What exactly is Intel trying to achieve with these integrated GPUs? It seems that performance-wise they're quite far below discrete graphics cards, so I'd guess that they're not really meant for gaming.<p>Are they intended for everyday computing purposes that might require graphics acceleration, such as high end display managers?<p>I'd certainly love to see them enter the graphics card arena and compete with ATI/Nvidia by having phenomenal open source drivers. I'd vote for that with my wallet.
Do I just fail at reading, or do these benchmarks lack any context?<p>The question I want answered is how these chipsets compare with other offerings. The context I would like to see is the same tests run on low/mid/high-end AMD and nVidia parts using both the open-source and proprietary drivers.
I was looking to buy mobo + ivy bridge CPU and I could not find a motherboard that could drive my display that need dual link DVI or display port - most of them have HDMI that could drive Full HD but not bigger monitors (my display is 24" 16:10, so it is not something extraordinary). So I am waiting for Ivy Bridge processors and chipsets without integrated GPU (like Sandy Bridge i7-3820)
What is the point of this? Obviously, 4000 > 3000 > 2000. Of more interest might be a head-to-head comparison of the performance of these processors under Linux versus Windows.