Toshiba AMD Quad or i3? Which is better?

[ikarah]

I narrowed down my choices to two laptop models should I go for this?

Toshiba Satellite® L755D-S5218 15.6" widescreen Laptop (Silver) | Laptops | Computers | us.toshiba.com

or

Toshiba Satellite® L755-S5214 15.6" widescreen Laptop (Silver) | Laptops | Computers | us.toshiba.com

Same laptop model different processor and graphics card almost same price.

Whats better quadcore amd or second gen intel?

Thank you.

[Leoben]

Toshiba Satellite® L755D-S5218 15.6" widescreen Laptop (Silver) | Laptops | Computers | us.toshiba.com
Quad core as compared to dual core and better graphics card.

[Altered Phoenix]

Well the only difference seems to be the CPU, GPU, HDD, and battery life.
The 5214 has the worse CPU and GPU which leads to the better battery life (By an estimated 0.55 hours). And it has the larger HDD.

The 5218 will perform better but has the more limited memory (granted, an external hard drive is very cheap these days). Also you lose 33 minutes of battery life.

Personally between the two I say the 5218 is the better one, especially for only $7 more.

Edit:
Here is a link to a CPU comparison:
http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/723...%28PGA%29.html

[ikarah]

what if i upgrade to an i5 will the AMD still be better?

[Leoben]

Debatable. The i5 (2410M is what I'm basing this on) would have a faster clock speed. It still would have only two cores.

The AMD would still win on graphics.

http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/714...%28BGA%29.html

[ikarah]

Alrighty then thanks a billion ! =]

[Bill Nye]

i3 would be faster. i5 wouldn't even be on the same wavelength. You're almost twice as efficient on a per clock basis that the two extra cores won't even make up the gap in heavily multi-threaded apps.

The fastest AMD Llano DESKTOP CPU is only as fast as the lower end first gen MOBILE i7s.

[ikarah]

hmm ok so i3 or amd? The dude above mention the amd is better bargain...Your saying the i3 is?

[Bill Nye]

No, he said AMD has the better on-board GPU chip.

[Leoben]

i3 would be faster. i5 wouldn't even be on the same wavelength. You're almost twice as efficient on a per clock basis that the two extra cores won't even make up the gap in heavily multi-threaded apps.

You're almost twice as efficient on a per clock basis

Benchmarks please. (Preferably done by someone other than Intel.)