Sounds a LOT like... trying to use a Pentium Gold 2C/4T Intel CPU for "gaming", even with a dGPU.
Which is a bit ironic, given the YT'ers "love" for things like that, but
@DAPUNISHER , opposition, that they "just aren't good enough for a 'real' gaming experience", because of lack of cores or threads or whatnot, because they "stutter" regularly, or whatever the charge against them is. Which, ironically, could be applied to the GPU portion of APU gaming, I think, which
@DAPUNISHER is a proponent of. Contradiction?
Edit: Holy hell, my posts read like a 'bot wrote them, tonight.
First, What even is that I read? Also, I honestly feel like I am wasting my time. A bunch of financially established older folks with high end kit, playing at high res and settings. There is no common ground from a perception standpoint. For context: My kid has a hard time looking at me playing at 60 after playing at 165 for hours.
Where most disagreements come from, is due primarily to that subjectivity. For example: The less than 2GB download remark is laughably wrong from my perspective. Hence why there is no point in pursuing that line of debate. Nothing will come of it, as no one is wrong. Your subjective analysis is as valid as mine.
I will say, if you want to build a little HTPC or min-ITX that can't take a decent dGPU and expect to play all those horribly optimized AAA games from the last few years, without some real compromises to visuals and/or fps, you're gonna have a bad time.
Next: stating I am opposed to testing games without playing them, is a factual statement. But how you see that as a contradiction, because of my affection for IGP going back decades? Well you lost me there. One is a lack of enough testing. The other is deriving enjoyment from something while understanding its limitations. I can't see how those are comparable.
Not all get it wrong either. ETAPrime does a great job, and really shows what APUs can do. Of course, he knows the limits, and doesn't have unrealistic expectations. And is cool enough to show how bad something like Cyberpunk'd has to look to make it playable. Playable is subjective, and where discussions get spicy. Anyone that checks my post history, knows I don't do debates, or flame wars. I don't mind if I am wrong, or admitting it. I ain't looking to be that rare individual that wins a debate or argument on the interwebz. I communicate what I want to convey, then I'm done. Ergo, this will be my last reply to any of this contentiousness.
I have had warm feels for IGP for decades. I think it is one of the more interesting areas of PC parts. Something about being able to game without a discreet vid card has always felt more like the future to me, than any other PC hardware. I like that feeling.
Concluding opinions and info: I play games appropriate to the APU. Because I go in knowing full well the limitations. Limitations that are less than the 2 dGPUs that inspired the thread. Games like MC collection, Fallout series, Half Life series, Batman series, older Assassin's Creed games, older Call of Duty, Dirt series, Dirt Rally series, Forza series, GTA series, Mad Max, Just Cause 1-3, Tomb Raider 2013 (Haven't tried the others yet), Sleeping Dogs, Home Front, Warhammer 40K space marines, my entire GOG library, some OG Xbox emulation e.g. Destroy all Humans; The list goes on. I play the majority of those listed and others, at 1080p higher settings. A few more demanding at 1080p custom. A couple might even mean low settings or dropping to 900p and whatev settings.
As I have mentioned before, I have systems from APU to a mid tier gamer 5800x and 3060ti. I play games appropriate to each system. Cyberpunk'd is best on the 3060ti, you get the point. So when the game runs great on a power sipping APU, heck yeah I will play it there.