a lower end GPU ($80 for HD6670) and forget about HD graphics.

the fun with igpu
you get the best igpu with the best cpu!?!?!?!!? why????
aparently that person can afford a gpu even the cheapest one that will blow away the igpu

the person who has few money and wants an apu
is stuck with a loosy igpu with driver problems display problems yeap
artifacts in some games

so intel is throwing people to go to amd period

 

[svenge]

I assume the OP is actually ranting about the segmentation of Ivy Bridge's HD 4000 graphics, not Sandy Bridge's 3000.

Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see what Intel does with Haswell. All the leaks to date indicate that all desktop i5/i7 models will get HD 4600 / "GT2" graphics with 20 EUs, which is an improvement over restricting Ivy's 4000 (16 EU) to the i7 line, 3570K and 3225. Perhaps Intel will offer GT2 on all the Haswell i3 chips as well.

 

[stlc8tr]

It's a shame that you can't even put mid level HD Graphics on a Pentium processor. And I can't think of any reason for that, except pure greed.

A business trying to make money? How dare they?

 

[bgt]

/popcorn

:biggrin:

PS, the picture quality of the A4-5300 APU is much better then the 3000/4000IGP. 1080P is no problem at all. I have a i3-3225 HTPC & A4-5300 HTPC so I can compare.

 

[colonelciller]

A business trying to make money? How dare they?

replace "business" with "monopoly"

...there's the rub

 

[colonelciller]

...and I promised myself I'd stay out of this one. :/
ok I'm officially back on spectating and popcorn duty

 

[grimpr]

I'm right there with you. It amazes me that Intel doesn't even offer HD Graphics 3000 across the i3s.

Remember, HD 3000 is mid level - not the "premium."

I guess we'll be hearing the "But Intel has to recoup it's R&D costs somehow" refrain shortly. And that's true. I have no problems paying top dollars for premium products. Except that HD Graphics is kind of mediocre. To me it's ridiculous to be this stingy.

And thats the plain vanilla truth, they suck compared to radeon and they stink drivers wise compared to catalyst and they have the nerve to charge a premium for it thinking that suckers would buy them since its Intel branded. Lols goes on and on.

 

[Sleepingforest]

Intel is definitely playing as a monopoly. However, in terms of price/performance, you can get a Pentium G860 for $68, and a GTS 640 for $90. You'd pay $158 total--roughly $30 more than the $130 A10 5800K Trinity, which makes for a 21.5% increase in price.

If you look at Anandtech's comparison, you see that it's a roughly 19-25% performance increase, in terms of frames per second in games, over an A10 as a combo (the single threaded performance of a Pentium G860 and an A10 is roughly equal).

So you do get what you pay for in terms of gaming performance, at least at these budget levels. I'll admit, however that the extra cores and overclocking ability of the A10 do make it a more compelling buy for most uses over the Intel + dGPU combo.

 

[Pilum]

:biggrin:

PS, the picture quality of the A4-5300 APU is much better then the 3000/4000IGP. 1080P is no problem at all. I have a i3-3225 HTPC & A4-5300 HTPC so I can compare.

Where is 1080p a problem on IVB Pentiums? I just set up a G2020 machine on a 1080 monitor and noticed no such thing. Good movie quality, good gaming quality (given the GPUs limitations). It might be useful if you could provide screenshots to prove the quality differences.

 

[escrow4]

If you want to game - and I mean really game - get a dedicated GPU and an i5.*

If you don't want to game get any basic Intel CPU, even a Celeron for a basic box.

If you want a workstation, you probably want CUDA, so you go Nvidia anyway, or for basic video encoding, a quad is fine. GPU acceleration isn't exactly required and the quality compared to software encoding is pretty poor.

If you go AMD you are stuck with crappy CPU performance comparative to Intel but a decent iGPU, trade off for me isn't worth it. You use a PC nearly every day, the Intel $$$ difference will pay itself off in the long run.

As to the whole HD 2500 vs 4000, neither are that good for gaming anyway. Get a dedicated card.*

* By dedicated card I mean something decent, like a 7850 1GB minimum.

By all means buy AMD and a comprised chip. You are a tiny minority that doesn't really affect Intel anyway.

 

[Idontcare]

And I can't think of any reason for that, except pure greed.

Except pure greed? What other motivation do you think there is, for either AMD or Intel?

You think AMD puts its APU's together and sells them at the pricepoint they do for any reason other than "pure greed"? Its just that you find AMD's "pure greed" pricing easier on the wallet and thus easier to overlook the principle of the matter that it is priced for pure greed no differently than Intel's.

As a shareholder I sure hope they have no other motivation on their minds

If I wanted to invest in UNICEF then I would, but I didn't and I don't want neither Intel nor AMD forgetting they are a business and not a charity.

 

[2timer]

I assume the OP is actually ranting about the segmentation of Ivy Bridge's HD 4000 graphics, not Sandy Bridge's 3000.

Yes, you are correct. The SKU terminology with Sandy Bridge was different. There, the "mid-range offering" was HD Graphics 2000, and Intel did offer that on all the i3 models. So I can't find any fault with that.

How many Sandy Bridge Pentiums had HD 2000? Zero. Point is, Intel's market segmentation is still hyper exclusive.

Anyhow, it'll be interesting to see what Intel does with Haswell. All the leaks to date indicate that all desktop i5/i7 models will get HD 4600 / "GT2" graphics with 20 EUs, which is an improvement over restricting Ivy's 4000 (16 EU) to the i7 line, 3570K and 3225. Perhaps Intel will offer GT2 on all the Haswell i3 chips as well.

Thank you for that clarification.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Sounds like some of you guys here want to see AMD go belly up.

 

[2timer]

Except pure greed? What other motivation do you think there is, for either AMD or Intel?

You think AMD puts its APU's together and sells them at the pricepoint they do for any reason other than "pure greed"? Its just that you find AMD's "pure greed" pricing easier on the wallet and thus easier to overlook the principle of the matter that it is priced for pure greed no differently than Intel's.

As a shareholder I sure hope they have no other motivation on their minds

If I wanted to invest in UNICEF then I would, but I didn't and I don't want neither Intel nor AMD forgetting they are a business and not a charity.

Fair enough. I still disagree with you though.

What other reason could Intel offer a wider range of IGP SKUs, you ask? How about "customer satisfaction"? Doesn't customer satisfaction play any role in Intel's market offerings? Or is this 100% Intel's world, and we just live in it?

Look at me. I'm just a tiny, tiny niche compared to Intel's total market, but I'm sure there are a few others like me. Couldn't Intel at least throw us guys a bone and market ONE Pentium processor with the mid-level IGP? That might make a lot of people happy. And I'm sure they would get more business by throwing the niche market a tiny bone.

 

[Centauri]

Sounds like some of you guys here want to see AMD go belly up.

Funny, since you post pretty much exclusively to slam AMD in fanboy threads,

 

[2timer]

If you want to game - and I mean really game - get a dedicated GPU and an i5.*

If you don't want to game get any basic Intel CPU, even a Celeron for a basic box.

If you want a workstation, you probably want CUDA, so you go Nvidia anyway, or for basic video encoding, a quad is fine. GPU acceleration isn't exactly required and the quality compared to software encoding is pretty poor.

If you go AMD you are stuck with crappy CPU performance comparative to Intel but a decent iGPU, trade off for me isn't worth it. You use a PC nearly every day, the Intel $$$ difference will pay itself off in the long run.

As to the whole HD 2500 vs 4000, neither are that good for gaming anyway. Get a dedicated card.*

* By dedicated card I mean something decent, like a 7850 1GB minimum.

By all means buy AMD and a comprised chip. You are a tiny minority that doesn't really affect Intel anyway.

Sorry I keep post spamming here, but thank you. I *am* a "tiny minority" - in fact I may be the only one on the thread. I want low to average CPU performance with a solid IGP. Lol. AMD gives me that, Intel *almost* does but not quite.

 

[Ajay]

Except pure greed? What other motivation do you think there is, for either AMD or Intel?

You think AMD puts its APU's together and sells them at the pricepoint they do for any reason other than "pure greed"? Its just that you find AMD's "pure greed" pricing easier on the wallet and thus easier to overlook the principle of the matter that it is priced for pure greed no differently than Intel's.

As a shareholder I sure hope they have no other motivation on their minds

If I wanted to invest in UNICEF then I would, but I didn't and I don't want neither Intel nor AMD forgetting they are a business and not a charity.

LOLZ!

 

[Idontcare]

Fair enough. I still disagree with you though.

What other reason could Intel offer a wider range of IGP SKUs, you ask? How about "customer satisfaction"? Doesn't customer satisfaction play any role in Intel's market offerings? Or is this 100% Intel's world, and we just live in it?

Look at me. I'm just a tiny, tiny niche compared to Intel's total market, but I'm sure there are a few others like me. Couldn't Intel at least throw us guys a bone and market ONE Pentium processor with the mid-level IGP? That might make a lot of people happy. And I'm sure they would get more business by throwing the niche market a tiny bone.

Customer satisfaction is something that company's only care about because they can make, or lose, money because of it. Customer satifaction is simply another parameter to optimize in the pursuit of profit.

That is different if you are a charity, religious organization, or otherwise just a generally swell guy who earnestly cares about the customer who came into his shop.

But there is a differnce between earnestly caring about the customer and earnestly wanting the customer to feel like they care about them so as to ensure follow-up sales or to enable an up-sell in the present.