It is weird thing. Unfortunately physics is merciless, ANY really interest GPU, MUST have significant consumption, even if it is some moderate level player. Re

It is weird thing. Unfortunately physics is merciless, ANY really interest GPU, MUST have significant consumption, even if it is some moderate level player. Real numbers, ~15..25W for moderate modern GPU, even without considering other disadvantages, like high RAM bandwidth requirement (and sure, usage). If you talking about low end CPU, for them 45W TDP usually already a lot, and unfortunately, this is not include iGPU consumption. Even for top CPUs, where normal 65..150W, additional 25W is significant. For example, I tested things on now considered old, core i7-7700, which claimed 65W TDP, and it's iGPU, which is around 1/10 of old nvidia 1060, consume ~15W, and these numbers looking plausible, as nvidia 1060 claimed consumption 120W. What all that mean, real TDP of core i7-7700, when high iGPU usage, far exceeding claimed 65W (easy to calculate, 65W + 15W = 80W). Unfortunately, I have not equipment to make accurate enough measurements, and not existing any reliable source of such measurements, but from open approximations, and rumors, and experience, I could say, when use iGPU only for trivial office graphics (HN page and some text blogs), and limit CPU freq to official 3.6GHz, looks like it really spent 65W and official boxed cooler is enough. When I tried to use TurboBoost, also official 4.2GHz, and run intensive for iGPU graphics (or some GPU math), in about minute got throttle. Rumors said, i7 more then doubles it's consumption in TurboBoost, so need much more powerful cooler, considered ~150W, much more than claimed 65W. But with better iGPU, really added consumption will be 45..80W (considering, iGPU usually using more energy effective tech than discrete GPU). I don't think, you will be happy, even if CPU alone TDP around 250..300W. Sure, these all disadvantages, are not end of world, but hard to name them advantage..