Just got my A10-4600 quad core laptop!!! - Page 7

Well the newest dead HP I got was mine which by now is getting closer to 2 years old and broke a few months ago. 2 other broken HP laptops are like 2 and a half year old and the last one is like 4 years.
Though I've have tried to fix other hp laptops before and they've broken a few weeks/months after warranty was over and with of those models had well known issues that motherboards would die around the 1 year period because some defective/cheap parts.

So I hope they have really gotten better in the past year, because a lot people seem to like HP laptops since they are better advertized and I say that because every time I recommend someone a brand like ASUS, Lenovo and even sometimes Dell don't know or never heard of them.

Not to be a snob, but some people see misinformation like this posted, and post it. So, just stop it. All Trinity A10, A8, A6 laptops have Piledriver cores, yes. A8/A10 are quad cores; 2 modules, which consist of 2 ALUs and one FPU, shared L2 and scheduler. So call it what it is- 2 module, quad-core, 4 ALUs and 2 FPUs, whatever. But it's not a dual-core, I'm pretty tired of seeing that 10 months after Bulldozer's release, especially on an enthusiast forum. If anyone does like over-simplifications, just look at the overall single, dual, and multi-threaded benchmarks and compare performance. To clarify Intel's hyperthreading, it's 2 virtual threads, run "simultaneously" on a single core. If you're using 100% of a Hyperthreaded core on one task, the other logical core is at 0%. If both logical threads are at 100%, each thread is using 50% of that core's power. With Piledriver/Bulldozer, there are 2 physical ALUs ("integer cores") per module, each running it's own thread. But I digress..


See above. To keep it simple, just look at the benches. A10 is a little faster (depends on the test) than Llano A8 quads. Of course it's slower than an i7 quad by a decent amount, but that doesn't make it a dual-core. Heck, if AMD's 8-cores performed the same as an i3 dual-core in multi-threaded, it would still be an 8-core.

Yes, i agree with this up above
Edited by toadmaster23 - 8/3/12 at 9:17am

Has anyone overclocked the a10 4600m and seen how much fps gain you get in games verses stock?

I just paid $950 bucks for a asus rig gaming laptop with a 2.5ghz ivybridge corei5 and a gtx 660m. But bestbuy is also offering a10 4600m and the radeon 7970m for 1200, but I'm hoping that if you overclock the CPU, then it will not bottleneck the graphics card as much in gaming on high to max settings.

I don't think the Trinity APU's CPU can be OC'ed, but you can force it to 2.7 GHz with the PScheck and reduce voltage to make more thermal/power headroom for GPU OCing.

Ohh that sucks... No point in overclocking the GPU if the CPU can't keep up...

Looks like I'm sticking with my asus rog g46 vw as the best performing laptop bang for buck 950 From best buy, verses the trashy msi laptop with the amd a10 apu and 7970m for 1200 bucks.

Plus I can OC my 660m to desktop gtx 560 levels. Which is faster then gtx 570m and 670m stock
Edited by BankaiKiller - 2/28/13 at 8:24pm

Actually no you can't. The GTX 660M can only go just barely beyond my 6970M if you max it out at around 1.2GHz core. The GTX 560 is matched by the GTX 675MX at stock, and that's not a level that my 6970M can even begin to fathom achieving.

The GX60 will give you far greater performance in games than the G46 could ever hope to achieve.

The only exception is if you're planning on playing Planetside2 (VERY CPU intensive), Starcraft 2, and to a limited extent Total War series, Civilization 5 and any Source games.

You can't even begin to think that the Total War series requires anything that high end, Starcraft 2 looks beautiful on medium settings, and Planetside 2 isn't THAT good of a game to be honest. I wish everyone would stop talking about that game like it's the next big thing. On top of all that, ANY source game runs fine on a Pentium 4 CPU, so the APU will do fine. It clocks up to 3.2GHz for single-threaded tasks.

Have you checked out this review?


" the GX60 could sometimes outperform Intel devices equipped with a GeForce GTX 670MX or GTX 675MX, in extreme conditions (1920 x1080, maximum details), the Radeon HD 7970M often dropped to the level of the weaker GeForce GT 650M or GTX 660M in medium settings (1366 x 768, high details). In the worst case, the refresh rate was only just above the processor-integrated Radeon HD 7660G chip.

CPU-heavy tracks, such as Guild Wars 2, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Hitman Absolution and Assassin's Creed III can only be played with restrictions if at all. It is surprising to what extent the slow Trinity CPU affects the Radeon HD 7970M performance. The GX60 would likely score much higher with a low-end dual-core processor from Intel's Core i3 or Core i5 range. The HD 7970M is normally comparable with a GeForce GTX 680M.

After extensively studying the benchmarks, the retail price no longer seems particularly attractive. Less expensive laptops, such as Schenker's XMG A522 often accomplish a comparable gaming performance. MSI should have invested its budget in a faster CPU. The Radeon HD 7970M can only rarely exploit its true potential. A detailed benchmark list can be found below this article."

Source: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-MSI-GX60-Notebook.86283.0.html

bottom line, asus rog g46vw curb stomps that msi garbage Msi really messed up by placing that a10 4600m with a radeon 7970m

After further review from the power level of the gtx 660m, it is indeed not as powerful as a desktop 560 when overclocked, but more along the lines of a 550 ti.
Edited by BankaiKiller - 3/1/13 at 9:52am