Will inbuilt graphics kill desktop CPU's?

[JJimmyJ]

Hello

After reading a multitude of Ivy Bridge reviews, it seems to me there is a worrying trend developing in regards to desktop CPU's.
Integrated graphics on the CPU chip seems to be the way of the future for Intel and AMD. While this is great for laptops, where does it leave desktops? I for one have absolutley no use for an integrated graphic chip on my CPU. If I want graphics, I buy a specialist card.
Looking at the ivy bridge heat issues, could this be linked to the improved graphics chip on processor? Maybe it's causing the extra heat. If the graphics weren't embedded, or they kept the same HD3000, would this chip have blown the SB chips out of the water for overclocking?
Will there ever be a cpu in the future that is just that, a CPU?!

(I'm bored at work, and ust had to get this off my chest )

 

[JJimmyJ]

No, integrated GPU's are a long way off competing with graphics cards that can handle modern gaming at good settings.

I agree that it's a long way off, but it seems to me this is the area that they're focussing on more and more.
We desktop gamers seem to be a dying breed thanks to consoles and those social networking sites with games etc.
I suppose I'm just worried that the (poor) inbuilt graphics will take the performance away from the raw processing speeds they could be potentially reaching.
Damn mass market!

 

[JJimmyJ]

So as thenewoc said

I tried to make this point last night. It's like the igpu is spread across the range the wrong way around. If they could keep the best parts of it in the HD2000 for video encoding etc and that would keep the size of it down that would seem like a better option for the 'K' model chips or even produce some without any igpu. Anyway I think they could make 4 more models, black edition series or something that would have allowed better spacing of the transistors and provided greater OC headroom as a result.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18395879&page=4

The extra space used by the igp could have been utilised to spread out the transistors, thus negating the heat issue and potentially allowing increased overclocks (in my tiny mind that makes sense, may be completely wrong). Are Intel missing a trick here and could manufacture exactly the same chip without the igp - rebadge it and make us all happy?