Why all the hate for the integrated graphics?

cauz it can't play Doom 3 or HL2 like 9600/9700/9800

Integrated graphics barely gets by on 2004 and 2005 games. Barely. And when it does, next to a 9600 or a 9700, the performance is slow and image quality is not good. Anti-Aliasing cannot be used. Go to some of the tech sites and see for yourself. Intel does not R&D on 3D any more. They tried briefly and got their asses kicked in the 90s.

I agree, though, there is a certain section on this forum that thinks that anything that isn't the kludgy, battery-sucking, 9800 is outdated. The 9600 and 9700 perform quite well in 2004 and 2005. If you're happy with your integrated graphics then don't let anyone tell you otherwise, even me.

On second thought, stay away from those tech sites because you won't be so happy any more......

Graphics is much more important than CPU when needed.

For example, if you are not gaming, and only running Office, etc, most people would not see much difference between a PII 600MHz and a P4 3.2GHz. Yes, the 3.2GHz will be faster, but it won't seem to be much faster for most. So an old used $300 laptop will not be much slower than a brand new $1000 laptop.

If you are into gaming, then 3d graphics is everything. You can have the fastest 3.4GHz CPU with integrated graphics, and it will run games much slower than a 1Ghz CPU with decent low end 3d graphics card.

So value easily goes to the card with best 3d, and it's well worth the small upfront premium to get better (not necessarily the best) 3d graphics.

This is especially true if you don't game, but still upgrade every few years.
A 3 year old laptop with poor 3d is not worth much more than a 6 year old laptop.
But a 3 year old laptop with good 3d, could bring 50% more resale value, because it's performance is something easily noticed.

The worst thing is ignorance. Many think Intel 3d should be great, then one day a couple months down the road, someone gives them a Leisure Suit Larry DVD game to play, and it won't work in their modern laptop. By having good 3d graphics up front, the laptops usable lifespan is greatly increased.

Prior to getting this i9200 I had a Toshiba Tecra 750CDT with PII 266, and S3Verge 3d graphics. I could actually use it for XP and all other windows apps. But, gaming is what forced the upgrade.

I'm kinda happy that my laptop dosen't play the new games. Kinda forces me to do more school work vs playing games and wasting time

Yeah, just imagine how much more productive you would be if you bought a laptop without internet connectivity

No!!!!!

no need to talk about that integrated graphics what? what a laugh

Prob horridly low since all my hw is submitted, lecture material, buying books is done via the net

My laptop doesnt weight 20 pounds, and while it has a 17 inch screen it is still very mobile (unlike a sage 9860 or alienware 7700). it also has a 9700 and plays HL2 amazingly, its just what i want from a laptop. Its all about what you want and need, if integrated graphics is all you need then get it, but there is no reason to start a whole thread over it

Why is that? I haven't seen a thread discussing this subject seriously, and I'm sure I'm not alone to think that it could lead to something interesting.

Who are you to judge what subject that's worth starting a thread about and what's not?

It would be nice to have a pci-e graphics slot and integrated graphics that powered off if a dedicated graphics card was added - that would be the best of both worlds.

The problem with this is RealEstate!!! There is not much of it to be had in a laptop....... Now if this could be some sort of an external slot. On second thought, it would be too much trouble to develop it. I dont think the interest would be there......

Integrated Graphics are good for people who don't play games and who want a thin, light notebook with great battery life.

He blows leafs, that's enuff to judge

I don't think the integrated graphics takes up much real estate. Aside from the chipset difference, the i6000 is essentially a larger i700m. Surely there should be enough space in that form factor for both.

You will be well served with the integrated grahics. It offers 50% more performance compared to my Latitude D600 with Radeon 9000.

There are two reasons why not to buy integrated graphics:

They are not upgradeable.
As they use main memory, the memory bandwidth for the system is reduced.

Still, if you don't feel the need for more speed, that's because you don't need it, so rest well knowing that you have what you really need, and you didn't felt into the marketing and social pressures.

Doesn't the dual memory channels help with that?

Well, it's difficult to tell, but I know first hand how an integrated video can degrade performance.

I have a system (desktop) based on a Celeron 1.2 GHz with 128 MB with runs slower than my sister's Thinkpad 600 (P2 300 MHz 96 MB RAM). That's because the video card takes a lot of bandwidth and leaves very little for the rest of the system.

However, I doubt that this is the case. All Sonoma based system will deliver good performance, with either integrated or discrete graphics cards.

ya damn right...