I'm pretty positive that the people buying <$50 GPUs were doing so for reasons other than gaming. At the time integrated was barely suitable for even desktop work, and had no significant video encode/decode. These days desktop+video is no longer a compelling reason to go discrete.
That setup would be *significantly* faster than the APU solution. Pretty sure you could cheap out on a ~$50 CPU (aren't there new ivy bridge celerons in that price range now?) and still end up faster in games at a similar price point.
I'm sure they do, and certainly in theory any of the integrated cards can work directly with the host CPU in a variety of ways (some more than others). The issue is none of the APIs currently support this in any sort of natural way that is optimized for shared memory systems. They're all still based on big DMA buffers, OS/kernel-controlled memory and the assumption that CPU<->GPU interop always requires a copy of data. That sort of limits the performance you can get out of such a system...
Heh, I think you're being a bit optimistic about next gen console performance levels, but certainly I agree that you'd want to be able to scale and move around the relevant work to where it runs the most efficiently.
Interesting chart. Do you know if a similar chart exists for other years? I'm surprised there's not a peak near $200 and I wonder if there just wasn't a good $200 card that quarter.The enthusiast mindset just doesn't really understand it but the facts speak for themselves, look at this :-
You can see that 30% of the entire market in 2008/2009 was buying gpu's < $50. They could get much better performance for another $50 sure, but they're not paying it for one reason or another.
If you want a step up from Trinity you'd buy an i3 3220 ($130) + a 6670 DDR5 ($85) as your entry point...but you're spending $85 more than you would on a 5800K alone. If people were willing to pay that then there would be a lot more sales above the $50 mark with discrete gpu's.
As it happens they just want something that works playably for as cheap as they can, and they swallow down "QUAD CORE" and "GHz" way more than anything else at this price range. A 4.2 GHz quad core with 7660 graphics looks so much better than some 3.3 GHz i3 "dual core with HT" + 6770 graphics. Given the choice 95% of people would take the 5800K at the same price, let alone $85 cheaper.
I've heard a lot of what drives <$50 sales is psychology. People know integrated performance isn't great so they upgrade just to not have integrated graphics.
It's not true. The vast majority of desktop PC's being sold are still at the low end. AMD still holds some 25% of the desktop market and they definitely aren't selling much above the entry level.
Well I'm confused, are there going to be 2 products called 'HD graphics 5200'; 1 for notebooks with Cache and another for Ultrabooks without cache? But both called the same?
There is no HD5200 without eDRAM. Fudzilla told Ultrabooks won't come with onboard memory. HD5200 for Ultrabook makes no sense therefore. From the driver it looks like Haswell ULT models with GT3 are named HD Graphics 5000 or HD Graphics 5100 for the 25W model.
