I’ve recently got a new mini PC and am surprised by the milage I’ve gotten out of a Radeon 780M. AMD is doing alright with integrated graphics.
While it’s true that consoles don’t have a dedicated GPU slot the way desktop pc’s do, their architecture is actually closer to that of a laptop where the GPU die is soldered directly onto the motherboard. Consoles are specialised devices meaning they are optimised for specific tasks which explains why they perform better in some games than pc’s with similar specs.
Now the Nvidia chips in the Nintendo Switch and Switch 2 are a different story since they are more like the SoC’s you find in smartphones and tablets. That’s actually impressive, but there’s a definite difference in performance compared to more high end machines.
i always wondered about this. thank you for you explanation!
Also planned obsolescence
In the context of console hardware designs, especially how the GPU is integrated? IDK about that tbh? Sure, planned obsolescence is to a certain extent always part of the equation with the design of consumer electronics. But i feel like there are several design goals prioritized higher than that. Like costs, footprint, hacking/piracy prevention and so on.
Yeah, red ring and yellow light of death were a thing in the seventh gen. But those felt really unintentional. That was also more about shitty solder masks or smth like that? But apart from that instance i’m personally not aware of consoles which intentionnaly brick because of how tightly integrated the components on the MB are?
I don’t think meant that obsolecence is because of its design, more that it’s an extra downside to consoles. I do agree with you that consoles have different goals than pc’s which mitigates obsolecence, and to be fair, a first gen i5 is very much obsolete as well these days. But my fourth gen i7 is still purring away nicely in a home server.
integrated graphics on PC: its inside the CPU; integrated graphics on console: dedicated chips across the Mainboard.
Why is this upvoted so high? Its just wrong.
Sure PS3 and 360 had separate GPUs on the mainboard. But those werent called integrated graphics. Idk maybe some refresh like the superslim combined them. But thats besides the point.
But since PS4/Xbone its literally SOCs/APUs/integrated graphics.
In principle integrated graphics are better. They share the same memory as the CPU, so games can just modify memory in place instead of doing a costly data transfer via pcie, this is one of the major pain points in emulators, games expect to just modify memory, while the emulator has to emulate this behaviour with limited bandwidth.
The problem is that most computer games do not take advantage of this, and instead do pcie transfers even if they could simply not do that. Also PC APIs (DirectX, vulkan, etc) are not build around this ability, while console SDKs are.
Plus, a console GPU is much bigger than usual integrated graphics. To put this into perspective, the major selling point of AMD’s me ai max etc etc CPU is the big integrated GPU… It’s still smaller than a ps5 GPU… It is more powerful because it’s newer, but it’s smaller, and the ps6 will likely have a bigger one.
The PS5 in particular uses GDDR instead of standard DDR for its system RAM, so rather than making the iGPU use lower-bandwidth memory, it gets to use the same stuff a dedicated one does.
Modern integrated graphics are actually astonishingly good, the latest AMD desktop APU’s can play Cyberpunk 2077 quite well, for instance.
I don’t get it. Integrated graphics just mean that the graphics card is soldered to the board. A normal powerful GPU for playing video games is centimetre in size, while the graphics card integrated into a CPU is probably millimetre size. Once deliberately made for playing video games, the other one is just for displaying text on screen and your wallpaper.
Technically, a dedicated GPU is integrated into your PC. It’s simply not a permanent part of the motherboard though it is plugged into it… Unless you hella fucked up when building it.
“Why won’t my PC display anything?”
“Well it looks like you shoved the GPU into the CD tray. That’s not how it works.”
Okay, but that’s not what the phrase “integrated graphics” means and you know it. You might as well say your PC gaming setup has an integrated monitor.
Also the fact that a dGPU is physically separate from both the motherboard and the CPU, and can be separated from both down the road, is an argument against calling it integrated. An iGPU cannot be used separately from the CPU (or motherboard, as the case may be, as it was for older systems and still is for some embedded ones) that it is integrated into, whereas a dGPU can be put in a system with a different CPU and motherboard.
A result of the plague that is Intel Integrated Graphics lmbo!
