Vicky, believe it or not, in integrated GPU business, Intel simply sucks and nothing have been working for them till now. In fact couple of years earlier they tried to challenge Nvidia (in times of launching the 8000 series GPU) with their Larabee project, developing a 16 core design where each of the cores can execute both CPU and GPU tasks and can increase IGP performance in a dedicated GPU level. But that project failed badly and Ibtel had to dump the larabee concept because the architecture was too much to even for Intel to develope and was not feasible in terms of price also.
In IGP segment AMD has shown far fast growth than Intel and they are way ahead in terms of performance, architecture and price point. In fact their architecture is true fusion, Intel's architecture is not. The Intel HD 2000/3000 IGP is just a Graphics core, not at all any fused design, completely separated from the CPU cores but just put inside a single die. They also work in the same way a mobo based IGP works, reserving some portion of the Ram for GPU calculation.
on the other hand AMD Fusion is a heterogeneous core design, multiple cores are present inside a Die, some of them are CPU cores and some are GPU cores and they use common memory access logic. In fact you're the one who provided me the link where it is shown that AMD may replace the FPU of its processor with a GPU core as GPU is far more powerful than CPU while executing floating point instructions. In fact this architecture has several advantages as here you both kind of cores (CPU and GPU cores) can help each other by sharing the resources and executing the parts where one is better than other. As a result while performing GPU based computing, CPU cores can help GPU to decode and execute complex and scalar instructions and GPU cores can help CPU by executing the parallel and vector instructions.
BTW, here is another review of FX series with couple of more games tested:
*www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/
