4.
I disagree with your conclusion. The A10 at its current price is competitive with the i3 and provides better graphics performance. It consumes more under full load, so what? Face it, average users don't run their computers at full load and the A10 idles at the same point as an i3 so partial load comparisions will come out just about the same. The A10 has graphics capable of playing modern titles at reduced settings and that makes the A10 a better processor for a family computer where kids may want to play a game once in awhile. On the retail market it is hard to find a computer with a decent graphics card. Most of the time you find some terrible Nvidia 520 or you spend a lot of extra money for a real gaming PC. An A10 vs an i3 the only real tradeoff is in full load power consumption and the benefits are better GPU performance so I see no reason to say full load power consumption is more important than the ability to actually play a game.
If you look at this problem digitally you'll see my point.
Office productivity. A10 yes, i3 yes
Media encoding. A10 yes, i3 yes
Video playback. A10 yes, i3 yes
Gaming. A10 yes, i3 no
That says it all. The i3 can't game and the A10 can and in a family dual use PC it is important for a computer to be capable of playing a game. Users don't care about a 10% performance difference or whether or not their computer pulled 30Whrs or 33Whrs while turned on. They're close enough. But the i3 isn't close enough to be able to game at all so the A10 has a lot of advantage there and shouldn't be thrown under the bus.
4
0
[
Posted by: Hubb1e

|
Date: 02/05/13 10:56:04 AM]