Can someone pick one of the 2 laptops for me?

I am debating  2 laptops and I am on a budget...less than 630 dollars and not a penny more my friends. ha

which kinda has this...

  • AMD A-Series A10-5750M (2.50GHz)
  • 8GB Memory 750GB HDD
  • AMD Radeon HD 8670M 2GB
  • 1920 x 1080
  • Windows 8 (64 bit)
  • DVD±R/RW
Above are the benchmarks with the cpu and gpu and all the goodies...exactly like this.

Or should i go with this?

Which has this...

  • Intel Core i5 4200U (1.60GHz)
  • 8GB Memory 750GB HDD
  • NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M
  • 1366 x 768
  • Windows 8 64-bit
and above are the benchmark for the GeForce GT 740M. But their benchmarks are using an i7 4700MQ 2.4GHz (which boosts up to more), and the i5-4200 here and their. So I'm a bit confused as to what I should be basing this on...

Please let me know...and please don't just say, "that one". Provide reason, because I'm confused...

I want to be able to play arma 3, battle field 4, tom clancy games, and a ton of rts like sim city 5, supreme commander fa which is fairly easy...


but Im getting really sick of playing some low end shooters like tom clancy's phantom and have my frames be 12 to 34. I want to keep things between 30 and 60. Thanks for any help guys.

Neither of those will play games particularly well. Heck my laptop (i7 @ 2.2 Ghz, GTX 760m) barely run BF4 at 30 fps at 1080p on lowest settings. To be honest, you'd be much better off just building a desktop.

Out of the 2 - the first one - only because of the resolution. Be aware though you cant expect either of those laptops to be a proper gaming laptop. The gpu's are just too weak. (as mentioned above as well). Indie titles and older AAA games etc should be ok but not great.

For that money you would be able to build a low end desktop that will give you acceptable gaming performance.

If you are dead keen on a decent gaming laptop then the cheapest that offers half decent performance is like that from the MSI new range of laptops.

Number 1 will look better but perform slower and vice verse for 2. that's only because the first has 1080p which is higher res obviously but will be running slower to get to that res. The computers are pretty similarily speced. The 4200u is supposed to get up to 2.4ghz but my friend has one and we couldn't find the boost option in the bios, might just be his bios though, he has a Lenovo. If the A10 is in crossfire with gpu it may be better though (lappy 1).

i would go with the Intel/Nvidea one, you do not need the extra resolution for games since it wont be able to get decent FPS in demanding games with those graphics cards at 1080Panyway, however maybe you would prefer having the extra screen space. from the experience i have en both the Intel processors and the Nvidea graphicscard are more effecient than AMDs gpus and cpus, more performance per watt, this means longer time on battery and it is less likely to overheat when dust and old age kicks in. and also the manufacturer has to spend less money and room to fit a beefy cooler, which will likly be spend on something else. that my opinion, but i really do prefer Intel and Nvidea (at the moment) for the reasons stated. alternativly try finding benchmarks of these two graphics cards, behmarked at the same resolution and same application(game) and then pick what ever is best. :D

gaming laptop on a tight budget -> not gonna happen, at least not now, check back in 5 years.

buy a desktop: Amd FX6xxx with 8 gigs ram + plus the best gpu your budget allows for & some cheap HDD. If you aren’t too picky about maxing out graphics this should last you about 4 yrs

OK. But would the resolution still look OK if I were to bring down from 1080 to 720?


I know this is possible with 14th to 720 as it fits pixel multiplication dementions.


Can't find anywhere on the internet...thanks for the reply

Do you think the 1st will role a bit faster given the 2 crossfire gpu? And the A10 ramps up to 3.2 or 3.5 while plugged in. One of those two I can't remember

Can't build a desktop since I'm in college. Need something portable. 

But I would figure that the dual crossfire gpu on the first one with a 3.2 or 3.5 ghz A10 processor would be good. 


I've seen videos of fraps recording bf4 on this set up getting 50 on medium settings. And +10 fps without recording. Think I'm getting my chain pulled here? They may be using mantle...I'm not sure...

Thanks for all the replies guys. Keep them coming. 


I also want to know why nvidia gpu would be better than the a10 gpu crossfire with 8670 2gb.

Because isn't 2 better than one? I think they both have a similar architecture...but you guys would no more. Thanks guys

But do you think that a dual crossfire with the  intergrated and dedicated CPU would have more performance than the intel base? Because I only game when it is plugged in anyway. I use  the AMD software to overclock the GPU's and use a cooling fan. My current  laptop is overclocked to 1150mhz and temps on cpu and gpu stays below 70c. And it's AMD so that acceptable ranges.


thanks for your input btw. 

But do you think that a dual crossfire with the  intergrated and dedicated CPU would have more performance than the intel base? Because I only game when it is plugged in anyway. I use  the AMD software to overclock the GPU's and use a cooling fan. My current  laptop is overclocked to 1150mhz and temps on cpu and gpu stays below 70c. And it's AMD so that acceptable ranges.


thanks for your input btw. if you can save an extra 200

I would go with the first option.

The main reason being due to the resolution. The first option does have a slightly better GPU configuration however, if a game doesn't work properly with crossfire, your performance will take about a 10% or so hit (or at least according to this). As far as the CPU goes, they are about equal, due to the much higher clock rate on the AMD CPU versus the intel but the second option should still win out a little. So far, the second option does appear to be better however, the resolution would kill it's viability or at least for me. If you do end up getting the second, I can almost guarantee you'll hate the resolution.

i currently have a laptop with the a8-4500m with 7640g gpu....

And the resolution I have no is 1366x768 and I actually don't mind it that much. In some games I have to bring the Res down to freakin 480p...and the  fps is still bad, but i think that may be because of the CPU. especially in arma. so I hardly play anymore...

I've been reading up a ton on the gpu differences...a lot of them are saying that the 740 is better than the AMD one and others are saying differently. 

I just don't know. so confused.

Question for you guys. If i use the i5, does the intel 4000 graphics crossfire with the dedicated GPU? Or do they just rid the integrated one altogether. 

because as far as I know the AMD does crossfire with the 8670M, but that it can result in some micro studdering. also im not sure what causes micro studdering,


In the Intel rig you will either run the Intel integrated graphics or the nVidia dedicated card not both because they are made by two different companies so it would never be able to "crossfire" together. AMD can crossfire the integrated graphics with the dedicated card because they are made by the same company and are designed to be able to do it.

Save your money to get something better. Based off your post about your current laptop, neither of the choices will be a decent upgrade at all.

Also since you have a laptop at the moment right so what is the point of getting a new one for classes? You could build a desktop then use your current laptop to tale to class because I'm sure you won't have anything too intensive in class that will require a slight upgrade from your current setup. Just an idea, unless you really need a better laptop for in class work, that is if you actually have classes that you need to do stuff in.