AMD A8-3500M vs A6-3400M

[Jeteroll]

I know the A8 has better graphics preformance, but what I kneed to know is if the A8 has better pure processing performance, ignore the graphics.

 

[cbrunnem]

yes but it is minimal and at that poor of processing power its a big difference. intels 2630qm is roughly 2.5 times faster in cinebench r10 rendering test but hd 3000 graphics are prolly half as fast.

 

[jaguarskx]

CPU wise, the A8-3500M is 100MHz faster than the A6-3400M.

 

[Jeteroll]

Best answer selected by Jeteroll.

 

[Jeteroll]

Thanks!

 

[bunz_of_steel]

cinebench r10 is a synthetic benchmark and subjective at best. That stuff is for marketing deptartment... it's crap. It's like saying Plasma displays have a 600Hz refresh rate and that's better than LCD/LED's 240Hz refresh rate.
I would like to see overall user satisfaction with these new AMD A series APU's. I am considering either the A8 or A6 APU. How fast or strong the CPU isn't a big factor as this is not a gaming laptop or laptop I intend to use for post edits. I sense that these new APU's from AMD will perform admirably for regular home, use for the wife or kids, demonstrations, displays etc. AMD is much much strong that any Intel products for laptop for graphics display. Intel hd 3000 graphics cannot run full 1080p/flash w/out any burps but I have seen a number of demo's with AMD's APU's running 1080p/flash seamlessly and noticeably better picture quality. Reading up on some review they all say same thing. AMD puts a foot in Intel's ars in this area. My only concern is the low CPU speed of 1.5 Ghz. I would like to see how it performs to opening up multiple office apps, web browsing and streaming 1080p. I did see a demo where the A8 was doing that flawlessly but I haven't found anyone with a personal experience doing that.