Possibility of Intel CPUs without IGP?

[notb]

Looking at what's happening now on the CPU market and reading articles/leaks/comments I can't stop thinking we're forgetting about the Intel IGP importance.
I mean: we're comparing prices based on CPU performance, but we're forgetting that on average an Intel build will remain cheaper, because it won't have a discrete GPU.

I find this to be a huge marketing disadvantage for Intel. Because we got so used to IGP being everywhere, we don't take it into account.

Do you think we might see Intel CPUs without IGP? (like the -P versions a few generations back)?

I don't think they can afford a separate design (e.g. more cores instead of IGP), but maybe just disabling IGP and cutting the price a bit could turn out to be profitable in the end.

PS:
It's also an interesting situation for AMD, who need to get back some office and notebook crowd.
Next desktop APU is said to be based on Ryzen 4C/8T (e.g. Ryzen 5 1300 - possible MSRP $175). According to this leak (if someone believes them ) a slightly higher-clocked 1600X lost to i5-7400 (~$180).
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/
As 4C/8T APU should be more expensive than similar Ryzen, it'll actually cost as much as an i5-7500 and that's a properly fast chip (~10% faster than the mentioned above i5-7400).
Looking at the latest Intel mobile CPUs - they're very good ans started to gain on their desktop cousins (i5-6300HQ is very solid, but i7-6700HQ is just astonishing).
Let's hope AMD pulls this off and forces Intel to lower mobile prices as well (i7-6700HQ pricing is a joke at $378 - way more than MSRP of consumer i7 )

 

[i7Baby]

Some Xeons and X99 and X79 i7s.

 

[notb]

Some Xeons and X99 and X79 i7s.

I was thinking about the consumer segment (LGA1151) - the gear that people actually buy and the one where (currently) every CPU has IGP.

In LGA1151 there is a significant volume and cutting a few $ in IGP could make a difference.

Sadly, I don't know how many HEDT CPUs Intel sold in 2015, but the total CPU figure is around 400 mln.
I've read that AMD is said to have around 1 mln Ryzen chips in stock at launch - keep in mind this is supposed to compete with the whole HEDT + consumer i7 and i5 models.
Assuming Ryzen inventory was prepared to cover initial sale spike (pre-orders etc) and first few weeks, it shows how AMD estimates the sales potential.

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Looking at what's happening now on the CPU market and reading articles/leaks/comments I can't stop thinking we're forgetting about the Intel IGP importance.
I mean: we're comparing prices based on CPU performance, but we're forgetting that on average an Intel build will remain cheaper, because it won't have a discrete GPU.

I find this to be a huge marketing disadvantage for Intel. Because we got so used to IGP being everywhere, we don't take it into account.

Do you think we might see Intel CPUs without IGP? (like the -P versions a few generations back)?

I don't think they can afford a separate design (e.g. more cores instead of IGP), but maybe just disabling IGP and cutting the price a bit could turn out to be profitable in the end.

PS:
It's also an interesting situation for AMD, who need to get back some office and notebook crowd.
Next desktop APU is said to be based on Ryzen 4C/8T (e.g. Ryzen 5 1300 - possible MSRP $175). According to this leak (if someone believes them ) a slightly higher-clocked 1600X lost to i5-7400 (~$180).
http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-processor-benchmark-cinebench-leak/
As 4C/8T APU should be more expensive than similar Ryzen, it'll actually cost as much as an i5-7500 and that's a properly fast chip (~10% faster than the mentioned above i5-7400).
Looking at the latest Intel mobile CPUs - they're very good ans started to gain on their desktop cousins (i5-6300HQ is very solid, but i7-6700HQ is just astonishing).
Let's hope AMD pulls this off and forces Intel to lower mobile prices as well (i7-6700HQ pricing is a joke at $378 - way more than MSRP of consumer i7 )

You don't save any money with the inclusion of the igp on Intel chips, they add that and more to their profit margins

 

[peche]

Some Xeons and X99 and X79 i7s.

X99 and X79 core i7 units have no igpu....

I was thinking about the consumer segment (LGA1151) - the gear that people actually buy and the one where (currently) every CPU has IGP.

In LGA1151 there is a significant volume and cutting a few $ in IGP could make a difference.

Sadly, I don't know how many HEDT CPUs Intel sold in 2015, but the total CPU figure is around 400 mln.
I've read that AMD is said to have around 1 mln Ryzen chips in stock at launch - keep in mind this is supposed to compete with the whole HEDT + consumer i7 and i5 models.
Assuming Ryzen inventory was prepared to cover initial sale spike (pre-orders etc) and first few weeks, it shows how AMD estimates the sales potential.

understand your point and actually share it, most consumer CPU's from intel might have the option for choosing the one that come with NO physical graphics unit... and the fully charged ones with integrated Graphics unit, will be better competition and better options fot most enthusiasts and consumers...

You don't save any money with the inclusion of the igp on Intel chips, they add that and more to their profit margins

+1 too



Regards,

 

[alucasa]

I actually would have preferred 2011-3 CPUs to have iGPU. iGPU is very handy. Low-end x20 line of iGPU does what it is supposed to do very well.

Iris iGPU is nothing to scoff at, either.

 

[peche]

iGPU is very handy.

when you video cards gets screwed, died... sold for a upgrade that has been delayed, it has some uses... i still rather to have a secondary "use only in case of emergency" video card,

Regards,

 

[alucasa]

It's not only that. If I am building CPU based rendering rig, I don't really need a dGPU. iGPU would do the job and save me money as well as energy.

 

[peche]

It's not only that. If I am building CPU based rendering rig, I don't really need a dGPU. iGPU would do the job and save me money as well as energy.

its related people needs and computer usage, iGPU means nothing for me in this moment.. but i just game on my computer and watch some movies, video card usage for some turkey time its nothing like 6w....

Regards,

 

[i7Baby]

If you are building a "rendering" rig then you should go x79, x99 or Ryzen.

 

[notb]

You don't save any money with the inclusion of the igp on Intel chips, they add that and more to their profit margins

Of course I do - I don't have to buy a discrete GPU!
It wasn't that bad few years back. In 2012 you could get a passively cooled GeForce 610 for ~$30 (or a beautiful used Matrox ). The performance was rubbish (on par with Intel HD), but it could visualize your Excel, Matlab, Firefox or a movie player, so it was a solution for people who didn't have a IGP (from cheap -C/-P versions to the high-end -K and i7 Extreme).

But because Intel decided to put IGP in every consumer CPU and IGPs became really good, the "cheap graphic card" demand vanished.
Today the cheapest GPU (from latest series: RX 460 or GTX 1050) costs a whopping $109 (MSPR) and that's quite a lot for something you buy just to see youre e-mails on a 1080p LCD. And for that price you'll have to live with another fan in your PC. The cheapest passively cooled card I've found is the XFX RX460 for... $140...

This $109 becomes even more significant, when you think about all the Ryzen 7 1700 ($329) fanboys trying to convince i7-7700K fanboys ($339) that AMD option is not only slightly faster, but cheaper.

Plus, there's the already big and growing market for USFF and AIO systems - things that today can easily house a proper i7 and be used for heavy calculations or demanding work. Not so long ago they were all like screen-less netbooks - great for moving files around and playing music, but struggling with a 40MB Excel spreadsheet.

So what do we think about these IGP-less Intel chips? Possible? If yes, and if their made from scratch (like Ryzen) how much better could they perform?
Think about the upcoming AMD APU rumored to be 4C/8T (half of Ryzen 7 1700), which will be an actual direct competitor of i7-7700.
Even if we assume this "half of 1700" will have 2/3 of performance, it's suddenly not that impressive. And let's not forget that Kaby Lake is just a polished 8-year-old Nehalem!

 

[NdMk2o1o]

Of course I do - I don't have to buy a discrete GPU!
It wasn't that bad few years back. In 2012 you could get a passively cooled GeForce 610 for ~$30 (or a beautiful used Matrox ). The performance was rubbish (on par with Intel HD), but it could visualize your Excel, Matlab, Firefox or a movie player, so it was a solution for people who didn't have a IGP (from cheap -C/-P versions to the high-end -K and i7 Extreme).

But because Intel decided to put IGP in every consumer CPU and IGPs became really good, the "cheap graphic card" demand vanished.
Today the cheapest GPU (from latest series: RX 460 or GTX 1050) costs a whopping $109 (MSPR) and that's quite a lot for something you buy just to see youre e-mails on a 1080p LCD. And for that price you'll have to live with another fan in your PC. The cheapest passively cooled card I've found is the XFX RX460 for... $140...

This $109 becomes even more significant, when you think about all the Ryzen 7 1700 ($329) fanboys trying to convince i7-7700K fanboys ($339) that AMD option is not only slightly faster, but cheaper.

Plus, there's the already big and growing market for USFF and AIO systems - things that today can easily house a proper i7 and be used for heavy calculations or demanding work. Not so long ago they were all like screen-less netbooks - great for moving files around and playing music, but struggling with a 40MB Excel spreadsheet.

So what do we think about these IGP-less Intel chips? Possible? If yes, and if their made from scratch (like Ryzen) how much better could they perform?
Think about the upcoming AMD APU rumored to be 4C/8T (half of Ryzen 7 1700), which will be an actual direct competitor of i7-7700.
Even if we assume this "half of 1700" will have 2/3 of performance, it's suddenly not that impressive. And let's not forget that Kaby Lake is just a polished 8-year-old Nehalem!

You damn well pay for it believe me, you don't think Intel spent millions possibly billions on r+d + licences just to give you an igp for free do you?? Of course the cost of developing has gone into the cost of the chip you buy......

 

[notb]

You damn well pay for it believe me, you don't think Intel spent millions possibly billions on r+d + licences just to give you an igp for free do you?? Of course the cost of developing has gone into the cost of the chip you buy......

Of course, but you miss the point, so I'll write it as straightforward as I can.

Assuming someone doesn't need a dGPU and is not interested in OC, but simply wants a fairly powerful, future-proof PC, he can - as of today (but including Ryzen preorders) - buy:
i7-7700 (including cooler and IGP) for $315
or
Ryzen 7 1700 (including cooler) + GTX 1050 for $440 ($330+$110)
Do you see the difference?

[And let's be honest: most people will choose the $230 i5-7600 which will last just as long. I'm using the more expensive i7-7700 in the example, because I'm nice. ]

Sure, Ryzen 1700 is (rumored to be) more powerful, but i7-7700 is really a beast already - it'll be enough. At this point AMD simply doesn't offer a cheaper Ryzen.
This will change in few months, when Ryzen 5 arrives. According to rumors Ryzen 5 1300 should be competing (at least in multi-core...) with the i7-7700. But:
Ryzen 5 1300 + GTX 1050 is still $285 ($175+$110). Intel will lower prices in the meantime.

And that's a cheap GTX 1050 - noisy and unnecessarily huge. As I said earlier: a fanless dGPU will set you back $140.

Of course you're right - Intel IGP also costs, but Intel sells 400 mln CPUs a year (most with IGP). The R&D cost per unit is marginal.
And the manufacturing premium? I have no idea how large it is. $5-$10? But that's what I'm on about: the world NEEDS a $10 GPU, but maybe that's too little to make a discrete card profitable.

 

[thebluebumblebee]

https://www.techpowerup.com/230474/...5-7640k-codenamed-kaby-lake-x-112w-tdp-no-igp

 

[i7Baby]

They're X chipset CPUs again - socket 2660, enthusiast. With igpu disabled.

 

[Leothelesser]

Xeon E3 12** V5 are LGA1151 and have IGP and non IGP modles

 

[R0H1T]

Of course, but you miss the point, so I'll write it as straightforward as I can.

Assuming someone doesn't need a dGPU and is not interested in OC, but simply wants a fairly powerful, future-proof PC, he can - as of today (but including Ryzen preorders) - buy:
i7-7700 (including cooler and IGP) for $315
or
Ryzen 7 1700 (including cooler) + GTX 1050 for $440 ($330+$110)
Do you see the difference?

[And let's be honest: most people will choose the $230 i5-7600 which will last just as long. I'm using the more expensive i7-7700 in the example, because I'm nice. ]

Sure, Ryzen 1700 is (rumored to be) more powerful, but i7-7700 is really a beast already - it'll be enough. At this point AMD simply doesn't offer a cheaper Ryzen.
This will change in few months, when Ryzen 5 arrives. According to rumors Ryzen 5 1300 should be competing (at least in multi-core...) with the i7-7700. But:
Ryzen 5 1300 + GTX 1050 is still $285 ($175+$110). Intel will lower prices in the meantime.

And that's a cheap GTX 1050 - noisy and unnecessarily huge. As I said earlier: a fanless dGPU will set you back $140.

Of course you're right - Intel IGP also costs, but Intel sells 400 mln CPUs a year (most with IGP). The R&D cost per unit is marginal.
And the manufacturing premium? I have no idea how large it is. $5-$10? But that's what I'm on about: the world NEEDS a $10 GPU, but maybe that's too little to make a discrete card profitable.

So you're telling us that the resident experts on TPU would suggest the i7 7700(non K) with the IGP for a gaming rig?
If you still want an IGP there's the Ryzen APU that ought be much better than anything Intel has produced in their graphics department.

 

[notb]

So you're telling us that the resident experts on TPU would suggest the i7 7700(non K) with the IGP for a gaming rig?

Why do you assume processors are important only for gaming? On the contrary, gaming nechmarks are GPU-heavy and don't separate CPUs very reliably.

TPU is gaming-oriented and they're actually not reviewing CPUs that often, so I'm actually wondering how will the (almost certain) Ryzen review look like.

There are many better websites to look for a CPU tests. When you find one, benchmarks of performance in rendering, Excel, databases or productivity (e.g. file compression) are a normal thing - actually a lot more important than whether a CPU bottlenecks a GPU or not...

If you still want an IGP there's the Ryzen APU that ought be much better than anything Intel has produced in their graphics department.

Intel's IGP is good enough for anything other than gaming and works pretty well with older game titles, so almost all of it's buyers don't need anything better. Whether Ryzen APU is better or not is not very relevant for most IGP users.

BTW: There were times when AMD APU was crushing Intel IGP in gaming bechmarks. That's not true anymore (e.g. in 2016 Skylake and Bristol Ridge had very similar performance).
I wouldn't be so optimistic about the Ryzen APU gaming abilities (unless they've improved the APU as well).

 

[alucasa]

Indeed, CPU isn't only for gaming. And that's why I prefer to have iGPU. My media rig, for an example, has i7-6700 (non-k). I use its iGPU HD530. While the rig ain't meant for gaming, I did few things to test its iGPU.

It's quite alright. Crusader Kings 2 ran flawlessly with HD530. Of course, I'd be puking an idiot to try the Witchter 3 on it.

If it didn't have its iGPU, I'd have to have spend at least 30 ~ 50 CAD for a dGPU like Geforce 710.