Zygomorphic wrote:
G75 doesn't have Optimus for a good reason...it cuts performance by a huge amount at higher screen-resolutions and limits frame-rates...think about it, the effective memory bus speed is that of your memory rather than your graphics card.

Um you do know that Optimus is the switching between the onboard HD400 for low poer stuff like web, email and watching dvd's then switching to the graphic card for games. This greatly improves battery life. The reason it does not have it is all about the cost factor. It cost more them them to enable this feature by interdicting addition circuity to the motherboard that increased the cost per unit.


The only time when optimus will decrease performance is when games fail to switch over to the gpu "Problem in early systems runs pretty smooth now" And the memory buss speed? Please man the real issue is the HD 4000 is what is is. Crap graphics. Intel has never really cared about gaming performance. Saying they are gimped by the memory buss just sounds dumb. The Trinity APU's like the A10 have no problem keeping pace with some of the ATI and geforce graphic cards using shared system memory. They do so very nice and take a lot less power in the process.


Optimus has no impact what so ever on your gaming perforamce if you have it set up and the software is switching over. For those who have not used this lets say you wanna run wow. When you click on it it picks the default gpu. By default it is your card but if its set up for the HD4000 then you just right click it and there is a set default gpu to and you pick your card.

bignazpwns wrote:
Please man the real issue is the HD 4000 is what is is. Crap graphics. Intel has never really cared about gaming performance.

The HD 4000 is a huge jump in onboard graphics and will work well for many people.

Intel has made tremendous advances in their built in technology over the last several decades.

john_from_ohio wrote:
The HD 4000 is a huge jump in onboard graphics and will work well for many people.

Intel has made tremendous advances in their built in technology over the last several decades.

HD 4000 is still crap. Look at AMD's APU's its not even funny how bad AMD destroys intel on this. You state the progress they made? The progress is way to slow for what it is. Look at how AMD is and how fast they are advancing. I mean the HD 400 is backing by a stong CPU. This helps it a lot. But its about on par with a HD 7520G what is backed by a pretty weak dual core. Keep in mind the intel system will run you atleast $600 vs the AMD for $450. Now if we match prices and step it upto a nice APU with a HD 7660G the HD 4000 gets driven into the floor hard core.

The HD 4000 is like what 60% at best faster then the HD 3000 and anything at 1920 X1080 will bring that thing to its knees because it just cant handle higher resolutions like the AMD's. I hate AMD but i will give it to them for the APU because they can do some pretty nice things if your on a budget.


You said the HD400 is a huge jump for onboard. Well onboard can consist of some Geforces because anything soldered to the mobo is onboard. Your talking on die graphics and even then its not a huge step forword. Its the typical intel we dont care about gaming graphics progress. The huge step forword for on die gpu's was AMD's APU's . Terascale 3 was a pretty nice step for on die gpu's


Now lets look at Terascale 3 vs Terascale 2 since you wanna talk huge jumps look at what AMD is doing from those 2 also why keeping a lower TDP then intel 35w vs 45w. 10w diff is pretty big. Yes the i7's are faster cpu's but trinity has made some nice progress and what it lacks in cpu power it more then makes up fo it in gpu power and heck in some cases Trinity is faster "Happens when you have integer cores running integer operations". Look at Haswell the graphics in that are pretty disappointing and will be going head to head with the AMD 8XXX in the APU's


I ran a bunch of test on HD 300, 4000 as well as the lower end APU's and the higher end APU's and i can tell you for a fact that the intels dont handle games good at all when the resolution goes up and things like spell effects would hit the intel's about 2X harder then the AMD's. I mean i hate AMD i would never use one but when people ask what kind of laptop they should get and wanna do some gaming and dont have the option to get a system with a nice gpu i hand them a APU every time. I may hate AMD but i do respect the APU's and im happy about what they offer.


That being said its dumb of Asus not to use this feature in the systems The HD4000 in these chips are powered but just not hooked up . Its like having a convertible top on your car but the farm of it is welded to the body so you cant use it. Using the HD4000 for everything other then gaming would give a nice little boost in battery life. I mean even if you downclock the GTX 660,670,675,680m's they are all powerer hogs when compared to the HD 4000.

Doing that would of also saved Asus from the "Derp my system wont play when i have it running on the battery it sucks" Because 9/10 people dont know that the systems sucks way more power then the battery can put out at burst and to game on it under the battery you need to pretty much drop your core clock in 1/2 or you get the typical not enough power lag spikes. Yes the underclocked card is still faster then the HD4000 but most people find it easier to just use that when on the go and gaming.