Why does intel even bother with integrated graphics on their high end cpu's, like the 10900k?

They do though. There are processors SKUs that don't have integrated graphics.

The i9-10900KF is a version of the 10900K without integrated graphics that is priced lower in turn. Any processor with an F in the model number requires a discrete graphics card.

The reason they put integrated graphics on chips is because, believe it or not, there are people who need powerful processors but don't need powerful graphics. Integrated graphics saves on overall build cost and also allows for smaller/slimmer form factor devices.

People do  use it.....................

The simple answer is that it doesn't really cost them any significant amount more.  On top of that the integrated graphics is intertwined into the main instruction set and it's ability to communicate to external GPU's, so it's not something you can just simply cut out.  

What a lot of people don't understand is that the cost to manufacture a high end CPU isn't significantly much higher than the cost to manufacture a low end CPU of the same generation.  With computer CPU's (much like software) the cost is more about the research and development that goes into designing the CPU.  The market demand allows intel to price it's higher end CPU's much higher than the manufacturing cost. They rely on that extra revenue to recover the massive R & D costs that go into it.    

<>Computer,smile,that could be plan,yes,I sympathizing with you,nothing!

trouble shooting only.   they aren't going for achievements with integrated gpu's

There are multiple benefits to having Integrated Graphics with your CPU and that's something you will want to have!

People actually do use the iGPU for things like Hardware acceleration when video editing. The iGPU is used for lower end systems and laptops. Intel moved away from a separate iGPU around 2009 because this saves on space and power consumption.

Otherwise it's there because of the way Intel sorts and bins their processors. Believe it or not the CPU die used for the Pentium is the same as the CPU die used for an i5, i7, or i9. When all CPU's are cut from the wafer, Intel bins and tests each one of them and the less effective dies that need more voltage become lower end CPU's.

Personally I would rather not have the iGPU. If you compare the i7-2600k and 3770k dieshot, you will see that Intel physically shrunk the cores but they made the iGPU portion bigger. What would really blow your mind is seeing the die size difference of the 14nm i7-6700k/i7-7700k compared to the 22nm i7-3770k/i7-4770k. Intel had really been skimping.

So in a sense the CPU core performance could be better than what it is but Intel wants to appease laptop manufacturers like Apple. Intel is promising something like a 15% to 20% IPC performance improvement with 11th Gen Rocket Lake and they'd have to increase the size of the core to accomplish that. Proof is with the best 11th Gen CPU only having 8-cores with Hyperthreading.

It costs them virtually nothing to add it to the die and allows system builders to offer less expensive systems for users that don't play games.

Some people want a computer that can browse the wb and play netflx, not everyone needs a dedicated gpu.

Binning. They make the processors first, and if they're good enough, they're labeled as the higher-end part. Parts that don't clock as high / have broken pieces are labeled as weaker chips. It's cheaper to make most or all chips with the integrated graphics, because 90% of them will end up being i3s, anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_binning#Semi...