i5 or AMD A6 or A8 processors in a Samsung laptop?

robmar0se

I will give the Passmark scores for the GPUs of the various machines - all are very low in terms of gaming capability - hence aren't really designed for the gaming enthusiast - top end GPUs have scores 20 x higher than these.

Intel i5 integrated HD3000 - score is 423 (not very different to the HD 6520G!)
Nvidia GT 530m = 390 (GT 520mx is not listed, but cycles @50% higher than the GT 520m; Fudzill benchmarks it as 15% higher than the M eg approx score of 445?)
AMD HD 6620G = 469
AMD HD 6520G = 429

So yes AMD is better , but not by much, none of these GPU's are designed for serious gaming.

To put the debate into context, serious gamers with a £100 to spend might wish to look at the Radeon HD 6850 with a passmark score of 2748; of course if you have the cash and gaming is your thing then you could even double these scores for a lot more!

Oh and PS. I agree that today both CPU's will handle day-to-day processing well, however as OS's become larger and new software uses more CPU power, going forward the Intel will run out of puff long after the AMD's reach the end of their useful life.

poppy10_2

Not quite sure where you are getting your stats from.
Try this:



Intel HD Graphics 3000 can't run most modern games at playable framerates, plus it is only DirectX 10.1

robmar0se

poppy10 wrote: »

Not quite sure where you are getting your stats from.

Poppy, to continue the debate, all the figures came from the the Passmark website which I'm sure you are aware of. (and take into consideration all the various factors). The point I was trying to make is that there isn't that much difference in the GPU's here and then only for casual gamers; some folks try to justify the AMD processors for gaming reasons where in reality they aren't really gaming processors, nor are the Intel i series. Hence I don't really see the justification for preferring the AMD's.

So if we agree that both processors can handle the sort of thing the OP wants today, then it really is only a question on the viability in the longer term when OS's grow and software needs more CPU puff. Bottom line machines with AMDs will IMHO may need replacing sooner than the Intels.

debitcardmayhem

Hudpod25 wrote: »

snipped.....
I surf the web, email, watch TV and the odd film and store loads of photographs. In the future I may use photoshop, convert old videos and perhaps play games.

I want to future proof to some extent but is there much difference in the performance of an i5 processor and either of the AMD's? The NVIDIA graphics card is bottom of the range but is it a better combination than the AMD 'package' and worth the extra money?

I realise any of the three are way above my seven year old laptop but any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

Stuart

"store loads of photographs" option 3
" In the future I may use photoshop, convert old videos and perhaps play games. "
Then we are in the dark but perhaps 2

If it was my choice I go for option 1 cos I prefer Intel, and would use Gimp instead of photoshop , and Linux rather than Windows, and buy an external disk drive for backups , and if you want to use Windows make sure the first thing you do is create a rescue disk, and then apply all the updates available, and create a backup, and continues to do backups regularly.