Amd laptops A8 or A10!! Yes or no?

The AMD A8s and A10s cannot compare to the i3, i5, and i7s. The A8s and A10s are way worse than those Intel CPUs. If you are going to buy an AMD laptop, I would just get the A8. There is not much of a difference between the two AMD processors. But, if you really care about performance, go with the A10 laptop.

-MystoPigz

No, the hard drives are so slow that it bottlenecks everything, just get an i3 laptop and an SSD Samsung EVO 850 250gb.

Like WarWolverineWarrior said, I would just get an i3/i5 laptop, as laptops with AMD CPUs are more for people on a budget.

-MystoPigz

Which AMD APUs are you taking about?

The A8-7410 is a little less powerful 3rd generation Core i3 CPU. It's Radeon R5 (Carrizo) graphics core is only about equal to an Intel HD 4000 which are found in Intel's 3rd generation CPUs. The Intel HD 520 graphics core in Intel's current 6th generation CPUs is more powerful which is about equal to the nVidia 820m.

The A10-8700p is a little more powerful than a 5th generation Core i3. It's integrated Radeon R6 (Carrizo) graphics core is more powerful than the Intel HD 520 and is considered to be pretty close to the Intel HD 530. That means it is pretty close to the nVidia 920m which does perform a bit better than the older 820m.

What is the most you are willing to spend on a laptop? And what games would you like to play?

http/www.walmart.com/ip/HP-Darkside-Black-15.6-Star-Wars-Special-Edition-15-An050Nr-Laptop-PC-with-Intel-Core-i5-6200U-Dual-Core-Processor-6GB-Memory-1TB-Hard-Drive-and-Wi/46950856 450 dollars for a i5 and its backlit

While it has a backlit keyboard it relies on the Intel HD 520 which is a lot less powerful than the nVidia 940m in the laptop I recommended.

Basically, you are trading a lot of GPU performance (through the 940m is only considered a mainstream GPU) for a backlit keyboard.

Take the acer over the backlit one itll give better stuff in the long run

hi, If you want to buy a Laptop from one of A10 or A8, The A10 8700p will be 50% faster than the A8 7410 in CPU performance. And has an astonishing 3x faster GPU.

Both of them are current gen chips. The 8700p is Carrizo and the 7410 is Carrizo-L. Carrizo chips employ Excavator cores which are full desktop cores. Carrizo-L on the other hand use Puma+ mobile cores. Clock for clock, excavator is 15% faster than puma+ in conventional workloads. The gap widens in float intensive workloads. This coupled with the higher turbo gives the 8700 a much higher peak performance.

Also the R6 chip in Carrizo has 384 shaders compared to 128 in Carrizo-L. Both running at roughly the same clockrates means the Carrizo is almost thrice as fast as Carrizo-L in graphics.

The catch here is that both of them get to work with just 15 watts of power. While the petite Carrizo-L can roll around in that power, the more serious Carrizo is severely limited. Which means it can only manage peak performance for brief bursts. The Carrizo-L has just enough power to get your daily stuff done -like browsing, editing PPTs watching movies etc. You can forget about gaming. The Carrizo has more than enough grunt to do all that and anything else you throw at it. Bursty workloads will be a breeze for Carizo. Basic gaming should be manageable too.

Intel quad core used to be 2 dual core chips pasted together, which could only interact through (an extremely slower) bus, while the AMD architecture used to be a TRUE quad core architecture that could interact internally before any signal went into the bus. AMD chips could resolve all internal actions without needing the slower bus, while the Intel would need the slower bus to accomplish the same tasks. This meant any activity involving the use of all 4 cores were always faster in the AMD case. There are quite a few circumstances in which this would be true. This is why, though Intel touted it's chip as superior, and much of the less knowledgeable public and even computer sales people believed this, "hardware professionals", who did this for a living, ONLY used AMD processors for any machine (like servers) that needed real power. Anyone who really knows, knows the old Intel i# solely used a "multi-threading" internal logic to more closely Mimic the action of a true quad core (even as they were still only 2 dual core chips pasted together); AMD chips outclassed these in true power/performance because they were true quad core chips through and through internally.
Now Intel i# are true quad cores; with architecture "remarkably similar to (original) the AMD (quad core) architecture"!! Now they use BOTH the multi-threading logic as well as AMD's true quad core internal architecture.
Based on this information, you can see the Intel chip can't be extraordinarily better than the AMD, being better mostly due to the additional"multi-threading" (which is only "LOGIC" imbedded in an instruction set). Good "logic" may speed up computer activity by introducing efficiency in "execution" of activity, but use of "instructions" always use up some of the existing chip (hardware) resources making less available for other functions, and (though they increase the efficiency in how the remaining resources are used) never increase "hardware power" as such. Instead, brute "hardware power" available for functions that exclude this internal "thread" management is reduced because of the power used in managing "threads". Therefore the efficiency gained by "instructions" for "multi-threading management" (by its nature) can't be as productive as adding more pure "hardware architecture" power!
As you can see, since Intel i# chips have pretty much same architecture as AMD, and can only now have some superiority in their "complex instruction set", their superiority in performance CAN'T be huge.
The others above who say differently are incorrect. I was a programmer on various platforms using various programming languages and O.S. for a number of years. During this time, and afterward, I have interacted with true "hardware specialists" who job it was to support business networks of various sizes.

Get the (usually much) cheaper AMD machine. The performance will always be close to that of the Intel. The difference is not worth an additional $100. See below for the "technical aspects" associated with this reasoning.
=============={=====

Intel quad core used to be 2 dual core chips pasted together, which could only interact through (an extremely slower) bus, while the AMD architecture used to be a TRUE quad core architecture that could interact internally before any signal went into the bus. AMD chips could resolve all internal actions without needing the slower bus, while the Intel would need the slower bus to accomplish the same tasks. This meant any activity involving the use of all 4 cores were always faster in the AMD case. There are quite a few circumstances in which this would be true. This is why, though Intel touted it's chip as superior, and much of the less knowledgeable public and even computer sales people believed this, "hardware professionals", who did this for a living, ONLY used AMD processors for any machine (like servers) that needed real power. Anyone who really knows, knows the old Intel i# solely used a "multi-threading" internal logic to more closely Mimic the action of a true quad core (even as they were still only 2 dual core chips pasted together); AMD chips outclassed these in true power/performance because they were true quad core chips through and through internally.
Now Intel i# are true quad cores; with architecture "remarkably similar to (original) the AMD (quad core) architecture"!! Now they use BOTH the multi-threading logic as well as AMD's true quad core internal architecture.
Based on this information, you can see the Intel chip can't be extraordinarily better than the AMD, being better mostly due to the additional"multi-threading" (which is only "LOGIC" imbedded in an instruction set). Good "logic" may speed up computer activity by introducing efficiency in "execution" of activity, but use of "instructions" always use up some of the existing chip (hardware) resources making less available for other functions, and (though they increase the efficiency in how the remaining resources are used) never increase "hardware power" as such. Instead, brute "hardware power" available for functions that exclude this internal "thread" management is reduced because of the power used in managing "threads". Therefore the efficiency gained by "instructions" for "multi-threading management" (by its nature) can't be as productive as adding more pure "hardware architecture" power!
As you can see, since Intel i# chips have pretty much same architecture as AMD, and can only now have some superiority in their "complex instruction set", their superiority in performance CAN'T be huge.
The others above who say differently are incorrect. I was a programmer on various platforms using various programming languages and O.S. for a number of years. During this time, and afterward, I have interacted with true "hardware specialists" who job it was to support business networks of various sizes

For a bit more from AMD on the A10, SEEhttp/www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/a-series-apu#best

Also see:http/cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-A8-6600K-vs-AMD-A10-5800K
I like monicadawson (more technical) answer.
Again, get the AMD. Those advising against it are solely using Intel propaganda given to the general public who have less knowledge than professionals. Their like those who would swear MS Windows is the best operating system today. Without true knowledge of either Linux or the Apple (using the Linux core).
http/cpuboss.com/cpus/AMD-A8-6600K-vs-AMD-A10-5800K

If you want to start a debate regarding AMD and Intel architecture, I recommend you start a new thread about it in the CPU sub-forum rather than resurrecting a thread in the laptop sub-forum and using it to state your opinion.