Get the (usually much) cheaper AMD machine. The performance will always be close to that of the Intel. The difference is not worth an additional $100. See below for the "technical aspects" associated with this reasoning.
=============={=====
MystoPigz :
The AMD A8s and A10s cannot compare to the i3, i5, and i7s. The A8s and A10s are way worse than those Intel CPUs. If you are going to buy an AMD laptop, I would just get the A8. There is not much of a difference between the two AMD processors. But, if you really care about performance, go with the A10 laptop.
-MystoPigz
Intel quad core used to be 2 dual core chips pasted together, which could only interact through (an extremely slower) bus, while the AMD architecture used to be a TRUE quad core architecture that could interact internally before any signal went into the bus. AMD chips could resolve all internal actions without needing the slower bus, while the Intel would need the slower bus to accomplish the same tasks. This meant any activity involving the use of all 4 cores were always faster in the AMD case. There are quite a few circumstances in which this would be true. This is why, though Intel touted it's chip as superior, and much of the less knowledgeable public and even computer sales people believed this, "hardware professionals", who did this for a living, ONLY used AMD processors for any machine (like servers) that needed real power. Anyone who really knows, knows the old Intel i# solely used a "multi-threading" internal logic to more closely Mimic the action of a true quad core (even as they were still only 2 dual core chips pasted together); AMD chips outclassed these in true power/performance because they were true quad core chips through and through internally.
Now Intel i# are true quad cores; with architecture "remarkably similar to (original) the AMD (quad core) architecture"!! Now they use BOTH the multi-threading logic as well as AMD's true quad core internal architecture.
Based on this information, you can see the Intel chip can't be extraordinarily better than the AMD, being better mostly due to the additional"multi-threading" (which is only "LOGIC" imbedded in an instruction set). Good "logic" may speed up computer activity by introducing efficiency in "execution" of activity, but use of "instructions" always use up some of the existing chip (hardware) resources making less available for other functions, and (though they increase the efficiency in how the remaining resources are used) never increase "hardware power" as such. Instead, brute "hardware power" available for functions that exclude this internal "thread" management is reduced because of the power used in managing "threads". Therefore the efficiency gained by "instructions" for "multi-threading management" (by its nature) can't be as productive as adding more pure "hardware architecture" power!
As you can see, since Intel i# chips have pretty much same architecture as AMD, and can only now have some superiority in their "complex instruction set", their superiority in performance CAN'T be huge.
The others above who say differently are incorrect. I was a programmer on various platforms using various programming languages and O.S. for a number of years. During this time, and afterward, I have interacted with true "hardware specialists" who job it was to support business networks of various sizes
/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834315302&cm_re=acer_940m-_-34-315-302-_-Product
Facebook
Twitter