I'm not sure about the comparison, but this ProBook was around $300-320 (I can't give you a more accurate $ figure because I'm converting currencies, and that's not very accurate). I would expect that it would be competing on price against Celerons and maybe Pentiums, but not i3 models.what is the price of this compared to the cheapest i3 IB? I'm pretty sure HD4000 would be as fast or faster for gaming.
Very nice post and the results are much better than I would have expected. Seems like this is much better than an A10 for the shaders available. Thermal and bandwidth limitations are probably more of a problem for the more powerful part.
Still, an A10 is tempting for its light gaming abilities. Too bad there are not more Intel models available with higher end graphics above the HD4600.
APUs still make no sense to me for gaming on the desktop, but in a laptop, they are a decent choice for light gaming if the price is right.
These APU's are great for the back to school crowd. In Canada FutureShop and BestBuy were selling a 15.6" HP with the fastest Richland A10 with 8GB (2x4) 1866 and a 1TB HDD for only $399.
Unfortunately, the BIOS gives me no such option, and neither does the HP-specific Catalyst Control Center (I say HP-specific because it's the model-specific driver downloaded from the HP site, not the generic one from AMD).
I wouldn't imagine so, or at least the difference probably wouldn't be significant, especially since we are talking about a low baseline (i.e., the absolute value of every % increase would be very small)That HP driver could be worse in term of performance than generic one from AMD?
I don't know, maybe I will give it a try with AMD's latest catalyst. If I get time to re-bench a few titles with just a single stick of RAM, then I'll also throw in a test using AMD's latest driver.