A10 cpu performance

I'm planning to buy a gx60 and want to make sure I'm not going to regret straying from wintel
In real word situations how well does the a10 perform in games with more cpu limitations such as starcraft 2 or guild wars 2? Also what about general usage and in productivity software such as indesign or code compiling?
If anyone has any experience with the processor I'd like to hear how it performs as many reviews have it tagged as i3 performance levels.

 

check the discussion that happened in the trinity notebooks thread

 

There doesn't seem to be any real world usage data there. I understand that trinity is trounced in cpu benchmarks and games will probably be limited by a cpu bottleneck, just would like hear some actual experiences with it.

 

actually there are, I posted some games performance in there.

 

Pretty sure you will get some feedback from the GX60 owner thread.

 

You get what you pay for. Intel's CPUs are generally faster than anything from AMD but they also cost more ($$$) and these are specific uses. However, that does not mean the A10 is any less usable either. You pay less for it (lowering the cost of the system) but you also get slightly less performance at the same time. In general usage and in productivity software this "quad-core" APU is more than good enough (in a blind test you might not be able to tell the difference (at first)). The A10 is at times close to an i5 and others an i3, depends on what you're doing. Check the GX60 thread if you haven't already..

 

they dont post anything useful in there. been asking for numbers for several weeks to no avail

 

AMD+Productivity does not compute.

Stick with Intel - you don't need any 'real word situations' to tell you otherwise.

If you want the most performance you can have (albeit at a cost...) Intel is the only game in town.

As for your gaming requirements/question: more is always better - even more important if you're considering keeping the system for over ~18 months (whether we're talking about gaming or productivity)...

With either decision; you'll need at least 8GB RAM for the gaming side of the equation and at least that much for InDesign (though 16GB/32GB won't hurt at the current low prices...).

Good luck.

 

Well amd's Opterons do quite nicely However this will not be my primary machine as a have a desktop. I understand there is a significant cpu performance gulf, but I'm not married to intel and the gx60 is at a pretty good price. As long as cpu bottleneck isn't huge I think I can live with it.

 

But that's the point: it is huge (imo).

I'm not married to Intel or AMD either - but I refuse to live with 'second best' - especially when they'd weigh me down...

 

Well it seems that multi threaded workloads give it performance similar to an i5 which I think is decent enough. Pity I can't find an i5+7970m combo anywhere :-(

 

This is a modern cpu that will do just fine for a lot of things, I don't get what the problem is. Funny how people think you can't get serious work done on an AMD product. Not everything has to be "the best of the best" when all you're doing is typing up a word doc or browsing the web. Sure its slower but like I said before, it also costs less. If the task you're doing requires the fastest cpu available then you wouldn't even consider AMD's products anyways (Intel being the obvious choice and of course more expensive).

What will you primarily be using this computer for anyways? Besides gaming?


Sent from my SPH-M580 using Tapatalk

 

funny that you say you can get work done on amd cpus. I do have 2 thuban cpus in a server that I built and use at uni, this is mainly because of the price and the fact that my workload is multithreaded. I do think that Im going to buy another mobo to put more 2 thubans in there, the ram is fine at 512gb

However those thuban cpus give me much more horsepower than any trinity will ever be able to give me.

And the a10 still bottlenecks games, your 7970m should behave like a 675m, which is just a rebrand of the 485m/580m, its simple as that. if you can pay 300 more and get a i7 3630qm and a 7970m at a clevo chassis, you are going to get much better performance.

 

Yea from what I have seen it is close to a 675m performance, which I don't think is a bad thing. Except when compared to an i7 Quad, the A10 isn't that far behind with the new drivers.

 

which is a bad thing, since the 7970m is around 50% faster than the 675m

 

it is my understanding that the A10 cpu side does around 20gflops, which is at the level of the fastest Intel core 2 duos or mainstream i3 CPUs.

for general word/excel/web usage even my 8-years-old P4-2.66GHz is doing OK (moderate web browsing goes at 40-60% cpu usage under XP), and that is with times slower than the A10. Anybody saying that these AMD CPUs are not good or else is just full of beans.

now if one wants gaming laptop then the A10 will not be the best choice, yet most games out there are highly GPU dependent. And of course if using software that is highly CPU dependent is the primary purpose of the computer then there are better solutions from Intel - just know what you need and then start searching for answers.

 

thing is, it doesnt matter that the game is cpu dependent or not, it throttles down the gpu, in some undemanding games like COD this is a non issue, but when you raise the bar a little bit you can see the difference quite substantially

 

Are you sure this "throttling down of the gpu" isn't somehow Enduro driver-related and not because of the APU itself? I do not understand. I wonder how the 7970M would do with an A8, A6 or A4... (not that anyone would opt for it)

 

tilleroftheearth will always recommend more system resources than you really need. He's like the guy on the digital photography forum who recommends a $2500 DSLR to a guy asking for $200 Point and Shoot recommendations because nothing less will give him satisfactory pictures of his kids (and even then hrm hrm hrm...). If you've ever read a post in which he discusses his own gear, you'll realize that he doesn't have a budget filter because he's clearly not limited by a budget in his own purchasing. It's not that his advice is bad, he'll get you the best performance for your needs, but it's expensive.

I'm more with davidricardo86 and Karamazovmm - the A10 APU is sufficient for pretty much anything you can throw at it, but anything that's CPU-limited will work faster on an i7. I believe the A10's actually got a decent edge on mobile i5's in heavily multithreaded applications (still gets beat in single-/dual-threaded usage), but that's still a fair minority of what most people would do, and even the slowest Ivy Bridge i7 will toast an A10 in just about any situation. If your CPU-intensive work is time-sensitive, meaning you can't take time out for a sandwich while compiling a big chunk of code, you're always going to be best off with the fastest part you can afford (with consideration for the diminishing returns of upgrading beyond certain thresholds). But the A10 will get the job done if you're a big fan of sandwiches.

Gaming-wise, the GX60's performance is slower across the board than the same GPU with an Intel processor (assuming neither is held back by driver/Enduro issues), but it's still the fastest gaming performance at its price point. I personally still balk at the idea of a setup where graphics performance is CPU-limited, but performance-per-dollar is what it is.

 

Fat Dragon:

Your impression of me is way off base. Photography and computing power are not comparable (at least not how you tried to show it) and I've never recommended a setup that is 12.5x the cost of what is being asked for.

The reason it may seem I'm always 'over recommending' is because that extra HP in a computer will never go to waste. While it may never be used to 100% at any given time; it will continue to be useful for many, many, many years - even for a decidedly non-power user.

Along with the above fact: if a system costs 20-25% more to achieve this level of longevity - that is a much wiser purchase than having a system that is essentially almost as expensive, but has to be replaced at least two or three times to give just 'adequate' performance in a few short months - and then have to suffer with inadequate performance until the user has enough $$$ saved up again to repeat this inane cycle.

I can appreciate that a (usually lower) budget is the primary driver of most purchases: I even have one contrary to your assumptions - even if it seems limitless compared to many others here.

However, even better than a huge budget is having the full knowledge of what your buying dollars are capable of.

Most (85%) of my clients opt to save a little longer (and/or a little harder) to get a 'tiller' approved setup.

My 2-3 year old setups run better than some of their new systems (which they promptly returned) and that is something that THEY notice and want to enjoy that same kind of longevity, performance and 'snap' from day one too.

Many here on the forum don't get it: a computer system IS the CPU+RAM (more broadly: Platform+O/S).

Add 'gaming' to the list of requirements and the above equation doesn't change: it simply gets modified with a more powerful GPU or iGPU. Period.

Sure, now, some may not be as sensitive to how responsive a computer is (and/or should be). But they'll get there eventually. Especially if they use one that is properly setup for an extended period. Or they realize how short life really is.

Money is never meant to be saved - it is meant to be spent wisely. Saving a little longer to do something 'right' is never a bad decision. Especially with a question of how much computing power to buy (we cannot buy enough - ever).



Of course what that 'right' is, is where all these discussions start from.

 

I don't know dudes what is your point with CPU bottleneck bla bla, all I can see is A10-4600M perfectly enough for 7970M and I can max out all my games. So for $1200 I've got exactly what I paid for and m sure better gaming machine than more expensive i7+670M or similar.

 

Yeah - you don't know.

(And for gaming: either do I).

 

Fair enough. I disagree quite strongly on some points about computer power never going to waste, most users will neglect other elements of a laptop to the point that it's effectively useless to them, as far as they know, far before it's outdated for their normal computing needs. There's a novel to be written there, I'll leave it.

The photography thing was just a hyperbolic example - on photography forums there's always a guy who tells people they won't get the results they want without an upgrade that goes well beyond their budget; he's been into photography for so long that he doesn't understand that most people just want a camera that shows what they photographed without blurring the image enough to be noticed on the two-inch screen on the back.

When I read your suggestions here I often feel like you've been on a plane of efficient and high-powered computing so long that you don't understand that most people just want IE to open their email within a few seconds. Is it really worth a $300 processor upgrade to open it a second or two faster? Naturally, it's never that simple, but I don't necessarily think it's all that much more complex in most cases. I'm not trying to criticize, just explaining where I'm coming from here. I appreciate that you know way more than I ever will about computers and computing and that, from a certain perspective, your advice is excellent. I just think it's being spread to the wrong audience sometimes.

I'll edit in here that I get a lot of this impression from a couple posts I've seen you give on the topic of SSD's, where you suggest getting high capacity SSD's and then cordoning off 60% of the drive to keep it running at its peak speed for as long as you own it. That's all fine and well, and while one ought to keep 20-40% of an SSD free for optimal performance, I don't think most people are willing to spend that much money for the marginal performance increase of an SSD running at 100% of its potential versus one running at 90-95% of its potential...

 

I also appreciate your points.

Just a correction: if an SSD is actually used to it's full performance potential; the partitioning I recommend (leaving a high percentage as 'unallocated') is not simply giving them that last 5% or 10%.

It is to ensure that the storage subsystem gives higher performance (sometimes not by much!) than what can be achieved with a properly setup HDD.

Yeah; without it: performance is lower than a HDD... But again; not many people push storage subsystems like I can (well; how my workflow can).

 

there is no enduro issues with this machine, and enduro is already fixed on intel mobos.

regarding the performance difference in the different trinity skus, badly.

the i7+670m is exactly at the same price point.

as we all said, at the price the a10+7970m is fine.

there is a cpu bottleneck.

if you can spend more, you get more, a i7+680m can be found for 1500, the same is true for the i7 +7970m.

just because you are not aware of the fact doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

people dont understand that trinity is not AMD high powered cpus, the FX line is, their server line is, if a desktop a10 cant cope with a 5870, how can a mobile one cope with something that is more powerful than a 5870, there is no logic.

wanna see an example of bottleneck on the intel side? pair 2x 680m with a 3610qm, its not going to work out that well, I thought it would, it doesnt.

 

Good call. It doesn't sink in anyway.

No. You're generalising too much. This is true for some ssds. But for an ssd with reasonably good garbage collection, you actually get better performance, objectively, regardless of usage pattern (on a fully partitioned ssd). A corsair gt, for example. You won't get peak ssd speeds, but the point where the ssd "croaks" - from for example sequential 1k blocks until the ssd has to effectively write at the slowest speed twice - is still objectively higher than what you can magic out of a raid0 array of even the absoutely best hdds.

There's just several floors in between here, even on worst case scenarios.

Have a lot of the same problem when people "consider" apus in comparison to other platforms. It's no problem creating a situation - a real one - where an apu will bury intel. Or end up with similar performance as a much more costly and less energy efficient quad-core/nvidia combo. If you choose similarly priced intel/nvidia combos, you can also beat it, objectively, in those situations. And do it for, you know, half the power-draw budget.

But no one will therefore claim that AMD has "the best" processors, or that they should be the only thing to consider. That's just not how it works. It's a tool for a task, just like everything else. And it's not a universal tool by any means.

 

No, I'm not (generalizing 'too much').

Don't take my word for it.


See:
AnandTech - The Intel SSD DC S3700 (200GB) Review


Not only does Anand finally admit it - Intel is actually making a beeline for the real solution.


As for 'its just a tool for a task' - sure, I agree with that. However; a computer by definition is a general/universal tool and bigger/better/faster for a small amount more $$ is always desirable in the long term.


Unless you're upgrading every six-nine months anyways.

 

a computer is just a big calculator, if you cant calculate what you need, clearly that calculator aint enough for you.

when in economics I didnt use a standard hp 12c, I used a g42, the 12c is just a piece of garbage and no graphics plotting allowed.

still it doesnt matter what standards tiller has, the point still stands, trinity mobile aint enough to drive a single high end gpu. the price of the gx 60 is still good. And I agree with him regarding SSDs, the s3700 is just great I want it a consumer version of it. The inconsistency of performance is there, there are some thing that a 10k rpm HDD does that are good enough and stable enough, still a SSD in general terms is a good investment.

 

And yet the OP has yet to mention what his actual needs/requirements are and hasn't stated that the "inferior" solution won't work for him so I assume the option is still open.

Sent from my SPH-M580 using Tapatalk

 

Doesn't change the fact that you have had, for a long time now, "consumer grade" ssds that have outperformed Intel's offerings. As well as solved the issues Anandtech.. I suppose until that article.. have thought (read: preached with utter authority) were impossible to get around.

Hasn't really been true since cisc entered the consumer market, Tiller.

..Ironically, all calculators made are based on reduced instruction sets.

 

No consumer grade SSD has outperformed the S3700 - on a sustained and 'brutal' workload.

What does cisc have to do with a computer being a general/universal platform?

And I think we agree: calculators are not computers...

 

Going by the benchmarks anandtech shows - if they are at all accurate - I've owned several. That beat them under "brutal" workloads. The funny part is that the one I have now, a corsair gt, has higher write and read on all sized blocks apparently compared to the s3700 as well - even when forcing a situation where the ssd is forced to write clear blocks during the write-operation. I know from experience that if you do that same with one of Intel's drives, they drop very far down on the scale.

Anandtech doesn't actually show a situation like that for the s3700, though, so it could be they're just giving you the impression of having actually stress-tested it in the worst case scenario.. What would I know.

You said that a computer is universal "by definition", and that more grunt would always be better. But complex instruction sets already conflate "universal" instruction words on the low level to accelerate commonly used instructions. That's been the case since pentium - but all new computers now are getting huge performance boosts from increasing overhead on the low-level, in order to execute more complex instruction sets (and significantly more commands than would be possible otherwise) every cycle.

In other words, you trade straight forward simplicity and amount of "atomic" operations on the low level, to get higher yield for actual useful information. It's nothing new, even for Intel. At this point, we can't go beyond 5Ghz for consumer-grade computers - and suddenly /all/ the improvement lies in instruction set optimisation.

There's a book to be written here as well, but I'll leave it.

... :/

 

From my experience I can tell that AMD A-8 (4 cores, 1,5Ghz) in Dell Inspirion 15R with 8GB ram (work laptop) seems slower than my private Acer 3820 tg (i5 480m, 4GB of slower ram (1066vs1600 afaik)). I would not but AMD processor in future, even though I would like to see some competition in CPU sector.

 

nipsen, I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise: I know what I know from my own testing with SSD's since late 2009.

I do want to point out some fallacies with your assumptions though:

First, I am not interested in anyone's benchmark 'scores' except my own. Intel basically agreed with my testing results by releasing the S3700 designed the way it is - and, although I haven't tested it yet myself - I'm sure Intel is on the right track given my previous 3+ years experience trying to get SSD's to perform more consistently than a properly tuned cacophony of HDD's.

More importantly: I was not referring to any previous Intel SSD's - although at each introduction they also performed much better in real world use than the then current competition - no matter what benchmarks say. No, I am referring solely to the S3700.

Second, you can't change the definition of a computer. No matter how you phrase it. A computer that follows variable instructions is a general purpose device. Period. From our watches to mainframes. Can computers include ASIC instructions? Sure.

Doesn't change a thing though: Still general purpose, still benefit from 'more/better/faster/bigger' and we'll never have enough computing power - no matter how much $$$$$$$ we have or how little is needed for 'basic' things (because even those 'basic' performance envelopes keep growing with time and the definition of 'basic' keeps getting more complex as time moves on - and consequently needs MORE computing power).

 

I can accept there being a cpu bottleneck but at 1080p I think the gpu will bottleneck at a far quicker speed. The only concern I have are those games that are rely more on the cpu as I have mentioned.
Basically as long as (gaming wise) the fps doesn't go under 60, I would not be too concerend about bottlenecking. Heck I'm pretty sure you can bottleneck a desktop i7 but at the fps point I think the difference is largely academic.

Well I have stated in my original post that its for gaming and productivity software use such as inDesign/video editing and maybe code compiling on the go.
I do have my sights aimed at the gx60, although I have tried to find an i5+7970m combo to no avail. I'm more concerned about gaming as I usually do that on the go more then when I'm sitting at home with my desktop rig >.>

 

The fact of the matter is, the A10 WILL bottleneck the 7970m, no questions about this. However, the degree of bottleneck is game dependent, as games which are more GPU heavy with minimal physics will be little affected whereas games which perform a lot of background calculations such as Civ5 will feel the impact. Most contemporary games fall within the spectrum between the two.
I believe the A10 choice is intentional by MSI, its to enable them to give you top notch graphics for a much lower price point. Has anyone noticed this machine is the same price as the variant with the 660m? MSI have noticed that there are no GPUs that can give good 1920x1080 performance at the $1300 pricepoint, the 660m will choke. However, not all games are heavily CPU dependent so with the A10 bottleneck, the low res performance of this combination (A10+7970m) still trounces the 660m while it totally dominates the 1920x1080 resolution.
True, some performance is left on the table by not using Intel but absolute performance wasn't the design goal, performance for money was the aim.
I don't know but $300 is a lot of money, you can purchase the top of the line Samsung 840 pro 256gb or go on a really fancy date. The fact that MSI can give you acceptable consistent 1920x1080 performance for $1300 is praiseworthy to me.

 

First bit of common sense in this thread

 

dont imagine, the numbers are there for high or ultra at 1080p, there is a very clear difference, see if they work out for you. And always remind that the drivers for the i7+7970m are dated several months back, just when the card launched, so there is a good difference in performance between those and the ones used for the gx60

 

overclockers ran some benchmarks on the MSI GX60 & an equivalent MSI with an I7 / 680m.

@ 1080p Sleeping Dogs Extreme settings the 7970m was actually faster than the 680m. At high resolution the A10 is not a bottleneck for gaming with a 7970m (& is half the price of an I7 / 680m).

 

That's an old and generally useless argument. Sleeping Dogs isn't particularly CPU-intensive, and the game is known to run better on AMD hardware. There are several other threads where multiple other tests show that most games run significantly better on Intel-based systems using either the 7970m or the 680m. Naturally, the ideal situation would be if someone with an i7 + 7970m system (that isn't gimped by the notorious Enduro problems, so probably Alienware) and a GX60 did side-by-side comparisons with the current drivers. Until then, all our comparisons are flawed by using different parts or different drivers, but all but one or two benchmarks (that Sleeping Dogs one being the most notorious) show significantly better performance for i7 setups versus the GX60 - mostly in the 30-40% range for FPS counts.

As has been said here and elsewhere, though: the GX60 provides the best gaming performance in its price range by a significant margin. It's an odd duck in that, against the common wisdom of the last decade-plus, it's a system where the gaming bottleneck is on the CPU, rather than on the GPU as has been the case in the vast majority of systems since 3D graphics (the polygon kind, not the pop-out kind) became a common thing. It causes a lot of controversy as an anachronistic gaming laptop, but in the end it's still the best performer at its price point.

 

got into this while browsing around:

AMD A10-4600M Trinity For Mobile Review: Trying To Cut The Ivy | Performance - Synthetic 3D, Real World Gaming


P.S. and I see someone trying to derail the thread with off-topic SSD information ....

 

miro, this thread isn't just about gaming - the OP also asked for productivity performance too.

The SSD information is not off-topic... (you have to read the whole thread).

 

Uncommon sense

 

that only shows how well the igpu on the amd apus are compared to intel, they are better. If they had more cpu power they would always take the lead against the HD 4000, 100% of the time.

This discussion concerns if the power of the amd apu will be enough to not bottleneck the 7970m (which is in a whole different league from both igpus), it wont. The value of the machine is good at 1200, if you want to know if the value is good for you, just look at the game benchies that i posted several times in other threads.

 

well in this case you'd better be more specific what you understand by "bottleneck". Because I'd hardly call it bottleneck if say the CPU is enough to drive 90% of the full potential of the 7970. And look on the bright side - it wont heat up as much, heh

now if you only get half of the 7970s potential then I can understand all concerns, but I highly doubt that this is the case.

by all means I'm confident that the A10 packs plenty of performance. I even looked into my options of buying a notebook with A10-4600 without dedicated card as I see it not necessary at all (thus I found that link), but for now my options are down to one laptop - HP Probook 6475b, and I'm not a big HP fan since my first laptop (HP Pavilion). So if I'm up to choose between i7-3xxx and A10-4600 then it will be pretty clear to me that AMD is the way to go in this case, though I haven't used AMD since the 80486 days.

and I thought it's pretty clear by now that you cant beat the performance of A10 + 7970 for the price, so it's a winner in any case. Now what was your bottleneck concern again .... ?

- on another note, can you overclock the A10 ?

 

what you find or not, is really not my concern.

Its simple, the 7970m gives sometimes a lot more, and sometimes almost the same (though 10fps aint something that you sneeze at) paired with an i7 cpu. Anything that holds back the performance is called a bottleneck.

Its also pretty clear that I repeatedly said several times every time this discussion comes to light that at the price the performance is quite good, it could be better, but its good.

 

what is clear is that you're saying that the A10 + 7970 would give sometimes almost the same performance as i7 + 7970, and at the same time you're claiming that the A10 is a bottleneck.

it's pretty clear that your bottleneck is not quite a bottleneck. Sometimes.

 

The majority of benchmark evidence shows the A10 bottlenecking the 7970m by a significant margin, and I have yet to see any evidence that the A10+7970m combination ever reaches the same performance as the same GPU paired with an i7. It might come within 5% sometimes, but slower performance still indicates a bottleneck.

So what you should be saying is: "It's pretty clear that your bottleneck isn't much of a bottleneck. Sometimes."

I'd also put an asterisk on that "Sometimes" to indicate that it's a definite minority, since the bottleneck is usually enough to make a noticeable difference.

And finally, for the millionth time, the GX60 is the fastest gaming notebook on the market at its price point right now. Nobody's disputing that claim. Where the dispute occurs is when people try to paint the GX60 as something that it is not: a notebook that provides the same gaming performance as an i7+7970m for less money. It doesn't, it wasn't designed to, and that's okay.

 

This is just an old test with early drivers as most of Trinity tests out there. With newer driver A10-4600M scores 1330+ in 3DMark11 and better in games too. However the guys are interested about CPU performance... nonsense argument, because greatly enough for 7970M seeing MSI GX60 topic, and enough for everything else based on my tests...

 

If you look at the overall CPU performance of the A10-4600m vs a lower end i5 dual core Sandy or Ivy Bridge Intel like the i5-3210m or i5-2450m, the performance, generally speaking, is nearly the same, with some tests favoring the Intel some the AMD. Tom's Hardware did this comparison using the i5-2450m: Graphics Benchmarks: 3DMark : AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested

Unfortunately they didn't test with a dedicated GPU, or one worth a damn anyhow.

That being said, if you don't have access to the AMD setup then the next best thing would be running a quad core Ivy vs a dual core Ivy and see resultant performance in gaming similar to that of the A10, right? It's not a reach to run a comparable performing CPU and draw conclusions based on that, is there?

I have an i7-3610QM and an i5-3360m that I can run comparison benchmarks in my Sager NP9150 with GTX 680m, and will do so for the sake of science. Their base clocks are similar, but I can restrict the i5-3360m to 2.2GHz and run the 3610QM at 3.1GHz. This is enough to make a general assessment IMHO how computing power affects gaming at high resolution and detail.

Even easier though, and just for giggles, I already ran my i7-3610qm at 2.0GHz and at 3.1GHz thanks to Throttlestop and ran Just Cause 2, an "older" game and one primarily GPU heavy (i.e. "GPU limited").

Results are here: http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...amd-trinity-notebook-list-66.html#post8954759

But will repost them here since it's relevant. Bottom line is this shows that a slower performing CPU will impact performance of a GPU. No it's not an AMD, but the performance of the i7 @ 2GHz is still faster in every benchmark on earth compared to the A-10, yet it's still restricting. It's an easy enough test for anyone to reproduce, just grab a copy of Throttlestop and run any number of gaming benchmarks you wish.

-----

Case in point, Just cause 2 is primarily a GPU limited game. I just ran the three Just Cause 2 benchmarks with my i7-3610QM at 2.0 GHz and 3.1 GHz at 1080p and high detail using my GTX 680m.

Results were:

Dark Tower
84.45 2.0GHz
86.36 3.1GHz
~ 2.3%

Desert Sunrise
100.10 2.0GHz
110.19 3.1GHz
~ 10.1%

Concrete Jungle
45.56 2.0GHz
54.90 3.1GHz
~ 20.5%

------

There is no doubt that the A10 offers exceptional value as a single CPU/GPU solution with its powerful IGP. And the GX60 is still a good bargain, although it still will restrict most gaming at 1080p compared with an i7. The true value is up to you. Is it worth saving $300? That's only for you to answer. Will it perform less than an system with an i7? Yes.