the performance seems similar to the i3-3217u
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/61596?baseline=65994
Actually it shows as "no longer available" as well as out of stock, whatever that means.
Looks nice for the price, but I would prefer a smaller formfactor, something like an 11.6 inch for portability.
Its a nice CPU, perfect for a cheap netbook but the i3 has much better CPU performance (singlethread) and similar GPU performance.
Price is low, but so is CPU performance, in fact, it's slower than a 2006 Conroe in ST workloads (the CPU performance can challenge a Conroe @ 2.9 Ghz, but only in MT workloads). Sorry, but two faster cores are always better than 4 slower ones. You get what you pay for, I would avoid this.Actually it shows as "no longer available" as well as out of stock, whatever that means.
Looks nice for the price, but I would prefer a smaller formfactor, something like an 11.6 inch for portability.
Price is low, but so is CPU performance, in fact, it's slower than a 2006 Conroe in ST workloads (the CPU performance can challenge a Conroe @ 2.9 Ghz, but only in MT workloads). Sorry, but two faster cores are always better than 4 slower ones. You get what you pay for, I would avoid this.
Unless, you must use those newer instructions at a bargain price (e.g. you program a lot). I would not, however, exchange those for lower legacy code performance (SSE/SSE2/SSE3), which is about 90% of apps we still use today, and that's unlikely to change in the near future, partially because Intel doesn't make them as standard features for their lower end parts, and partially because not 100% of code can take advantage of them (e.g. you have to have good skills to begin with). Niche cases yes, world wide spread? Not yet. So no point to buy this low-end part in the first place today. Put money on deposit, and come back later (if it burns your pocket).
Price is low, but so is CPU performance, in fact, it's slower than a 2006 Conroe in ST workloads (the CPU performance can challenge a Conroe @ 2.9 Ghz, but only in MT workloads). Sorry, but two faster cores are always better than 4 slower ones. You get what you pay for, I would avoid this.
Unless, you must use those newer instructions at a bargain price (e.g. you program a lot). I would not, however, exchange those for lower legacy code performance (SSE/SSE2/SSE3), which is about 90% of apps we still use today, and that's unlikely to change in the near future, partially because Intel doesn't make them as standard features for their lower end parts, and partially because not 100% of code can take advantage of them (e.g. you have to have good skills to begin with). Niche cases yes, world wide spread? Not yet. So no point to buy this low-end part in the first place today. Put money on deposit, and come back later (if it burns your pocket).
Price is low, but so is CPU performance, in fact, it's slower than a 2006 Conroe in ST workloads (the CPU performance can challenge a Conroe @ 2.9 Ghz, but only in MT workloads). Sorry, but two faster cores are always better than 4 slower ones. You get what you pay for, I would avoid this.
I dont have way to measure that, is there a cheap killawatt-esque device I can purchase?
the i3-3217u scores 0.72 single and 1.81 multi
the a6-5200 scores 0.50 single and 1.90 multi
yes, it is slower in single threaded workloads[though not by much], but it probably has a similar power draw with better gpu performance.
Price is low, but so is CPU performance, in fact, it's slower than a 2006 Conroe in ST workloads (the CPU performance can challenge a Conroe @ 2.9 Ghz, but only in MT workloads). Sorry, but two faster cores are always better than 4 slower ones. You get what you pay for, I would avoid this.
Unless, you must use those newer instructions at a bargain price (e.g. you program a lot). I would not, however, exchange those for lower legacy code performance (SSE/SSE2/SSE3), which is about 90% of apps we still use today, and that's unlikely to change in the near future, partially because Intel doesn't make them as standard features for their lower end parts, and partially because not 100% of code can take advantage of them (e.g. you have to have good skills to begin with). Niche cases yes, world wide spread? Not yet. So no point to buy this low-end part in the first place today. Put money on deposit, and come back later (if it burns your pocket).
Love the ST perf evangelists, they always up for some good ol' threadcrapping.
By the way, would you be so kind to do tests with League of Legends? Pretty much the only game i would play on a laptop these days.
so a near 1Ghz higer clock, much great power consumption, less graphics performance makes a great comparison with a ulv cpu? just priceless.
the i3-3217u scores 0.72 single and 1.81 multi
the a6-5200 scores 0.50 single and 1.90 multi
yes, it is slower in single threaded workloads[though not by much], but it probably has a similar power draw with better gpu performance.
Single channel memory is definitely holding it back. But I can see why they didn't include dual channel. At its price point the odds of an OEM putting 2 RAM sticks in a device are small.
I have this exact laptop. I wanted something dirt cheap and it was the best option at the time.
It was a little sluggish at first, but I swapped in an Intel SSD instead of the spindle hard drive and it is amazingly fast. Running Windows 8.1 on it working perfectly, though I had to work a little bit to get the proper drivers.
maybe I overstated the gpu capabilities but as soon as I can I will post more results.Actually no.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/kabini-a4-5000-review,3518-7.html
I dont think the 5200 will be much diferent.
For the 123480th time, Kabini is CPU and memory limited, mainly memory on Quads. But is true about power.
But ill like to see how the Celeron 2955U performs in comparison, specially on single channel, i see the 2955U more as a direct competition to Kabini.
Such as? I don't want to mess up the current install, I'd consider any benchmark I can easily run under win 8.1.Maybe you could make some additional tests?
Btw, what drivers you're using for it?