Why does Intel not have better budget options?

[Car712]

My new PC build that cost around $450, and is fairly decent at modern games such as GTA5 and BO4, without a 'GPU' thanks to the Ryzen 3 APU, wouldent have been possible with Intel. And I am wondering, why does intel not attempt to make possibly a new line of Budget Pentium or so processors that have similarly decent graphics to the Ryzen APUs? For me, I see Intel as a good option if you have a high budget for a new build, and can afford a fairly good GPU, but otherwise its horrible value (Graphics wise) for the price.

[Fasauceome]

I think Intel figured the APU in the Ryzen CPUs would be too weak for gamers, being below even cheap graphics cards. Their current gen is a literal copy/paste of last gen, so they didn't bother to improve anything.

[kb5zue]

Sorry, but wouldn't you get better results by sending a note to Intel support?

[TetraSky]

Why would they offer better budget options, they want people to buy their overpriced CPUs where the profit margin is a lot higher than the low end junk....

 

Not to mention, they are fully aware that their onboard GPUs are bad compared to the ones AMD has for the price. Even assuming the CPUs have better IPC, it makes no sense if someone is on a strict budget and can't afford a dedicated GPU to go with it.

[Darkly Spectre]

I presume it's more about sitting on their asses for too long. massive upgrades don't happen in a year. also AMD already makes GPUs so they can just repurpose their existing tech. while Igpu is like. something that really didn't matter to intel. until AMD came back.

 

Plus unlike AMD they can't do massive price drops because they are dealing with all the costs of building new fabs and designing new nodes themselves. THEY have to pay for literally everything while AMD simple designs and gets their stuff made by somebody else who already made the investment into fabs and nodes.

[poochyena]

42 minutes ago, bobbyd52 said:

why does intel not attempt to make possibly a new line of Budget Pentium or so processors that have similarly decent graphics to the Ryzen APUs?

Intel is working on developing new graphics processing chips as we speak.

[Jurrunio]

Because they know they will lose anyway

 

11 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Intel is working on developing new graphics processing chips as we speak.

Can they sell them for cheap though?

[DeadnightWarrior]

Even in the Bulldozer era, when AMD CPUs couldn't get anywhere near Intel's IPC, you had far better integrated graphics in an AMD chip.

I guess AMD has been working for a decade, since acquiring ATI, focusing on an all in one CPU / GPU design, while Intel has been pushing CPU performance rather than caring about graphics. After all, a basic i3 or even a Pentium is perfectly fine for office usage, where you don't need graphics power at all.

It's a fact that Intel knows their iGPU can't compete with AMD's, if they went as far as releasing Kaby Lake-G with an integrated Vega chip!

 

So, at least in my opinion, Intel's focus is on the mid to high range and it makes sense, since you aren't likely to spend 300+$ on a CPU and not pair it wth a decent GPU.

On the other side, AMD's Raven Ridge APUs gave us a hell of a chance to have decent performance WITHOUT the need for a graphics card. I myself am pretty happy with my 2400G and it's the first time in 20 years that I don't immediately need a discreet GPU in my main rig.

[Godlygamer23]

12 hours ago, kb5zue said:

Sorry, but wouldn't you get better results by sending a note to Intel support?

And what would you get? They probably wouldn't say much, if at all. Posting it here allows people who potentially know more to respond, giving the person who asked the question more information, rather than a corporation seeing it, acknowledging it, and then maybe working something into the next lineup. Or just dismissing it because it was one person complaining.

 

The OP may have intended this as also a place to just post people's viewpoints on why Intel chose what they chose.

[kb5zue]

7 hours ago, Godlygamer23 said:

And what would you get? They probably wouldn't say much, if at all. Posting it here allows people who potentially know more to respond, giving the person who asked the question more information, rather than a corporation seeing it, acknowledging it, and then maybe working something into the next lineup. Or just dismissing it because it was one person complaining.

 

The OP may have intended this as also a place to just post people's viewpoints on why Intel chose what they chose.

The original poster said "My new PC build".  If the Intel piece is new, I wouldn't want to mess with it because of the possibility of violating any warranty that it may have.  That is my only reason for going back to Intel.  If an individual decides to take matters into their own hands and do something that would violate the warranty, then he is out of luck when trying to get help from Intel.  Warranty comes first IMHO.

[xg32]

20 hours ago, bobbyd52 said:

My new PC build that cost around $450, and is fairly decent at modern games such as GTA5 and BO4, without a 'GPU' thanks to the Ryzen 3 APU, wouldent have been possible with Intel. And I am wondering, why does intel not attempt to make possibly a new line of Budget Pentium or so processors that have similarly decent graphics to the Ryzen APUs? For me, I see Intel as a good option if you have a high budget for a new build, and can afford a fairly good GPU, but otherwise its horrible value (Graphics wise) for the price.

the margins are lower for low-end parts, for mid-range like the 2600, intel likely chose branding over competition, sorta like how apple's cheaper iphones don't sell. Which sadly is the correct choice imho. (if you look at nvidia they aren't really trying with the 1060s, just letting amd have the low-mid range.