- May 9, 2004
One issue that seems to be ignored is the mainstream market doesn't place as much value on what is essentially paper performance compared to the the enthuasist market. The issue isn't how much faster a GTX 750ti or whatever is compared to the IGP but whether or not the IGP is good enough by itself. The GPU companies do recognize this, you'll notice how Nvidia had a strong focus with the GTX 950 in terms of conveying the benefits of the GTX 950 for MOBA gaming as opposed to just performance numbers in order to sell it as being worth the step up.
If the broader PC gaming market trends towards lower demanding games that perform adequately on the IGP, see Steam stats popular games as an example, then the IGP is adequate enough and the performance delta between discrete GPUs is not really relevant. This contrasts strongly with the past where there was problems just being able to play even the most basic games on IGPs. Even for non gaming consumer usage in the past IGPs were considered problematic which is why non gamers or professionals may have even bought discrete graphics ards.
Enthuasists on tech sites may consider r9 290 or GTX 970 class performance as a minimum for 1080p gaming and be fixated with 60fps at max settings with high AA but the mainstream market as whole is not all that interested.
This doesn't just apply to IGPs displacing the lower segments but also the lower rate of upgrades. Most people, especially the more price conscious, do not feel the cost of upgrading translates to worthwhile tangible results.
If discounting those feature of the year AAA games that come and go like the wind (which are console ports anyway) but instead talking about games the majority of PC gamers actually play on a long term basis like MOBAs, CSGO, Blizz games etc the IGPs already got the job done sufficiently well. The same crowd are also those who wouldn't give a damn whether the details are set to low instead of high, if is playable then it's already good enough.