Yesterday I bought new ASUS P8H67-V and Intel Celeron G530.
I didn't have any wrong expectations about gaming with G530 with its integrated Intel HD Graphics.
Just for the idea I tried with Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare in Windows 7 Ultimate x64.
Old enough game that should be playable at lower settings.
The Intel HD drivers crashes like clock just before the start of the level. If I try 50 times it will crash 50 times. There is a Windows system message in the tray saying that the driver has recovered, if you click again the CoD in the task bar, you are out again with the same message. If you are fast with ctrl-alt-del you can kill the process. If you are not, the game freezes the whole machine and the reset button is the only solution. This is not the big problem.
The big problem is that when I want to see 3D buildings in Google Earth, I have the same Intel HD Graphics driver crash, recovery, crash, recovery until I close Google Earth. Not playing with Celeron with integrated graphics is normal but not been able to browse Google Earth because of the graphics driver, really ****** me off.
I've tried all possible drivers - from the original mobo disk, from Windows Update, from Intel web site - no difference. With the original BIOS and with the newest mobo BIOS - no difference.
After reading A LOT of posts regarding similar SERIOUS problems with Intel HD, HD2000, HD3000 drivers, I have one serious (no irony at all) question to Intel guys. Based on the practical experience, 3D functionality of the Intel HD graphics is very, very limited and is usable for a particular applications/games. This is a fact, no arguing here. So, by knowing this, why don't you Intel guys write this clearly on the boxes of your CPUs? I'm not kidding you. Say something like "The integrated graphics core can work with a limited amount of application with limited 3D features. For a particular list of this application, please visit ... link BEFORE BUYING!"
I'm not a lawyer but with all these serious issues, such a statement is a must.
The good thing for me is that I can add a true graphics board, which I am going to do on Monday. Now I know that I MUST NOT buy Intel HD Graphics laptop. It's a pity, because this spoils all excelent Sandy Bridge CPU capabilities.
Intel, if you are serious about making integrated CPU+GPU, you should really address all these GPU=CPU issues.
Why should I pay for integrated graphics if it is useless? Why should I buy a CPU with integrated graphics at all?