Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If your going to play FPS games or the like wired mice rule. So in other words, what you want to do and what you want to buy are not aligned with each other. Kind of like your budget, it is not even remotely related to the requirements you state.

So if this is all about compromises then go find a cheap wireless mouse and keyboard. Make really does not matter as your budget constrained.

My requirements—as I listed before—are (in the following order): ability to play HD movies and upscale DVD movies, COST, ability to play games at PS3 quality or better.

As mosx so eloquently put it the suggested computer parts will mop the floor with the PS3. ;)

I know that a wired keyboard / mouse will work much better, but as this is to work with a HDTV that's not really an option. So my question is: is there a useable wireless keyboard / mouse?
 
I'm not in the US. :(



Here: https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12078397

The cheapest I've found Windows for is £55 ($88) for Vista Premium with an upgrade voucher to Windows 7 or Windows Vista Home Basic for £40 ($64).

What wireless mouse / keyboard do people recommend for playing games?

What website do you order online computer parts from? I will look into configuring a PC to match your price from there. I do custom PCs all the time
 
How did you do this?

That's a Windows upgrade from XP or Vista or 7 Starter/Home - not a full version...

Cheap Gaming PC - is there such a thing? :eek:

;)

You can use upgrade version without XP or Vista. Google the internets.

IN a nutshell install it without entering activation key. Then install it again over your initial install with activation key entered right away.

To tell you the truth I haven't done this myself yet. I have Windows Pro disc that I used on my Mom's computer. And used that on mine. YOu have 30 days - 120 days or something to use Windows without the activation key.

So right now I'm key less and....

I have to migrate over to the family pack I bought soon. Haven't done it yet. But i read up about it on the internets a bit. And am confident it will be smooth sailing.
 
What I recommend just depends on price. I'm not stuck on one component or another.

There are many close substitutes.

You can get any case. I've used a variety. Usually low-end as I don't like to spend more than I have to and rather put the money into the components.

I've been getting semi-decent power supplies lately. But still have stuck to under $50 supplies. My 430W is fine for a gtx 460 or radeon 6850 which I also have because it has 18A on each 12V rail.

I will say though that a good solid case and power supply can last the span of multiple builds. Unlike the mb, memory, cpu and gpu they aren't obsolete in a year and don't drop in price much if at all. You do risk that standards change, but they've tried that a few years back and ...it seems today's standard is too big to change. BTX was supposed to the new standard many years back. But ATX stuck around and is still here.


Memory? go with any fairly well known brand. PC3 1333mhz is fine. No need to go higher. 1066 is fine too. You won't notice a difference. 4gb is fine.

Video cards well I think the most bang for the buck is the gtx 460 768mb card right now. But I was also able to find a radeon 6850 for not much too so you never know.

I bought my cpu based on the $99 for phenom II 840 wtih free motherboard deal at Microcenter here in the states. It's not the fastest cpu, but it has 4 cores and it was $99 with motherboard.

The Motherboard works fine. Biostar something or other. IMO you don't need to spend alot on a motherboard unless you know why are spending more. The cheap motherboards with known brand names at least have always worked for me. And I think there is little speed difference.

The big differences are the amount of features and better capacitors on more expensive mbs.

Overclocking, extra slots, raid, more sata ports, ....

I've never used much of that stuff. I just pop in a vid card and a hard drive and dvd drive and that's it.

Once in awhile I overclock. But that's only when I get a cheap cpu that is a known great overclocker on air. I don't want to buy extra cooling to do it. I figure why not just buy a faster cpu or gpu then.

So don't be afraid of cheaper brand name motherboards. But again this is anecdotal. I've built a few handfuls of computers over the years. Not enough to judge the reliability of cheap motherboards. Only enough to say I've never had a problem with them. Never saw why I should buy a "better" mb.

Also you use reviews on Newegg or other sites as a general guide.

Realize reviews of hard drives are always mediocre. And people with problems are more likely to vent in comments.

Also it can help to stick with components that are popular. The theory being if the component is popular it is going to be updated more in the case of motherboard bios and be tested more in labs when developers test their games etc. Also you know that others have gotten their builds to work so you are less likely to have a problem.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for everyones help. :)

I'm thinking about getting the following to use as a HTPC initially (the included HD4250 should be good enough for HD movies and includes CrossFireX support), and then I'll buy a HD6850 and Windows 7 later.

Phenom II x2 Dual Core 555 Socket AM3 3.2Ghz Box
ASUS M4A88T-M AM3, 880G, DDR3 1333, VGA ATI HD4250, PCI-E, CrossFireX
DDR3 1333Mhz 2x2GB G.Skill Ripjaws X Edition Dual Channel
Hitachi DeskStar 1TB 7200RPM 32MB SATA II
Samsung SH-S223B DVD±RW x22 Black SATA
CoolerMaster Elite 335 Black (No PSU) or Elite 360 Black Micro ATX Case (No PSU)
Golden Tiger 400W Real, 12cm Fan (24pin)

For the same price I could also get the following Intel i3 but not sure if this includes any GPU so I'd have to buy a GPU at the same time:

Core i3 550, 3.2GHz, s1156, 4MB, GPU Core, Tray
ASUS P7H55-M LX s1156 Core i3/i5/i7, Intel H55, DDR3 1333, VGA, DVI, PCI-E
 
For the same price I could also get the following Intel i3 but not sure if this includes any GPU so I'd have to buy a GPU at the same time:

Core i3 550, 3.2GHz, s1156, 4MB, GPU Core, Tray
ASUS P7H55-M LX s1156 Core i3/i5/i7, Intel H55, DDR3 1333, VGA, DVI, PCI-E

The CPU has a GPU integrated into it. Probably worse than the ATI though. Overall, I think the AMD is better since it allows you to unlock the CPU cores and turn it into a quad core.
 
The CPU has a GPU integrated into it. Probably worse than the ATI though. Overall, I think the AMD is better since it allows you to unlock the CPU cores and turn it into a quad core.

I've read that it's not guaranteed that all of the chips can unlock all cores. Also, would it cause any issues with overheating / stability?

Any idea what GPU is integrated in the Intel i3? It only needs to be capable of HD movie playback until I buy a better dedicated GPU.
 
I've read that it's not guaranteed that all of the chips can unlock all cores. Also, would it cause any issues with overheating / stability?

It is always possible that you get a CPU that does not have four functional cores. Like I explained earlier, most of them should be fully functional quad cores now though, but of course there can still be units that are not. After unlocking, the CPU should be same as Phenom x4 so there shouldn't be overheating issues. There is always a possibility of a stability issue when tweaking hardware but from what I have read, unlocking cores is pretty stable.

Any idea what GPU is integrated in the Intel i3? It only needs to be capable of HD movie playback until I buy a better dedicated GPU.

It is just Intel HD Graphics. Should be fine for HD movie playback.
 
I've found AnandTech to be one of the best and most reliable sites when it comes to benchmarks. If you have benchmarks that prove me and Anand wrong, then go ahead and post them.

Actually, go look at Anandtech's reviews of the AMD processor in question.

At the time of review, they were using outdated video drivers for the nvidia GPU.

Not only that, but they left out very significant details in some of the benchmarks. For instance, they're using two different GPUs on three different OSes using six different motherboards for the various CPUs they tested. During the benchmarks they fail to tell you what OS they were using for what benchmark, what driver, what motherboard with what chipset, what the motherboard settings were, etc.

I mean, I can go into the BIOS on my PC and with a few tweaks, I can drastically alter the performance of my system one way or another. They fail to provide that information in their reviews.

When it comes to the game benchmarks part of the review, they don't tell you what GPU was being used, what the settings or drivers being used were, or anything!

In their benchmarks and reviews, they leave out all of the crucial details that are required for their benchmarks to hold any weight. Again, go back to the games. They tell you frame-rate, resolution, and "overall quality" settings. They don't tell you which driver they were using, what patch the game was running, or anything.

Even more importantly, a year in, the numbers are the same! They haven't revised them at all. Which isn't fair, considering that both the nvidia and AMD GPUs have received driver updates that would have increased overall performance. Every single nvidia GPU I have ever owned has gotten significant performance increases over the course of its life thanks to driver updates. So comparing numbers for a processor released recently against one released a year ago isn't exactly fair when the numbers haven't been updated and weren't right to begin with thanks to the use of outdated drivers. As well as the fact that information provided regarding testing procedures was incomplete.

And most importantly out of all? If you read the review of AMD's 6 core processors at Anandtech, the same reviews that they use to cite numbers for the links you provided, the reviewer flat out admits that nearly every single one of their tests does NOT take advantage of all 6 cores available. Therefore, with the exception of a couple of tests, the AMD 6 core line was not performing as well as it could have. And even the one major test that did take advantage of all 6 cores, the x264 test, as I pointed out previously, was done wrong. By that point, x264 had moved beyond two pass encoding and was on to single pass "quality based" encoding with variable bit-rates.

It is just Intel HD Graphics. Should be fine for HD movie playback.

If you don't care about quality, sure. Theres a lot more to HD video playback than just being able decode and display the video.
 
Actually, go look at Anandtech's reviews of the AMD processor in question.

I don't care what is your personal opinion about AnandTech's tests. You still haven't provided any proofs that Phenom x6 is faster than i5-2500, which was your original statement.
 
It is always possible that you get a CPU that does not have four functional cores. Like I explained earlier, most of them should be fully functional quad cores now though, but of course there can still be units that are not. After unlocking, the CPU should be same as Phenom x4 so there shouldn't be overheating issues. There is always a possibility of a stability issue when tweaking hardware but from what I have read, unlocking cores is pretty stable.

It is just Intel HD Graphics. Should be fine for HD movie playback.

Looking at the 44 reviews here I found quite a few that were unable to lock.
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/198349

Anyway, I can actually get the new Sandy Bridge i3 2100 with suitable motherboard for a bit more money than the Phenom with motherboard. According to PassMark's www.cpubenchmark.net the i3 2100 performs twice as well as the stock Phenom II X2 and I don't need to unlock any cores. :)

Also, the i3 will probably be more suitable for a Hackintosh?


If you don't care about quality, sure. Theres a lot more to HD video playback than just being able decode and display the video.

Please can you elaborate?
 
Also, the i3 will probably be more suitable for a Hackintosh?

Yes. AFAIK AMD Hacks need a modified kernel which always adds the risk of instability or other issues. Take a look at InsanelyMac and TonyMacx86 for Hackintosh help, they know a lot more about it.
 
I don't care what is your personal opinion about AnandTech's tests. You still haven't provided any proofs that Phenom x6 is faster than i5-2500, which was your original statement.

First of all, you're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. What I said about Anandtech is the absolute truth, as much as saying the sky is blue on a clear day. It is not an OPINION that they leave out crucial facts when showing their benchmark results. They absolutely DO NOT STATE which GPU is used for which test, which driver was used, which OS, which motherboard, etc.

All of those things can greatly affect the outcome of the benchmark result. And they do not give any of that information. That is absolutely NOT an opinion, that is a FACT.

If you knew anything about hardware at all, you'd know that their benchmarking is completely flawed by the simple FACT that they do NOT state these facts in their results.

It is also a FACT that in their review of the AMD processors I mentioned, they specifically say that the software they are running DOES NOT support 6 cores.

And, once again, another fact you chose to ignore in my last post, is that in the very very small number of apps they do run that take full advantage of AMD's 6 core CPUs, those do outperform Intel's equivalents.

Also, read my posts again, I never specifically stated WHICH Core i5 or Core i7 AMD's 6 core CPUs would outperform, just a broad and true generalization backed up by your own links and the fact that your own links specifically state that their benchmarks DO NOT take advantage of AMD's processors.

And, again, as you ignored in my last post, comparing old numbers that were generated with then outdated software and drivers to new hardware isn't exactly "fair".

I'm sorry buddy, but you're about as wrong as you can get in this debate.

Please can you elaborate?

Intel graphics generally just do the bare minimum required to decode the video stream and nothing more. AMD and nvidia GPUs generally have all sorts of neat features to clean up the video and make it look better. Clean up compression artifacting and all that sort of stuff.
 
mosx said:
It is also a FACT that in their review of the AMD processors I mentioned, they specifically say that the software they are running DOES NOT support 6 cores.

Welcome to the real world.

And, again, as you ignored in my last post, comparing old numbers that were generated with then outdated software and drivers to new hardware isn't exactly "fair".

I have yet to find a site that tests every CPU again when there is a driver update for some other piece of hardware.

I'm sorry buddy, but you're about as wrong as you can get in this debate.

You still haven't provided ANY better benchmarks. I have been asking that for the last two posts but again, you fail to do that. I couldn't care less what you think about AT's way of doing benchmarks. I am happy to eat my words if you can prove me wrong. Your walls of text are meaningless unless you can actually back them up.

The initial statement was that Phenom x6 is faster than Intel's equivalent (i5-2500), not whether AT's way of testing is right or wrong.
 
Welcome to the real world.

The software anandtech uses. Not software others use. Or even software available for yourself to use.

They also didn't even mention if AMD's Turbo Core was enabled. That is a feature that can be disabled by default on some motherboards in the BIOS but can be re-enabled. On a Phenom II X6 1055T, that can take 3 cores up to 3.4GHz from the stock 2.8.

I have yet to find a site that tests every CPU again when there is a driver update for some other piece of hardware.

When new hardware is released and old hardware is used for comparison, every other testing site in the world uses the most recent software, drivers, etc.

You still haven't provided ANY better benchmarks. I have been asking that for the last two posts but again, you fail to do that.

You haven't provided any real benchmarks. Again, what GPUs were they using for the game tests? They say which ones they will use at the beginning of the review, but when it comes down to showing frame-rates, they don't tell you which GPU was used for what test, nor what driver, OS, motherboard, etc. they were using.

No other website will tell you "we're going to use 6 different motherboards, a couple of dozen CPUs, three different OSes, two different GPUs, three different driver revisions.. but we're not going to say what we actually used in the benchmark. We're just going to tell you this then post numbers and it will be the TRUTH".

I couldn't care less what you think about AT's way of doing benchmarks. I am happy to eat my words if you can prove me wrong. Your walls of text are meaningless unless you can actually back them up.

Show that what I have to say is a "matter of thinking". Prove me wrong by showing where Anandtech's reviews actually detail settings, which OS, drivers, boards, etc. were used for specific benchmarks, etc.

You can't. You try to bring it back to me as my own "opinion", but the "benchmarks" you provide do not give ANY information as to how they came to that conclusion. It's just a matter of "we're going to literally test hundreds of different hardware combinations and give you numbers with no details". Those aren't benchmarks. For all we know they were using Vista 32-bit with outdated drivers and performance features disabled in the BIOS for certain processors because they do NOT give DETAILS.

A benchmark means N O T H I N G without details. Not a vague list of what they may or may not use in their testing.

And, again, above all else, they flat out admit that their benchmarking is flawed by stating the FACT that they are using software that DOES NOT take advantage of 6 core CPUs.

The initial statement was that Phenom x6 is faster than Intel's equivalent (i5-2500), not whether AT's way of testing is right or wrong.

Show me a quote where I stated a specific Intel CPU please. You provided links which you claim are "benchmarks" which give absolutely no details as to how the end result was reached. Simple as that. Which is no better than providing NO benchmarks. If you're going to post a link to a benchmark, at least post one that gives the actual details and not just random vague lists of hardware.

On top of that, people should avoid Intel based on principle, because of their business practices. Paying OEMs off so they don't use competing products, forcing 3rd party chipset manufacturers out of the game, etc.
 
I'm not seeing any links so I don't care to read your rants again.

If there are better benchmarks, then please post them.

Is it big enough for you or do you still have trouble reading it?

And here we have the post equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALA I'M NOT LISTENING".

Benchmarks aren't benchmarks if details regarding how the final numbers were reached are not given. Simple as that.

Anandtech's comparisons were basically this: "This game got 100 frames per second on the Core i7 but 90 frames per second on 1055T!" "What GPU did you use for either one?" "Not telling you" "What motherboard?" "Not telling you" "You said at the beginning of the review...." "Yeah, but we're not telling you what we used during the actual benchmarks, just the numbers".

Thats sort of like saying "That Ford Pinto just reached a higher speed than that Ford Mustang!" while leaving out the all important detail that the Pinto was going down hill on a road in a straight line while the Mustang was going up hill on a muddy dirt road.

No details = NO legitimate benchmarks. You tell me to provide "better benchmarks" than your own, when you provided no real benchmarks to begin with.
 
Ah, mosx, one of my favorite trolls. I just read through one of AN's comparisons between Sandy Bridge and a bunch of other CPUs, and – surprise! – they do tell you what GPU they're using. I know that blows your whole argument out of the water, but sometimes you just gotta stop grinding that axe and accept that your processor isn't the best. We all have to do it sooner or later. And if you tell me I doctored that picture (which you probably will), you can see it for yourself at the top of this page.
 

Attachments

  • Screen shot 2011-04-02 at 10.49.04 AM.png
    Screen shot 2011-04-02 at 10.49.04 AM.png
    27.2 KB · Views: 240
Argh! My thread's been highjacked! ;)

You've all given me good advice, so I don't care. :)

For benchmarks I've been using www.cpubenchmark.net who give the Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz a rating of 6532 and the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T a rating of 5199.

So according to www.cpubenchmark.net, the i5 is about 25% faster than the Phenom at stock speeds. The prices at ebuyer.com are £155.99 and £131.84 respectively — the i5 is 25% faster and 18% more expensive.

But, as I said, I'm thinking of getting the i3 2100 which www.cpubenchmark.net give a rating of 3953 (at only £96.21 that's 41 "Bangs Per Pound" compared to the i5's 41 BPP and the Phenom's 39 BPP).

For those of you in the US, in "Bangs Per Buck" from newegg.com, that's 31 for the i3 ($124.99), 31 for the i5 ($209.99), and 29 for the Phenom ($179.99).

So if the ratings from www.cpubenchmark.net are accurate you get a bit more bang per buck with an Intel i3 or i5 chip at today's prices.

:)
 
Ah, mosx, one of my favorite trolls.

As I've said many times before, people only use the word "troll" to describe another when the so-called "troll" has destroyed their argument.

I just read through one of AN's comparisons between Sandy Bridge and a bunch of other CPUs, and – surprise! – they do tell you what GPU they're using. I know that blows your whole argument out of the water

Actually, just like Hellhammer, you're wrong. The links he posted did not provide details. Also, the reviews of the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T came into question. http://www.anandtech.com/show/3674/amds-sixcore-phenom-ii-x6-1090t-1055t-reviewed/9 Care to show me on that page where they tell you what GPU was doing what? Where are the driver settings?

And, again, showing what GPU is doing what still doesn't even tell half the story. Where are the BIOS settings?

Also, in the review I just posted, why are they using drivers that were then more than a year old for the nvidia GPUs?

And, going to the link you provided, why are they still using Windows Vista and the SAME drivers from the benchmark that is now a year old? Those drivers are now nearly two full years old. Why are they still using them?

Every single benchmark using a GTX 280 in that link you provided is running on Windows Vista using a driver that came out either at the beginning of 2009 or end of 2008. That goes beyond bad benchmarking to downright stupidity.

And looking at the entire review you posted, they're still using software that doesn't take full advantage of 6 core processors, they're still using outdated methods for testing other types of software, etc. Need I go on?

A benchmark that doesn't provide full details is as good as no benchmark at all. It's made even worse when the software drivers, the most important software element in Windows, you are using are around two full years old.

but sometimes you just gotta stop grinding that axe and accept that your processor isn't the best.

Never said it was the best. Best bang for the buck? Absolutely. Why did I say my CPU was the best bang for the buck? Because I can run it at 3.4GHz 100% stable with virtually no change in temperature under full 6 core load. Not giving any money to Intel because of their monopolistic business practices? Even better. Not having to deal with hardware like Intel's beyond poor integrated graphics that I don't need at all? The icing on the cake.

We all have to do it sooner or later. And if you tell me I doctored that picture (which you probably will)

Now why would I do that? Or is that just a personal attack because you're one of the many people I've proven wrong here over the years?

Argh! My thread's been highjacked! ;)

You've all given me good advice, so I don't care. :)

For benchmarks I've been using www.cpubenchmark.net who give the Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz a rating of 6532 and the AMD Phenom II X6 1055T a rating of 5199.

So according to www.cpubenchmark.net, the i5 is about 25% faster than the Phenom at stock speeds. The prices at ebuyer.com are £155.99 and £131.84 respectively — the i5 is 25% faster and 18% more expensive.

But, as I said, I'm thinking of getting the i3 2100 which www.cpubenchmark.net give a rating of 3953 (at only £96.21 that's 41 "Bangs Per Pound" compared to the i5's 41 BPP and the Phenom's 39 BPP).

For those of you in the US, in "Bangs Per Buck" from newegg.com, that's 31 for the i3 ($124.99), 31 for the i5 ($209.99), and 29 for the Phenom ($179.99).

So if the ratings from www.cpubenchmark.net are accurate you get a bit more bang per buck with an Intel i3 or i5 chip at today's prices.

:)

Sorry to say, but their software is a synthetic benchmark. Synthetic benchmarks don't reflect real world performance in real world situations. The same way 3DMark is in no way representative of how real games will perform on a given system. http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Phenom+II+X6+1055T Actually does say that they consider that a better bang for the buck than other CPUs. But, again, a synthetic benchmark is something to make people feel good about the hardware they purchased, not at all a reflection of how something will or won't perform in the real world.
 
I built a $200 cheap gaming computer last year. It runs crisis 2 on low settings @50-60fps.

Today you could build a computer for $300-$400. (if you know what you are doing)
That can run crisis 2 on medium settings, 1080p at a solid 60fps+

Or if you want to spend $500 you could get a gaming computer that would run crysis 2 on max everything always above 60fps.

Note these measurements are for an experienced builder.

There are a lot of people posting that don't know what they are talking about.
For gaming always go with intel.
For a video card... Ati will give you better bang for your buck, however most games are better optimized for nvidia cards. Ie. Crysis and crysis 2 like you mentioned.

If you need help with parts and stuff send me and email.
 
I just purchased an Athlon II X3 450 for $60 from Fry's Electronics. It does unlock to a quad core but it is noticeably warmer in doing so. I will have to replace the stock cooler with my Cooler Master TX-3 when I get some new thermal paste.

Unless I can get an AM3+ motherboard and hope for Bulldozer, I would pick Sandy Bridge but I would not pick anything less than the Core i5 2500K.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)

I see a lot of posts claiming that a cheap gaming PC can be built for under $500 (£300).

I would like to build such a computer to attach to the living room TV (so the computer needs to output HDMI at 720p).

The computer will also need to include WiFi and wireless keyboard / mouse (suitable for playing games).

Would the computer be able to run Crisis 1 & 2 at a decent frame rate?

May I direct you Herehttp://tinyurl.com/falconguide
 
Also, in the review I just posted, why are they using drivers that were then more than a year old for the nvidia GPUs?

And, going to the link you provided, why are they still using Windows Vista and the SAME drivers from the benchmark that is now a year old? Those drivers are now nearly two full years old. Why are they still using them?

Every single benchmark using a GTX 280 in that link you provided is running on Windows Vista using a driver that came out either at the beginning of 2009 or end of 2008. That goes beyond bad benchmarking to downright stupidity.

Makes testing a lot easier. No need to dig out all those old CPUs and start running the tests again. As long as the drivers are the same for all tests, the benchmarks is valid. In the end, they are benchmarking CPUs so it does not matter what GPU and what drivers they are running.

And looking at the entire review you posted, they're still using software that doesn't take full advantage of 6 core processors, they're still using outdated methods for testing other types of software, etc. Need I go on?

Again, that is called real world software. You can't suddenly make Photoshop take advantage of 6 threads. However, that is a software that millions of people use and I'm sure a lot people care about that benchmarks as it reflects to their usage. Sadly, fairly few apps can take advantage of more than four threads.

Never said it was the best. Best bang for the buck? Absolutely. Why did I say my CPU was the best bang for the buck? Because I can run it at 3.4GHz 100% stable with virtually no change in temperature under full 6 core load.

Depends what it is used for. Intels run circles around it in tests that cannot take advantage of all 6 cores. FYI, most games cannot. Here are benchmarks that meet your criteria and the Intels still outperform AMDs in most games. And these are OLD Intels.

Not having to deal with hardware like Intel's beyond poor integrated graphics that I don't need at all? The icing on the cake.

You don't have to deal with the IGP unless you use it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.