Intel integrated graphics ...

[peterletran]

I'm not an engineer or know anything about cpu design, but ...

shouldn't Intel consider designing a cpu without an iGPU?
Wouldn't an iGPU take up space and, also, generate heat?

I'm currently on Ryzen 3600x with a 5700xt, and I just can't imagine why my computer would need integrated Vega graphics.
I went with AMD this time around because at the time of the Ryzen 3rd gen release, the i5-9600k was $263 6core/6thread while the 3600x was $249 6core/12thread.
I would've taken the 9600k if it had 12 threads without the Intel UHD 630 graphics.

I understand there's a market for iGPU for people not needing dedicated graphics (i.e. e-mail or school work), but
wouldn't it be cheaper not to deal with having extra stuff crammed into a little piece of silicon?

Its just a thought.
Sorry if this is in the incorrect subforum. Please relocate as needed or direct me to where I should move it.
 

[WereCatf]

4 minutes ago, peterletran said:

Wouldn't an iGPU take up space and, also, generate heat?

Space, yes, but it won't generate heat if it's not used. Most BIOSes disable the iGPU by default, if you install a dGPU, so that's not exactly an issue. Even if the iGPU wasn't disabled, it still wouldn't generate much heat, unless the user put a heavy load on it -- the amount of heat it produces is not constant, it is dependent on the load.

[Electronics Wizardy]

29 minutes ago, peterletran said:

shouldn't Intel consider designing a cpu without an iGPU?

THey do, for the hdel and server parts.

 

30 minutes ago, peterletran said:

Wouldn't an iGPU take up space and, also, generate heat?

Yea it uses up space, but there chips end up in a lot of laptops and buiness desktops where the customers want a igpu, and gaming pcs probably aren't a big enough market to make a separate die. I think intel is the biggest desktop/laptop gpu maker compared to nvidia and amd. Their igpu's is enough for most systems.

 

 

[AnirbanG007]

57 minutes ago, peterletran said:

I'm not an engineer or know anything about cpu design, but ...

shouldn't Intel consider designing a cpu without an iGPU?
Wouldn't an iGPU take up space and, also, generate heat?

I'm currently on Ryzen 3600x with a 5700xt, and I just can't imagine why my computer would need integrated Vega graphics.
I went with AMD this time around because at the time of the Ryzen 3rd gen release, the i5-9600k was $263 6core/6thread while the 3600x was $249 6core/12thread.
I would've taken the 9600k if it had 12 threads without the Intel UHD 630 graphics.

I understand there's a market for iGPU for people not needing dedicated graphics (i.e. e-mail or school work), but
wouldn't it be cheaper not to deal with having extra stuff crammed into a little piece of silicon?

Its just a thought.
Sorry if this is in the incorrect subforum. Please relocate as needed or direct me to where I should move it.
 

They do, i5 9400F is an example where there is no iGPU.

[suedseefrucht]

1 hour ago, peterletran said:

shouldn't Intel consider designing a cpu without an iGPU?

 

5 minutes ago, danielevans007 said:

They do, i5 9400F is an example where there is no iGPU.

All the F models don't have integrated graphics.

For intel the special model F doesn't have integrated graphics and for AMD the special model G does.