So... on another forum, some guy just didn't get what I was saying, and I'm just continuing to troll him. Funny stuff.
Alas, I thought I'd get a conversation going here.
First and foremost, if you're going to buy the cheapest build where I'd be doing some "light" gaming. Meaning playing various games on at least 1200 x 800 resolution at whatever settings make it run smoothly enough, what would you use? Motherboard prices being pretty equal.
For me, I'd look at some CPU's with iGPU's/APU's. With the AMD A10-5800K with a HD7660D being the best performer, that's where I'd start. But then, an i3-3220 with a HD2500 is $15 cheaper. While they perform on par CPU-wise, the AMD A10-5800K with a HD7660D outperforms the i3-3220 with a HD2500 by a large margin for only $15 more.
So that gets me wondering. Why not use an HD4000 on these CPU's? Well, they do, an i3-3225, which has a HD4000... but it's $15 more expensive than the AMD A10-5800K and still doesn't outperform it iGPU-wise.
If Intel isn't going to decrease the costs to include the highest iGPU they can on CPU's where most cost conscious builders would buy for, why don't they just stop including an iGPU on those CPU's and lower the costs?
If the i3-3220 cost $80, I'd just buy a $50 graphics card, or spend $30 more to buy a used GTX 460 767MB card, which would still be $15 more than the i3-3225 but blow it away gaming-wise.
Now, I'm not sure how much it costs to manufacture an i3-3220 without an iGPU compared to one with a HD2500 or a HD4000, but if it's aimed at people deciding to get that or an AMD A10-5800K, I would think they'd do more to cut some manufacturing costs to draw in more people to buy these CPU's at a lower price.