Especially since AMD's APUs' integrated graphics have stayed superior to Intel's.

Is it still true?

http://www.hardwarezone.com.sg/feature-integrated-graphics-f...

I think I've seen news about intel negotiating with AMD to integrate their GPU design in place of intel iGPU/IRIS.

All those consoles are bound to have some benefit

>newest Intel iGPU vs two-gen old AMD iGPU, barely keeping pace

Yes, it's still true. That should've been plainly obvious.

Both are from 2015:

https://ark.intel.com/products/88040/Intel-Core-i7-5775C-Pro...

http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-A10-7870K

That Broadwell-cpu is an exception. It is the only series for the desktop where Intel produced capable integrated graphics. Btw, it is also a very strong processor.

But it was released immediately before the next cpu generation was released. It got no real marketing, and support for it was abysmal – some to many games just produced a black screen with it. Based on its performance and pricing I'd have liked to recommend it, but given its socket and its support issues that was almost never a good idea.

Normally you'd compare the A10-7870K to the integrated HD graphics of a Skylake or Kaby Lake cpu, it beats those easily.

The R7 GPU architecture is not from 2015. R7 came from 2013 with the 200-series of AMD GPUs, and was the second generation of GCN.

Not to mention the few available Intel parts with those GPUs cost an arm and a leg.

If it has a K in the part number it is by definition not mainstream.

Those are made for overclockers, enthusiasts, which are a tiny segment of the market. For every K-part Intel produces they must make six E-series Xeon chips and fifty low-power notebook ones.