[quote]Claudan wrote:
I strongly and respectfully disagree. an integrated GPU is the one of the main reasons people get ripped off. It is absolute crap compared to paying extra $50 and getting DEDICATED memory for graphics operations, instead of using ‘communal’ memory to deal with graphics operations and any other operations.
Apps/videos/browsers/games are only getting MORE demanding, it only makes sense to dedicate independent memory for that cause, which ‘integreated graphics cards’ cannot provide.
[/quote]
The memory is not the issue. Even some of the most powerful desktop GPUs get by just fine with 2GB when playing very demanding games. My computer never even has to use even 4GB RAM when gaming. 4+2=6<8 For browsing and movies, it’s more than enough. The graphics processing power is the bottleneck.
Then there’s integrated graphics and integrated graphics. Three-year old Atom? No thanks. Iris Pro? Whole other story Crysis 3 - Intel Iris Pro 5200 Graphics Review: Core i7-4950HQ Tested
The only remarkable progress in the last 2 generations of processors is the integrated graphics. Is it good enough for playing the latest games on the highest settings? Hell no. (And why go the laptop route?) But it will be more than enough for web browsing, watching video with reasonable bitrate and so on. How demanding can browser games be?
I’ve run both my PCs on Intel HD3000 (from sandy bridge aka 2nd gen core) without issues other than when playing real games. Haswell graphics will be fine if you’re not going to be gaming or use GPGPU, in which case you know that.
There are also quite bad dedicated mobile graphics cards.
Don’t get me wrong. If it’s not much more expensive, go ahead, all else being equal. But most of the high end portable laptops these last few years have gotten by fine on modern integrated graphics.