[ricket]

I don't know why a non-gamer would bother with an AMD/NVIDIA graphics card. Even a developer. If the most graphically intensive thing you do is watch YouTube videos or Netflix, use the Intel integrated video. It's plenty good for those things. I totally agree with you there.

But on the flip side, as a gamer, I couldn't imagine giving up my discrete graphics cards on my gaming desktop. How many years back and how low resolution and graphics settings do you have to go before you find a game which is playable on an integrated chip? I guess it depends a lot on your definition of "playable", and your game selection; if GOG is where you regularly buy games then the integrated chip is probably more than adequate. Or if you're using a single 800x600 monitor, you're probably ready to run the latest games on your integrated chip. But otherwise, I can't seriously recommend anyone play games on an integrated video chip.

Sidenote: I would choose the touchpad as my #1 source of hardware frustration. Anecdotally, I haven't had much issue with graphics cards, other than one replaced under warranty.

[SEJeff]

Some people do OpenCL / CUDA work as GPUs do some things exponentially faster than CPUs do. Nvidia pretty much beat everyone in this game, including Intel, with the Phi.

[PeterOliver]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-5775c-i5-5...

44fps in Bioshock Infinite on Medium at 1080p using Iris Pro 6200 graphics.

[cma]

Also runs on a console from seven Moore's Law doublings ago, 720p@30. Though maybe not at the equivalent of medium?

[seanp2k2]

Yeah, integrated graphics are still just pretty much good enough for those interested in playing some games once in a while; anyone expecting serious gaming performance even on the highest end chip is going to be disappointed. On the plus side, you can get a ton of firepower for $200 these days, which is pretty low given inflation and what GPUs cost in the 90s.