Originally Posted by qubit
But you've missed the crucial difference: it's not integrated into the CPU, but in the chipset. Putting it in the CPU changes the dynamics considerably, as you can see.
Irrelevant. Different dynamics of course, but you said integrated graphics, which is a term which until very recently meant motherboard graphics and now means CPU or MOBO.
ATi or nVidia were the ones who started making integrated GPUs capable of playing low-end games for low-end to casual users. AMD's 780G was the first one to be able to play some of the higher-end games of the day, albeit at a reduced resolution and detail setting, which the casual gamers don't mind as much as us enthusiats (casual gamer's preference from personal experience with those people)
IIRC It was in AMD's roadmap to integrate graphics into the processor long before Intel announced any such thing. Intel just delivered fourty dumptrucks full of gold bullion to their R&D department and beat AMD to the punch. Even if intel was planning to do it before AMD released information about it, they never announced anything. So you could say that Intel delivered on AMDs roadmap before AMD could, with a weaker graphics core. (My google-fu is failing me on this, so I'm going by memory and hence willing to concede this point to anybody who can prove otherwise)
Even ignoring motherboard graphics, it's only because Intel's integrated graphics started out so damn laughably weak (whether speaking of chipset or processor based) that the current upgrades look good, AMD's graphics have already been at the same level as Intel is "Upgrading to" since they came out. (adjusting for release date and technology improvements, of course. I'm not implying that 780G or AMD's low-end APUs are a match for current integrated, just it's in the same class)
Oh, BTW, quoting marketing fluff like 4Kx4K res support is meaningless. Even today's single-chip enthusiast-class graphics cards would be reduced to a slideshow at that res for anything beyond 2d productivity apps. Intel could claim res all they want, until I see a video recorded at that res playing back fluidly with at least (minimum fps, with no drops below) 24fps on a 4K screen without discrete graphics, I call bullshit. It's like claiming a chevy s-10 can reach 300mph*
*when dropped out of an airplane, with an aerodynamically designed outer shell surrounding it
(wow that whole thing came off a lot more harsh sounding than I meant it to... Oh well, this note's here to point out the fact it wasn't meant to)