might be other issues I havent spotted - but if the flying spaghetti monsters are all gone, then at least you can start playing it! ;D

I entirely agree!
I'll elaborate something and be sure to contribute y'all :)

Pretty satisfied. Only one game I want doesn't run on my laptop and eventually it will once I get a new laptop (currently rocking a Lenovo X230).

I love saving space, I love portability, I love hooking up my laptop on my big screen TV for movie watching or some gaming. But most games I like actually fit better on a small screen :)

I like playing the games with everything on max, but unless the game looks horrible I don't really mind (played Tomb Raider 2013 on 720p and min... still looked great... hated the combat though x_x).

So yeah :) Go Intel HD :P

I mostly run my games on Intel graphics and I am pretty satisfied with the experience. I like the Intel graphics because of their good open source Linux drivers.

That will probably change in the not so far future when the Intel driver reaches OpenGL 4.2 compatibility. Currently they are still at version 3.3, but most of the things required for OpenGL 4.2 are already implemented, with only a few things missing.

Depends on what you want to play and what particular HD graphics chipset you're using.

I have a 13" netbook with Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail) aka the tiny under-powered thing at the very lowest-end of them all, but I'm still able to play Quake 3 under ioquake3 in Linux with over 100 fps all maxed out at 1366x768. Return to Castle Wolfenstein also works like a charm.

Less demanding, but more recent games, such as Star Ruler 2 or Windward to name a couple work well (above 25 fps) with medium settings.

Most older 3D games work perfectly on any of these chips, so unless you want to play more recent stuff (and let's be conservative for lower end chips and say those are "games that showed up in the last decade" or "games that got released after Windows Vista showed up") you have no reasons whatsoever to want more.

Don't mind me if you have higher end HD Graphics chips, because then you can of course venture into the realm of more demanding games as long as you're fine with lowering the graphics quality.

This thread is dead spot on with my dilemma, A few weeks ago I was considering a laptop with only Intel HD Graphics since I can't afford much. Knowing it can run many Linux games fine reassures me it might be a good purchase afterall :-)

Just installed Heretic Kingdoms, didn't encounter any graphical glitches or anything. I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster anyway, I'm a flying blue elephant follower.

I'm pleased, I guess. :P
I'm also happy that Intel and Linux are cooperating with each other on so many levels.
This tiny device is a godsend and assures that Intel GPUs and Linux are good to go.

I've heard good things about Iris Pro graphics and that Brix PC may be better suited for my case than a Laptop since I have access to a monitor or tv.

I have a laptop with Intel HD graphics that I'm not at all happy with. I tried to figure out what type of Intel HD it is, and checking the processor (Pentium B970 @ 2.30GHz) and motherboard type I have on that laptop it's probably the Intel HD Sandy Bridge type: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-Sandy-Bridge.56667.0.html

I experience lagging even with Baldur's Gate (the original one) and playing Battlefield 1942 crashes if the settings are turned up too much (High quality + 1368x768 res =crash). It's good for playing video's, I use it at home now to play videofiles on my TV screen.

For a bit of gaming when I'm staying at my parent's house I swapped it for an older laptop I had with a Radeon HD5470 (with a core i3 M 370 @ 2.40GHz). Much more fluid gameplay with that one.

I check notebookcheck.net on the net (sorry, silly pun) when looking for laptops and I've noticed the more modern Intel HD chips (Intel HD 4000 and up) do a much better job. But the old type from the Sandy Bridge era has a very underwhelming performance.

from what ive been told in the past, its part of the reason for some of the snobbery regarding intel chipsets

It is not only the GPU generation that matters but also the configuration. In case of Sandy Bridge, there were basically two different configurations of the GPU, the HD3000 with 12 shader units and the HD2000 with just 6 shader units. The GPUs in the Celeron and Pentium CPUs were just called HD graphics and were basically an even slower version of the HD2000 with less features.
It is similar with newer generations, so when buying a new PC and you want to use the CPU's GPU for gaming, make sure you buy a CPU with one of the faster GPUs. Currently the fastest Intel GPUs are the Intel Iris Pro with an additional very fast on-chip RAM (e.g. the Iris Pro 6200 with 48 shader units and 128 MB of EDRAM).

Given that I play OpenGL games almost exclusively, and that they're mostly old, I have to disagree on this one.

Ok good to hear then this is not an issue (anymore?). Intel seems to really have done a good job making Intel HD graphics backwards compatible with older games, something I feel can't be necessarily said about e.g. NVidia who seems more interested to get 1-2 fps more out of AssCreed Inquisition and Far Cry 5 with a new driver version, even if it breaks some older games at the same time.

BTW, what old games are good for checking out the legacy OpenGL compatibility? I presume Quake 2, maybe Half-life and Serious Sam games (I recall you can set those games to use either OpenGL or Direct3D, your choice), any others?

Ok, so that's what you meant by a "all-in-one PC". I thought you meant some powerful desktop PC that can do everything, even running The Witcher 3 in 4K resolutions and full details, as well as playing old games. But you meant some highly integrated "mini-PC".

I'm a bit different though. I like portability (hence laptops), but I'd still require it to have some level of modularity, at least so that if some component like the hard disk or a fan dies, it can be replaced relatively easily, even by yourself. (I'm planning to replace one fan on my 3½ old gaming laptop now, as it is sometimes producing a bit of extra sound, ie. the fan might fail in the future).

I dislike the idea of fully integrated devices where it makes sense to throw the whole unit to trashbin even if just one component in it dies, and often trying to fix that one component costs more than buying a new similar device. Smartphones and tablets are starting to be like that, throwaway electronics, especially the ones with integrated batteries.

What I do like about smartphones and tablets though is that they don't need fans at all to cool them down. Less moving parts to break down, and no dust inside. Reminds me of my first desktop PCs which didn't have nor need even CPU nor graphics card fans, they ran cool enough even without. There was a fan for the PSU though.