Reply #5: A 32% gain would bring them up to "sucks."

[sofa king]

Seriously. Most of you who can't stream high definition, most of you who play PC games at 5-8 frames per second when you should be at 30, any of you with a Dell that just doesn't cut the mustard, those are all likely examples of the terrible integrated Intel graphics that have set the PC industry back a decade and a half because of their low cost. They're cheap because they suck.

Now, people tend to get their backs up when you rag on their hardware choices, so don't listen to me. Read what the experts say. In 2008:

According to Microsoft's performance numbers, one of Intel's new Core i7-965 processors can run Crysis at an average of 7.4 FPS at 800x600 with the detail level turned down. In the same test, Microsoft says Intel's DX10-capable integrated graphics hardware managed just 5.2 FPS. A (NVidia) GeForce 8400 GS (which is available for $30 these days) outdid both solutions, though, scoring 33.9 FPS.

The human eye requires at least 24 FPS to simulate semi-smooth movement, and most computer gamers will tell you that twice that is where you really want to be.

Here's someone who laughingly disagreed with me last month:

“The best thing that happened in the PC market this year, and this is after me beating up them up for 11 years, I’m going to give them a little bit of praise, was the new Intel HD graphics… it’s something they should have done years ago… but you know. At least they don’t suck any more. The brand new just in the market place, six weeks in the market place integrated graphics don’t suck. As long as you buy that model. I’m sure they’re still selling the sucky ones.

“That’s actually pretty exciting thing for us. iPhone has a more powerful graphics chip than what the intel graphics were last year. As those PC’s feed themselves into the marketplace and replace the ones out now, yeah, I think you’ll see an explosion of graphics on the PC.

(Edit: that was a dude from Epic games: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/04/epic-latest-intel-integrated-graphics-dont-suck/ I should add that I chose the same word, "suck," to describe the Intel GMA by pure coincidence.)

Those of you wondering why your netbook can't stream Netflix videos even though you have a fat Internet pipe can squarely place the blame on Intel and Microsoft. Nexflix uses a stupid program called Silverlight, which bases its resolution on the bandwidth you are receiving. Unfortunately, the Intel graphics cannot handle a data stream greater than about 480p (if you're lucky), and there's no way to adjust the resolution yourself. So you're pretty much SOL, though you can try a semi-shady looking program called GMA Booster, which at least kicks up the frequency of your shitty integrated graphics.

A 32% gain in performance means nothing if the performance gain is from "unusable" to "unworkable." I wish everyone would vote with their pocketbooks and stay away from this garbage in order to force the hardware and software makers to find a real solution. And no, I don't think AMD is going to reach the market with a better alternative any time soon, because they also specialize in bullshitting the public with promises the don't keep and are always months or years late to market.