3rd Gen i5 Dual or AMD A10-4600 Quad?

I'm trying to choose between these two HP Laptops. The dv6t has the 3rd gen i5 with a 650M gpu and the dv6z has a quad A10 with a 7730M gpu.

I do a lot of image editing in Photoshop, I'd be gaming as well, and the laptop mostly stays on my desk.

Is the A10 quad core going to make a big difference over the i5 dual core? I'm upgrading from a (core 2 duo 2.0, 3gb mem, 8800m gts) laptop and trying to get the most performance I can in the upgrade.

If you know of a better laptop or configuration for around this same price let me know.

Thanks for the help

----------------
HP dv6t-7000
----------------

3rd genderation i5-3210m (2.5 GHz, 3MB L3 cache)
Nvidia GeForce GT 650m 2GB GDDR 5
8GB DDR3 Memory
750GB 5400RPM HDD
15.6 (1366x768)

Price: $794.99

----------------
HP dv6z-7000
----------------

AMD Quad-Core A10-4600M (3.2GHz/2.3GHz, 4MB L2 Cache)
2GB AMD Radeon HD 7730M Graphics
8GB DDR3 Memory
640GB 5400RMP HDD
15.6 (1366x768)

$774.99

 

definitely i5.

650m beats 7730m by a lot, and crossfire doesn't work (which doesn't matter because xfire sucks in 95% of cases anyway)

and i5 cpu is no contest.

all that considering it will stay on your desk plugged in all the time.

Even battery life of A10 shouldn't be a huge advantage. When I had my A8-4500m, I observed the battery discharge rate during web browsing, and it was discharging at 11-12 watts from a 62whr battery, which means I'd only get about 6 hours battery life.

A10 is $20 cheaper, and you're getting $200 less power. Not even worth the savings.

if you check the trinity threads 2 of us posted in, you'll see the A10 turboboost number is pure BS. It's really "2.7/2.3".
On the other hand, Intel turbo has always worked pretty good.

 

Hi link626,

I noticed in another thread you said:

"For 799, you can get an ivy bridge i7 with a gt630 dgpu + bluray and 2 year warranty."

Do you think the i7+630m is better than the i5+650m? I was able to build it with coupon like you described but not with blue ray, must have been a different coupon at the time:

dv6t
-------
3rd generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3612QM (2.1 GHz, 6MB L3 Cache)
NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) GT 630M Graphics with 1GB of dedicated video memory
8GB DDR3 System Memory (2 Dimm)
15.6 screen

$799

Thanks for your help.

 

Oh, there will be a big difference all right... just not in the A10's favor. What you have to keep in mind about the A10's CPU is that calling it quad-core is technically accurate, but in practice, a bit of stretch. It's really a dual-module CPU where each module has two integer cores, but only one FPU and not quite the resources an independent core of Ivy or Sandy or Llano got. As a result, the A10 "quad-cores" are quite a bit slower than Intel's dual-cores for most use cases. For example, here is a comparison of the A10-4600 (a 35W chip) with an i5-3427U (a 17W chip meant for ultrabooks and with a base frequency of 1.8GHz). The low-voltage Ivy wins practically every time; your 2.5GHz i5 will crush the A10.

I don't think you need the i7 unless you use heavily multi-threaded applications. Does Photoshop do this nowadays? I have not used it in a while, but I don't think so.

 

No, not for your uses. For photoshop is graphics card accelerated (through CUDA/openCL and only in certain tasks) but there would only be a negligible performance gain going from i5>i7 unless you use photoshop professionally. The i5 + 650m is probably the better deal but you're likely going a bit overkill unless you increase the resolution from 1366x768 or use an external monitor. The difference in GPU performance between the two in photoshop is negligible but in gaming it's far from indistinguishable. The 650m is a much better GPU. Considering gaming seems like your most intensive task, I'd take the i5+650m.

The A10 is a fantastic little chip but it's benefits stem mainly from the on-die GPU. The 7660G pretty much matches the 630m/540m in gaming (it varies on the title with the 540m/630m ahead by a very slight edge). So if you're adding a discrete GPU (or have the need to) then you're better off with an i5+discrete GPU. If you're gaming at 1366x768 res, though, then the A10 is a great buy because you won't necessarily need the discrete GPU and you'd save some money. As far as photoshop goes, you won't notice a difference at all between the A10 and the i5 or i7 + GPU unless you're using photoshop professionally, though even then the I/O bottlenecks make a bigger difference, so adding an SSD will benefit you the most.

And don't bother looking at cinebench for Trinity's performance numbers. Cinebench is a pretty poor benchmark to judge it by due to how heavy it stresses FPUs, which is what Trinity lacks architecturally (.5 FPU's per 1 ALU). From a general usage perspective, you really won't notice the differences between an i5/i3/A10 or i7QM unless you're doing very specific tasks.

 

that deal is long gone.

you will have to weigh your priorities between i5 and i7 packages.

as others have said, heavy duty cpu, lots of video editing and encoding = i7 combo
well rounded, with heavy duty graphics = i5 combo

in either case, you slaughter anything AMD can throw at it in terms of raw cpu performance.

AMD does not deserve to be priced above 600

 

Generally, you shouldn't buy an HP DV6 in any configuration that includes the stock 1366x768 display instead of the upgraded 1920x1080 display, unless you require larger text for eyesight-related reasons. This particularly applies if you are going to be doing photo editing, but it applies in most cases where larger text isn't required for eyesight-related reasons.

It is more than missing out on an excellent display, it is also an issue of how junky the default display is. 1366x768 resolution in a 15.6" display makes things onscreen large, and 15.6" displays that have 1366x768 resolution tend to have very poor image quality due to low contrast. It is advisable to avoid this type of display when it is reasonable to do so.

Prioritize the 1920x1080 display upgrade over upgrades to the processor. Gaming isn't affected particularly much by the processor because gaming is primarily GPU-bottlenecked, and in many cases photo editing isn't affected particularly much by the processor except to save a few seconds or fractions of a second off of filter times. But image editing is affected considerably by the display quality, and daily multitasking is affected considerably by how much you can fit onscreen at a time.

Another way to think about it is: Essentially any CPU and dedicated GPU you select in a new laptop will be a quantum leap over what you had in your previous system. But if you aren't careful to make sure that you get a decent display, you will have a similar or worse display than you had previously.

This saved configuration includes the Radeon 7730M GPU upgrade and the 1920x1080 display upgrade. Use this as your base configuration, and add upgrades you need to on top of it.

Remember to use coupon code 20DEALIGG (or SAVE50HP, or SVP471394 if it works on your model and gives you a bigger discount).

---

 

Thanks for everyones help.

So the 1366x768 screen is that bad that I should drop of an intel to the amd? I've used the lowest screen configs on all of my previous computers and never really noticed they were bad. I have a 17inch right now and it only goes to 1440x900. 74x132 less pixels cant be that bad especially when the screen is going to be even smaller.

I guess I need to check out a screen with a 1366x768 resolution at best buy.

Thanks again.

 

no. the 1366x screen is not "bad". It's just like all of the other lowest resolution screens you've used before. All 1366 screens are about the same quality.

screen quality has nothing to do with intel or amd.

other people are just spoiled by the 1080p screens.

you don't have to buy 1080p if you don't need it. High end 1080p screens are for those who need exact color reproduction in photos and such. But since you've always been using low resolution 'bad' screens, it sounds like you couldn't care less.

I have a 1366 screen, and I'm fine with it. I've also seen IPS screens, and i'm still fine with my "bad" lcd. I have an external 23" 1080p monitor via hdmi for multitasking

 

The HP's 1920x1080 display upgrade is not intended for professionals. While 15.6" 1920x1080 displays do tend to be better for professionals than 1366x768 displays due in part to their generally higher contrast and how much content they can fit onscreen, displays that are truly intended for professionals are the 10-bit IPS RGBLED displays offered in the HP EliteBook 8560w and Dell Precision M4600.

The difference between a 15.6" 1366x768 display and a 15.6" 1920x1080 display will tend to have more of an effect on user experience than an upgrade to another component. It is not so much of an issue of whether someone needs a resolution as high as 1920x1080, it is mainly an issue of how limiting 1366x768 resolution is and of how poor in quality 15.6" 1366x768 displays tend to be due to low contrast. It is merely a good idea to avoid 1366x768 resolution in a 15.6" display in favor of a higher resolution in the same screen size, when it is reasonable to do so, unless the larger text of a 15.6" 1366x768 display is required for eyesight-related reasons.

The ASUS K53TA was a $400 laptop. But sice the budget in question here is approx. $800, the HP DV6z can easily be bought in a configuration that includes the 7730M GPU, the 1920x1080 display, and another ~$50 upgrade.

 

that's one way to look at it.

now see if the op wants power, or multitask with a higher resolution screen.

as low as the contrast is on 1366 screens, I find that pictures and websites display just fine without looking washed out.

the 1080p upgrade costs $150. The OP may be different, but I'd rather spend that money on a 23" external monitor and have some dual screen action. I can game on the laptop, and watch a porno on the external lcd simultaneously.

tiling a bunch of windows on a 15.6" screen is not very practical, especially with photoshop, and when you game, you take up the whole screen, so multitasking even has its limitations.