Comparing Intel HD 2000/3000/4000 Linux Graphics

That's fairly weird to benchmark. Why not check for video acceleration and that kind of stuff? Actually realistic use cases for those chips.

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 &#62; 3000 &#62; 2000. Of more interest might be a head-to-head comparison of the performance of these processors under Linux versus Windows.

To Phoronix people: Please do not use terrible link ads.