I think I agree with that, plus once the gpu is at a point where I can't see a difference on the screen, I personally don't see any point in investing in more graphics power, and I'd rather have my money go towards greater processing power, or else buy a cheaper processor.
The point, for me, is even clearer on my desktop builds. Since I don't game and am not doing any CAD or animation or commerical graphics or video, the integrated graphics of an Intel chip are way way more than I need for business applications, surfing the web, editing video, viewing or editing photographs,etc. So my money goes towards buying more (typically way too much) cpu. Current SB and IB i5s make great desktops for me. But getting more graphics processing power would provide me with no benefit at all, and I would see no reason to sacrifice cpu power for additional graphics power that I neither need nor will ever see.
A question is whether these cpus provide enough graphics power for realistic desktop gaming. My guess is that they won't, in which case a gamer would need to buy a discrete card anyhow and then the cpu choice is about processing power. Although I suppose the ability to combine a discrete card with the integrated gpu provides a tangible benefit and may allow the purchase of a cheaper discrete card. Other than for gaming, though, I'm having a hard time figuring out what real world advantage you get from the admittedly much stronger AMD iGPU over the adequate-for-most-non-gaming-purposes Intel iGPU.
Edited by Zon2020 - 6/14/12 at 3:39pm