There is no "the" graphics driver. There is a foundational driver for the GPU device in the kernel, the i915, which is installed anew with each kernel, not separately. Then there are various display drivers and components for X:

• the crude generic basics vesa and fbdev
• the DDX for Intel GPUs only
• the newer technology DIX modesetting, hardware agnostic, intended to replace the Intel DDX, and packaged with the server, not separately
• DRI
• Mesa
• OpenGL

I added a nvidia gt 710 to replace the graphics from my intel i7-3770s, which improved my 1920x1080 21 inch display considerably. The intel i9i5 driver has improved since then. The intel driver works fine in my Thinkpad T450 laptop (14 inch screen). My desktop now has an intel i5-11400F (no graphics) with a nvidia gt 730 graphics card. I believe the sharpness of a screen is the quality of the graphics card plus the pixel size of the monitor. I find 15.6 inch 1920x1080 (smaller pixels) to be easier on the eyes than 21 inch 1920x1080. High resolution smaller screens have smaller pixels and will be sharper and easier on the eyes. It is difficult to find the pixel size in monitor specs, but, to fit more pixels in a smaller rectangle, the pixels have to be smaller. I am seriously thinking about replacing my 21 inch desktop monitor with a 1440p 2k 17.3 inch portable monitor.

A current bottom-of-line graphics card is always going to beat an integrated graphics setup. Most of us (myself included) make that mistake once, and usually with Intel, the poorest graphics performer of the lot.

I had a 35W with Integrated Graphics Processor (IGP)cpu. The 2 cores took 15W each, which left only 5W for the graphics. My AMD graphics card needs an external power supply plug because the socket doesn't give it enough power. And the parts count inside (number of shaders, etc) is very low beside the hundreds or thousands in real GPUs. -0With the low power usage in IGPs comes low frequency, because frequency costs power.

When did you do yours last, 2 decades ago? Gamers may need better, but people using PCs as tools can get totally adequate performance out of the worst desktop IGP Intel now has to offer. My newest discrete GPU is now 13 years old, while I'm getting totally adequate performance from Intel IGPs from as far back as 2008, no-complaints performance from IGPs from as far back as 2013 (Haswell; what I'm using on this 24/7 PC), and better still from 2017 (Kaby Lake) and 2021 (Rocket Lake). My AMD Kaveri APUs from 2014 aren't shabby running 3 or 4 displays either. The bonuses: entirely running FOSS, no proprietary software to taint with or maintain; TDP @3.0GHz as low as 35W on a desktop, so cheaper PSUs well under 500W can be gross overkill; and no noisy oddball cooling fans to freeze or otherwise need replacement long before the card is past its prime.

I'm no gamer. That said I had poor & sucky performance from my Intel Ivy Bridge (HD4000) IGP on my old laptop. Reading the pathetic specs & standards on them convinces me their potential is low. As I bought recently I updated myself. Integrated graphics throw up a picture, and seem fine for office work. I couldn't even get reliable 3D.

https://www.tomshardware.com/feature...rated-graphics

That is all about gaming and keeping discrete cards selling.