A8 3500m + 6750m vs i7 + 540m

[Abyssalx]

I'm in the market for a laptop, and my budget is about $700. I'm looking for the best gaming I can get out of a $700 laptop. Best Buy actually has a really good deal going on with this: http/www.bestbuy.com/site/HP+-+Pavilion+Laptop+/+AMD+A-Series+Processor+/+15.6%22+Display+/+6GB+Memory+/+640GB+Hard+Drive+-+Dark+Umber/2738329.p?id=1218348120631&skuId=2738329&st=pavilion

It's an HP Pavilion dv6, with a 1.5ghz quad core AMD A8 3500m processor, 6gb of ram, and a Radeon 6750m graphics processor. I was pretty hooked on it but I found this Acer on newegg.

http/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834215004

2GHz i7 with a GT 540m and 4gb of ram.

I already know that the 6750m is decently more powerful than the 540m, but the i7 is obviously better than the A8 3500m. I need to know if the i7 would give the Acer the edge, or if the 6750m is far enough ahead that I'll still get better framerates even with the slower processor.

If it's a difference of just a couple FPS I'd probably be more inclined to go with the HP, just because of the extra stuff (bigger HDD, nice audio, more RAM, bluray player, and fingerprint reader which I don't care about but might be fun to use.)

So if I could get some opinions on which is better, or if you have a better idea in mind, post it here, thanks!

 

[Immudzen]

So far I am really liking mine. It has run mathematica and other software without any delays that I could notice, it has played all the games I tried without any issues and I can use it as an ereader with the amazon kindle software for about 6 hours or so. I picked up the dv6-6135dx from bestbuy.

I have only encountered two problems with the laptop so far. 1 the camera with its default settings is very slow so you have to turn off automatic light correction and the it works normally. The other issue is I can't get it to connect at 1Gbps to my switch only 100mbps. However using the same cables and the same ports my other machines will all connect at 1Gbps. This is not a huge problem since I don't really send large files to the laptop.

Overall though I would say it is a very good purchase. The fingerprint reader for passwords is also pretty cool.

Edit: Turns out I had a bunch of cables that had 1 line bad in them and 7 out of 8 is not enough for gigabit and since they used to work at gigabit I had not run them through a wire tester again. So it all works now.

 

[ZeroShadowX7]

What about a laptop with i5-2410m, NVIDIA GeForce GT 555m, 5400RPM , 1366x768 Resolution, and 4GB DDR3-1333 of RAM? Would it be better than the Pavilion dv6-6135dx?

 

[Abyssalx]

Are you talking about the Lenovo Y570? If so, then kinda. The GT555m is by default better than the 6750m. But, the GT555m in the Lenovo is GDDR5, which is usually better, but it has a slower bitrate and acts more like an overclocked 540m. Still, it's at least on par with the 6750m. The i5 is no doubt better than the A8-3500m. My big deal with the Lenovo is that the sale that makes it worth it is sometimes there and sometimes not, and the battery life is bad compared to the hp, and battery life is pretty important to me. I'm honestly still conflicted over this dv6-6135dx. I want it but then I see some laptops with i5's and i7's and I wonder if sacrificing a little battery life or graphics performance is worth it for that.

 

[Immudzen]

In normal usage (excel, mathematica, word, browsing etc) I am getting about 5 hours on the hp. In intensive games like fallout 3 I seem to get about 2 hours when I used the dedicated graphics card. I get about 7-8 hours when use the kindle reader software. Many games work on the integrated graphics card and those look like they will run about 4 hours or so.

Overall I have been very happy with the system. It definitely does not feel like it has any slowdowns. Calculations in things like mathematica and excel seem to happen instantly, applications launch quickly, the desktop remains very responsive etc.

I suspect I would need benchmark software since not even a stopwatch would do it to see an i5 was faster for calculating. However I would not need a stopwatch or benchmark software to see how much faster the GUI responds or the battery life since I have compared that with other students that went the intel route and that one is REALLY obvious.

When the intel systems are on integrated gpu they sure seem to run a lot slower on the basic graphics end. When they use a dedicated gpu the battery drains quickly. I really like that on integrated gpu I get good battery life and performance.

 

[Abyssalx]

Yeah, I just kinda realized something too. I have an old Sony Vaio laptop with a Pentium Dual Core 1.46ghz t2310 processor. And an old intel integrated graphics card. That processor is slow, as hell, compared to today's processors. But I have no lag, and watch HD movies on my 47" 1080p flatscreen with it with no problem or lag at all. And it's running windows 7. The 3500m completely decimates that processor, so I have no inhibitions left. The Dv6-6135dx is definitely what I'm going to buy.

 

[Immudzen]

Many people dramatically overestimate the importance of a faster processor. Most of the stuff we do now is not processor bound. Even for my database work I am looking at getting an ultra low power machine for my next system since you can get 16GB of ram and a quad core processor for devel that is faster then my current machine and still end up using a tiny fraction of the energy.

Overall we have gone way beyond the point of diminishing returns for CPUs and much of the newer development is on specialized processors to do certain tasks quickly (hardware video decode, encode, etc) and GPGPU work.

 

[ZeroShadowX7]

Are you talking about the Lenovo Y570? If so, then kinda. The GT555m is by default better than the 6750m. But, the GT555m in the Lenovo is GDDR5, which is usually better, but it has a slower bitrate and acts more like an overclocked 540m. Still, it's at least on par with the 6750m. The i5 is no doubt better than the A8-3500m. My big deal with the Lenovo is that the sale that makes it worth it is sometimes there and sometimes not, and the battery life is bad compared to the hp, and battery life is pretty important to me. I'm honestly still conflicted over this dv6-6135dx. I want it but then I see some laptops with i5's and i7's and I wonder if sacrificing a little battery life or graphics performance is worth it for that.

Yes, you are correct. That's the laptop. Now, I am wondering what makes you say that the i5 is better than the a8. It is my understanding that the i5-2410m has a faster main clocking speed and turbo clocking speed than the a8, but the thing that confuses me is that on intel's website, they say that the i5 has hd graphics integrated in the processor. Same with the a8, they say that there are integrated graphics in the processor. So both the Lenovo and the HP come with dedicated graphics. Wouldn't that mean they both have dual graphics? Integrated and Dedicated? If so, would that mean I could get extra performance with crossfire? Or does crossfire only support dual dedicated cards?

 

[Outlander_04]

IMO the Llano with the stronger graphics card

You might even get better game performance from a cheaper but higher clocked Llano A4 3300 or 3400 dual core .
The intel i3 is a stronger cpu , but even the strongest cpu combined with a weak graphics chip cant game

 

[WR2]

HP Pavilion dv6-6135dx review
Lenovo IdeaPad Y570 review

 

[Abyssalx]

Yes, you are correct. That's the laptop. Now, I am wondering what makes you say that the i5 is better than the a8. It is my understanding that the i5-2410m has a faster main clocking speed and turbo clocking speed than the a8, but the thing that confuses me is that on intel's website, they say that the i5 has hd graphics integrated in the processor. Same with the a8, they say that there are integrated graphics in the processor. So both the Lenovo and the HP come with dedicated graphics. Wouldn't that mean they both have dual graphics? Integrated and Dedicated? If so, would that mean I could get extra performance with crossfire? Or does crossfire only support dual dedicated cards?

Well, my idea that the i5 is better than the A8 is purely speculation. Benchmarks, etc, show it getting better scores. Whether or not you'll notice that, I don't know, probably not.

The Idea with the A8's integrated graphics is that it blows the Intel's integrated graphics out of the water. The A8 comes with an integrated 6620g (I think) which is actually decent, compared to the Intel HD 3000, which is more or less useless. The Intel HD 3000 cannot combine with any GPU. It is merely used as a power saving option on laptops. The 6620g in the A8, however, CAN crossfire, but the deal is, the drivers are meh, and some games will work great with the crossfire and some won't. Still, it can boost performance a lot. Along with being able to crossfire the 6620G in the A8 and the 6750m dedicated card, you can use power saving options to disable the 6750m, and get a lot of battery life. This is just in an options window on the desktop, but some games will require you to change settings in a newly updated BIOS in order to use the 6750m in some games. (Like OpenGL games) (and don't worry, it's an HP bios update, and it's not a big deal to do, or change the option)

 

[Abyssalx]

IMO the Llano with the stronger graphics card

You might even get better game performance from a cheaper but higher clocked Llano A4 3300 or 3400 dual core .
The intel i3 is a stronger cpu , but even the strongest cpu combined with a weak graphics chip cant game

I don't know. From what I've seen, the A8 is around the same for most things as the i3. Although it wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong. The A# series are new chips made from old parts. I'm kinda surprised AMD took that route, I think they could've done better, especially since the point was to impress everyone with the combine processor performance and gaming performance of the new cpus.

 

[Immudzen]

The CPU parts are about the same. The integrated GPUs are not remotely the same. You can play things like Fallout 3 on the integrated GPU on the A8 procs which you can not even remotely do on the i3 integrated chip. A lot of games you can play just fine on the integrated graphics chip in the A8.

 

[Outlander_04]

I don't know. From what I've seen, the A8 is around the same for most things as the i3. Although it wouldn't surprise me if I'm wrong. The A# series are new chips made from old parts. I'm kinda surprised AMD took that route, I think they could've done better, especially since the point was to impress everyone with the combine processor performance and gaming performance of the new cpus.

My point is that the A4 is clocked at 1.9 GHz and turbos up to 2.5 GHz . It can do these higher clocks than the A8 Llanos because the limitation is heat and power draw .
For cpu intensive tasks the A8 is likely to be better , but in gaming where few games make use of a quad core anyway then the dual core A4 should shine when coupled with a discrete graphics chip like the 6750m

I hope so
I bought an A4/ 6750m Hp DV6 yesterday .
I'd let you know how it runs , but its birthday present [ for someone else ] and it wont get run for 10 days or so

 

[ZeroShadowX7]

Well, my idea that the i5 is better than the A8 is purely speculation. Benchmarks, etc, show it getting better scores. Whether or not you'll notice that, I don't know, probably not.

The Idea with the A8's integrated graphics is that it blows the Intel's integrated graphics out of the water. The A8 comes with an integrated 6620g (I think) which is actually decent, compared to the Intel HD 3000, which is more or less useless. The Intel HD 3000 cannot combine with any GPU. It is merely used as a power saving option on laptops. The 6620g in the A8, however, CAN crossfire, but the deal is, the drivers are meh, and some games will work great with the crossfire and some won't. Still, it can boost performance a lot. Along with being able to crossfire the 6620G in the A8 and the 6750m dedicated card, you can use power saving options to disable the 6750m, and get a lot of battery life. This is just in an options window on the desktop, but some games will require you to change settings in a newly updated BIOS in order to use the 6750m in some games. (Like OpenGL games) (and don't worry, it's an HP bios update, and it's not a big deal to do, or change the option)

Ok, Thanks. My next concern would be, when crossfire is enabled on some games, will the combined performance be better than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555m alone? According to notebookcheck, the GT 555m alone has better performance than the 6570m. I actually wouldn't use the intregrated graphics unless I needed save power or use it in crossfire, and also I would lean more toward the HP because it has more bells and whistles for the money (who could not want a fingerprint scanner and face recognition lol). Another concern that I have would be, wouldn't the APU be a bottleneck for the graphics? Or would the Lenovo be better solely for gaming? Thanks for all your help.

 

[WR2]

If you're using gaming as your only criteria, and the APU/CPU choice isn't unusually pathetic, most anything with the GeForce GT 555M would be better than most anything with Radeon HD 6570m / Radeon HD 6750m or Radeon HD 6755G2 (which is HD 6750 aCFX with Radeon HD 6620G).

If you check the HP Pavilion dv6-6135dx review & Lenovo IdeaPad Y570 reviews linked above I think you can see where the A8-3500M APU is holding back the GPU in a gaming benchmark.

Looking at games 2 & 3 years down the road I'm thinking the i5-2410M and GT 555M has the better outlook there.

 

[Abyssalx]

But again, battery life. The HP already has a 5 hour working battery life, with probably 2.5 on gaming. I'm gonna buy another 9cell hp battery along with that hp so that I can get 8-9ish hours on working and a few more on gaming. The lenovo has no battery replacement, and is a 3.5 hour optimal, and in my opinion, that kills the deal. Again, the 555m in the Lenovo is the GDDR5 version, which means it is 128bit as opposed to 192bit, and then barely, if it all will outperform the 6750m. Processing speed has little to do with gaming anymore, and I don't do HD video editing or anything like that to have myself care enough about super CPU speed that I won't notice.

 

[Abyssalx]

Also, the 6750m with the A-series processor benchmarks on notebookcheck are done with 1gb of ram. Wtf. And to get a more powerful battery with an i5/555m I'm looking at ~$900 as opposed to $650.


Edit - To be fair, the y570 isn't a bad choice. But with the i5 and the 555m, it only goes down to $670 with a coupon thats available fairly erratically.

 

[WR2]

Battery usage is roughly equal between a A8-3500M and i5-2410M equipped system. Except while gaming on the battery then the A8-3500M + HD 6620G graphics lasts substantially longer. If you're using the A8-3500M + HD 6750M discrete graphics card you'd lose the big advantage in battery life that comes with using A8-3500M + HD 6620G IGP while gaming.


From the reviews linked above - some benchmarks showing Pavilion dv6-6135dx & IdeaPad Y570 testing results:

 

[Abyssalx]

Just before you posted that I was looking at some other reviews of the Y570. It seems they benchmarked the Y570's battery life with the 555m on. Because with it switched off, it seems to get upwards of 6 hours of battery life. I was confused about that fact. I hope that there are some Y570 coupons soon. I know that the i5 and 555m is only $679, and if the i7 and 555m is only a bit above $700, I'll just go for that. Especially considering the DV6 just jumped $50 in price.

 

[WR2]

You have to be careful when looking at the battery life to make sure you know what size battery (in watt hours) the testing was done with. That PCMag review of the Lenovo Y570 was done with a six cell 62WH battery which I don't believe is the 'standard battery' the laptop offers. I've seen some of the new Llanos get tested with larger than standard batteries too. That, more than anything, seems to muddy up the water about battery life.

There is another little 'gotcha' about Lllano's and gaming on the battery. The performance drops off a bit to extend the battery life. When LegitReviews looked at that they saw a 30% difference in performance. It's probably a fair trade-off to get the extended battery life but people need to be prepared to adjust the resolution or graphics settings in some games to keep them running smoothly.
I haven't been able to find a reference that metions if it's possible to avoid that performance drop off. Im sure any number of people would want to have the option to choose between a battery saving mode and full gaming performance.