I AM A MORON.
why were onboard graphics not actually put onboard - i.e. on the motherboard - instead of on the CPU? surely having on-die integrated graphics will be a waste of resources, or at least a design complication, plus the obvious added heat. If we really want to provide people with an alternative to a gaming GPU, and there's new technology that allows it, you could simply design a small chip that fits on the mobo.
this gives the buyer the choice to have it or not, and simplifies the design - of what is arguably the most complex component in the whole system.
I do get that having the GPU on-die makes it more efficient .. slightly. Not sure this is a valid argument for on-die graphics, though.
i'm talking Intel here, and AMD second.
There actually used to be motherboards with onboard graphics. They went out of style... probably ten years ago now? Maybe a little less. iGPUs made them pointless and they make motherboards more expensive, so away they went.