[/quotemsg]As for graphics, Intel 4000HD is pretty weak. But it can serve the purpose of everyday work and even play videos in 1080. AMD does have a better chip graphics with their APUs. For work, I wouldn't worry about graphics. [/quotemsg]
I agree that the i5 is the sweet spot for price/performance on a laptop, but I love the i7 Quad-core on my desktop system.
I personally have an aversion to AMD because the one time I decided to give them a try, and bought an AMD system, the system would often slow to a crawl (or even to a stop). It took me awhile to figure out that if I opened the case and blew cold air on the CPU, it would start working and speed up again! I've never seen that kind of temperature problem with any Intel CPU I've ever had, and I've had a lot of them since I got my first PC in '81. Funny that the one time I tried AMD (just last year), I had that problem, even without overclocking. Go ahead and badmouth me for buying an AMD system that wasn't water cooled or apparently didn't have adequate ventilation (it had as much as any Intel system I've had), but I personally think life is too short to put up with that kind of low quality design.
So why do you say that the HD4000 is weak? Sure, it's not as good as the most recent GPUs, but it's plenty good for everything I've thrown at it. It's not going to be a bottleneck even for video, is it?
Here's my sense of where system bottlenecks can typically be found:
- web browsing, Skype, or media access over the Internet: server-side upload speeds or client side download speeds
- watching HD video off local drive: disk throughput (i.e. typically either platter rpm or interface bandwidth)
- watching HD video over local area network: network bandwidth and/or traffic
- most computer work, i.e. local/memory resident applications: hard disk (when used), CPU and/or not enough RAM
- startup/boot: the disk the OS is on
- intense gaming: the GPU
Polish/correction anyone?