Ironically, intel is the market leader in the computer graphics industry and not Nvidia or AMD.

They sell more units, probably, but leading, no, the performance is well behind the top of the line from AMD and nVidia. And really behind the ball on the midrange as well.

Indeed. I was very pleasantly surprised by how well it's been holding up on my lappie. It's no powerhouse, that's for sure, but for the majority of my needs it works splendidly.

All of a sudden, my six year old 32-bit Core Duo MacBook with it's 64 MB GMA 950 doesn't feel so bad...

You'd be amazed at their new drivers and chips then, they actually can do real 3D acceleration and fail to utterly suck.

I was a bit grouchy earlier, but the fact that they're not complete crap and sort of so so is an X-mas day miracle.

Then again, I might be still bitter over that damned i740 I had.

It's more of an ignorance than being poor when it comes to PCs. You don't need to constantly upgrade but it obviously depends on your requirements for performance graphical fidelity. If one of those doesn't matter or not too much, you're usually fine with older computers. It's when you require both and is low on cash it becomes annoying. Then again it's a whole other ballpark if we're talking about minimum requirements so that the game actually should start rather than the definition of playable to really playable.

Considering the capacity of the Intel HD 4000, isn't the GPU in your 2006 old desktop better?

The vast majority of post 2000 games on GOG's catalog run fine with optimal or near optimal visual settings on my 3 years old laptop with an Intel integrated graphics card (definitely not the latest model), true story.

Indie games (even the most recent ones) are not an issue and only the more recent (past 2007) AAA action titles are problematic.

Overall, though, it was a good laptop when I got it (the graphics card is it's weakest link) so I'm sure the extra CPU and RAM make up for it somewhat (but I have no illusion that recent AAA titles would run smoothly).

Well, buying a laptop will force you to tradeoff some performance and durability for the extra portability.

Whether the extra portability is worth it really depends on your lifestyle and whether or not you mind carrying a backpack or a suitcase everywhere you go.

If you rarely (if ever) plan to do computing away from home (overlooking office computers obviously), then it makes complete sense to go for desktop all the way.

I don't really get people who buy a laptop strictly as a home computer. I carry my laptop around everywhere I go which is what makes the tradeoff worth it for me.

I concur. But recent iterations seen in versions of the ivy bridge and the upcoming haswell are expected to be fairly competent. The performance gap between an AMD APU and that of an Intel one is no longer as big as it once was.As of now, an Intel hd 4000 (ivy bridge) is considered as being good enough for the average consumer who would fire up the occasional casual game. It's a far cry from the shoddy IGPs you would see in a 10 year old laptop.

If you're attempting to strike a comparison with a discrete gpu then yea there is a big difference. However these are catered towards a more hardcore gaming audience.

'd reckon that an hd 4000 would work just fine with most games on gog except for the very new and extremely graphically demanding ones.

It's kind of inevitable. Unless of course I missed Intel getting back into the discrete GPU market.

Wow, your laptop is 8 years old and runs fine? What brand is it? Have you spent a lot of money fixing it?

AMD APUs are still better by a long shot if no-frills gaming is what you're look at.

8 years! I thought mine is pretty old with 6 years, but yours beats mine by 2!

I'd suggest putting all the money you save by not buying as many games as before towards a new PC.

You can also try winning hardware. I have a Facebook page where I post hardware giveaways I come across. The chance of winning isn't that high, but I win about one piece of hardware a year, which isn't bad.