a CPU without GPU - make sense?

[AM21]

Hello,

Intel has been developing processors with integrated graphics for a long time. But it was not always.

Would it make sense to develop a CPU without GPU again for those who aren't going to use the integrated graphics at all?Then Intel could add the additional cores to the vacant places. It could increase the performance of the systems for the gamers or developers, couldn't it?

Thank you for your opinions.

[AlHill]

https://ark.intel.com/Search/FeatureFilter?productType=processors&IntegratedGraphics=false&FilterCurrentProducts=true Intel® Product Specification Advanced Search

Doc

[AM21]

I'm sorry, what should I find there?

[AlHill]

The link I provided shows you current processors without graphics.

Doc

[AM21]

I have posted the picture what I see then I opened your link. I see some news...

But now I see these processors which are mainly server or X-series.

What about for home users and not so expensive as X-series.Intel® HD Graphics 530

For example, I use i7-6700. It has Intel® HD Graphics 530, but I don't use it. Now I'm waiting for the i7-9700 and it will have probably Intel® UHD Graphics 630 which I will not use too.

[AlHill]

I have adjusted the filter to show only intel core processors:

https://ark.intel.com/Search/FeatureFilter?productType=processors&IntegratedGraphics=false&FilterCurrentProducts=true&FamilyText=Intel%C2%AE%20Core%E2%84%A2%20Processors Intel® Product Specification Advanced Search

Doc

[AM21]

yes, and you can see X-series, Embedded or Mobile CPU only...

My question is: what if Intel would create a new desktop (not X-series) CPU without a GPU?

[AlHill]

Is having one by Friday ok?

Seriously, if you do not want the graphics, or want to use the graphics, just do not.

Current processors are available without graphics, if you want to use one.

Doc

[n_scott_pearson]

The answer to your other question is not so simple. First of all, developing a separate silicon design to do nothing more than remove the graphics engine would simply not be economical. Nor would it necessarily result in cooler processors, faster processors or processors with more cores. There is no space barrier limiting the core count (i.e. it is not a graphics engine vs. cores-type decision). There are, however, many (many!) other factors (power consumption, thermal margins, cache architecture, core latency, etc. and etc.) that do affect this decision. If you have a desktop system with an add-in graphics card, then the graphics engine in the processor will usually be disabled as a result (this is the default in most board BIOSs) and any affect that it might have on processor performance is thus eliminated.

Hope this helps,

...S

[fish]

Hi,

I just echoed your thoughts about CPU/GPU from ~2years ago. What was the answer ?

Thanks.

[AlHill]

The answer is the same - if you do not want processor graphics, then do not use the graphics, or purchase a processor without graphics.  Your choice.

Doc