i3-3110m vs A8-4500M for Starcraft 2?

Discussion in 'SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs' started by etherealfocus, Nov 2, 2012.

  1. etherealfocus

    etherealfocus Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Got a choice between two 17" laptops for the same price... only diff is the i3-3110m vs the A8-4500M. Obviously the i3 is generally superior but it's out of stock right now so I nabbed the A8.

    The only demanding thing I do on the machine is run Starcraft 2. So... I'm inclined to go back and exchange this thing for the i3 as soon as it's in stock, but if the A8 is substantially faster in Starcraft 2 I might consider holding onto it.

    What think you guys?
     
  2. MarkLuvsCS

    MarkLuvsCS Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Starcraft 2 will definitely run faster on Intel if GPUs are even remotely close.

    If both laptops are just using the iGPU though, it could favor amd. What are the other specs of laptop: GPU + Resolution is primary concern as far as gaming is concerned.
     
  3. etherealfocus

    etherealfocus Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're both 17" 1600x900, 4GB memory, same brand. Pretty much identical except for processor. And yeah, they're both using the IGP. I know the A8's GPU is a bit faster and I know the i3's CPU is a LOT faster, and I know that Starcraft actually does care about CPU quite a bit.

    They're also both four-thread CPUs so I doubt if AMD can acquit itself with a multitasking advantage... and the i3 will pry improve battery life too.

    So you'd go with the i3 I assume?

    Oh, I've got a Sammie 830 SSD on the way so whichever machine I get will have that going for it. I'm downloading SC2 now to test it on the A8, will post back soon. Doubt if I'll be able to run 1600x900 even low res but we'll see... I'd be happy with 768p medium detail, which seems reasonable since my last laptop with an i3-2330+HD3000 managed it pretty well (with some annoying framerate drops during big fights).
     
  4. MarkLuvsCS

    MarkLuvsCS Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    0
    HD4000 vs Desktop Llano (more GPU cores) Highest end trinity a10 (most cores this gen) vs. HD4000

    seems to show at 1600x900 the HD4000 is adequate for SC2. The trinity chip seems like it will still be faster than the i3 in total comparison for gaming, but it's up to you if adequate gaming performance with other perks with intel, rather than AMD's likely slightly better in gaming but worse in others. I'm not sure how to compare the 400 GPU cores from llano on the a8-3870k to the 256 cores on the a8-4500m.

    I would get the Intel system myself because it seems fine for occasional gaming, while offering better single-threaded (less app dependent) performance, and a better battery life.
     
  5. jihe

    jihe Senior member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    1
    For laptops I'd go intel simply because it's much more efficient. You want to look after your gonads.
     
  6. etherealfocus

    etherealfocus Senior member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2009
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Heh. That was my worry as well but I've been running SC2 at 900p med detail high textures for a few hours and even with poor ventilation on my couch it hasn't gotten hot. Battery life pry still sucks and of course miserable single threaded performance is unfortunate, but it's a better experience than I was expecting. I'll pry still trade it in, but I'm glad to see AMD machines are still viable if not entirely optimal.