A10 5750 VS i5 4200u

Hello guys,i m looking for a new laptop and i have to decide between 2 choices.The one laptop has an amd a10-5750 and the other one has an i5-4200u,their other specs are quite similar so i have to decide which cpu is the best one.According to the benchmark list in notebookcheck.com,the i5 is 40 positions ahead of the a10,check it out here Mobile Processors - Benchmarklist - NotebookCheck.net Tech but the i5 is a dual core cpu and this will may be a bottleneck for me.I m planning to use the laptop for heavy gaming and possibly for recording my games or even streaming it.As you may know,recording is a very cpu intensive job and the more cores the better for such jobs so now i m wondering which cpu suits better for my needs,the dual core i5 or the tetracore a10?What do you think?thx

 

AMD traditionally has always lagged behind in CPU performance, and recently hasn't even come close to Intel's offerings. I used to stream on Twitch Dota 2 1080p just fine with a 1st generation Core i7. Gaming is an entirely different story, but in general games in general are taking advantage of more cores and faster cores.

 

i5 is better as long as the i5 laptop has dedicated graphics.

 

you confused me -.-
Ok so you say intel is better which is a known fact,i know that i7s are the best cpus by far,but look,i m trying to compare two cpus of kinda the same power,i compare the best amd model to a middle class intel cpu,i m not comparing an i7 to an a10,thats pointless,we know i7 is better.Then you say you streamed with an intel cpu implying that intel are the best cpus for streaming but then you say its better to have more cores for games,so are you implying the a10 is a better choice for me cause it has 4cores?btw such avatar,wow,i like it

 

See:
AnandTech Portal | AMD's A10-5750M Review, Part 1: The APU and Radeon HD 8650G Performance


The main difference here is that the Intel i5-4200U is a low end 17W part and the AMD solution is the top of the line 35W part. And the Intel is still faster.


Get the Intel with a discrete gpu and call it a day for your gaming needs. Not only will it be more responsive, cooler and offer more battery life for non-gaming uses, it will offer better gaming performance too depending on the game and the gpu you choose.

As the article states - this is a rehashed Trinity incremental release - and as your gaming and/or streaming becomes more intensive, the more the Intel will be the better choice with half the cores but the same number of threads.


NOTE: I don't game (at all).

But if you see gaming as a 'workload' like I do - then AMD is not engineered for heavy workloads. Not even something like gaming, which would seem like it would clean up in with the (continuing) promise of the APU's for how many years now?

Best advice for the most/longest enjoyment from the same (non-upgradable system): Intel CPU + discrete GPU. It may be more $$, initially - but you'll get more from it than any other combination available now - including the A10-5750.


To not make too fine a point here, let's see where Trinity falls on it's face (and what Richland is based on).

See:
AnandTech Portal | The AMD Trinity Review (A10-4600M): A New Hope

Yeah: even in multithreaded benchmarks the DC SNB i5 is 27% faster (and this is a slower cpu than the i5-4200U we're talking about here).

Continuing from the above link:

From all my experience with AMD and all of the information I've read about it (including the two links I've included here) - I would recommend for your use to NOT get the AMD setup.

What do you need to get though? 16GB Dual Channel RAM and an SSD - at least a 240/256GB MLC model. That will go a long way to keeping whichever system you do end up getting relevant for as long as possible with the indicated workloads you want to run.

Hope this has helped a little.


Good luck.

 

No I was making a general statement. As tiller has pointed out, even a mid range i5 (at least that's what the 4200u is targeted to) is still faster than a top of the line AMD 35W normal TDP processor. And unless you were going for pure gaming as there is an MSI model with that A10 5750 with a 7970M/8970M, then I would go with the i5 + whatever dGPU was there.

It wasn't even that Intel are the best, but it was a quad core as rendering does take a heavy load on your machine, more cores and faster the better. In the streaming sense, likely the A10 might be better than the i5-4200u, but again it all depends on your usage patterns.

 

What he's saying is even Intel's low voltage dual-core processors are better than AMD's regular voltage quad-core processors in pretty much every way. The gaming comment was addressing the integrated graphics that come with the two processors you mentioned. AMD still has better integrated graphics than Intel. This means that if you are buying a system with integrated graphics, a system with an AMD processor will game better than one with an Intel processor, solely because the integrated graphics are better. However, if you purchase a system with a dedicated graphics card (which would outperform any integrated graphics), then it would be best to buy a system with an Intel processor since they are faster and more efficient than AMD's current processors.

 

Get the i5 system. Even being dual core it is better than the AMD as everyone said.
If it was an i3, the decision would be less clear but between an i5 and the A10, the i5 all the way. At least untill we know how AMD Kaveri mobile behaves.

 

The i5 system would be better in single-threaded tasks, but can the same be said for multithreaded programs?
Furthermore, with AMD scoring consoles, etc., games will be specifically designed to take advantage of AMD based systems and architecture.
As such, I don't think that buying Richland APU would be the best decision.

If I was you, I would rather wait for mobile Kaveri to be released (which should be in a few months) and see how it performs (in the 45W thermal envelope, Kaveri outpaces Richland by quite a lot and even Intel offerings in the graphics part, as well as even holds ground on the CPU front apparently) - and with the upcoming shift towards HSA (make no mistake, I doubt it will take years... because HSA was specifically designed to make things easier on the programming front as well as being able to take advantage of shared memory in Kaveri through relatively simple PATCHES - not 'rewrites' of complete programming code - the principles simply aren't the same like with writing for OpenCL and as such do not take long amount of time to accomplish).

But in the end, its your decision.
Its 2014, and I don't think spending money on last year's hardware is a relatively sound decision (especially if you can wait a bit).

 

Kaveri will not come in at 45w for mobile chip as far as I know. 35w is biggest tdp.

Beamed from my G2 Tricorder

 

Deks, yes even in multithreaded workloads the Intel 2C 4T platform is faster than the AMD 4C 4T platform we're discussing. And at less than half the TDP too.

See post #5 for details.