ULV core i3 verus ULV core i5

Both are actually identical processors, the i3 is just lacking Turbo that takes the i5 to 1.46Ghz for 2 cores and 1.73Ghz for a single core. The i3+HD5450 is going to be better system overall, but if you're not gaming at all, you could benefit from a little CPU power boost for desktop usage.

BTW, here's a $50 off coupon code: http://www.logicbuy.com/deals/hp-touchsmart-tm2-12-inch...

Can you be more specific?
Either choice would be "ok" for everything you want to do - except gaming.
And I'm not sure a 330um (1.2Ghz) is going to get much gaming done even with an entry level HD 5450 for 3D graphics.

You're trading more battery life for less CPU power and it's something you'll likely notice if you try multi-tasking MS Word and Powerpoint for example. Will you have any other computers to work with?

If you haven't see it already here is a review of the HP TouchSmart tm2 @ Endgadget

I wont have another laptop to use, just the touchsmart. I was just wondering if I'm not going to game on the tablet, if just geting a core i3 330um with just the base intel HD graphics will be ok for me multitasking (cheaper) than spending the 50 or 75 dollars extra for the core i3 330 um with ati or core i5-430um with intel hd graphics?

The only difference is the i5's turbo boost. The i3 will be sufficient. But the i5 is worth the $75 more.
One thing to consider is that by the time new applications come around that tax one of those CPUs, it will equally tax the other. At a $50-100 price difference between the i7 920 and i7 930, both will be equally obsolete in the future. Would you rather have an Athlon 64x2 at 2.4GHz or 2.5GHz today? Both are equally bad now.

That said, if you will ever game at all, you will need the 5450. Desperately. Even intel's highest end integrated cannot play COD4 comfortably. And to put that in perspective, my radeon 3200 can just barely play it all at 30FPS. The intel 4500HD or whatever they call it, will perform worse.

yeah ive seen the endgadget review and they had the one with teh core i3 and ati gpu. The base congf. on hp's website has the core i3 with intel hd instead of the ati, which is cheaper. I just want to know if its worth my time to spend more if I really dont need all that processor

The i3-330um and Intel HD looks like a good match with no 3D gaming.
You'll still be able to 2D gaming (board and card games, etc) without problems.

so pretty much the core i5 isn;t much different than the i3, just giving the boost when needed? but adding the 5450 card can help with gaming if I want to?

Endgadet wasn't too kind about that Touch interface. You're paying a premium price for something they don't think you'll use much.

I jsut wondering if the extra processor would help with the touchsmart technology like in onenote 2010 which I heard takes up alot of CPU.

The mentioned playing Batman: Arkham Asylum at 28fps but didn't mention at what graphics level they used. Probably low, maybe medium.

Both the i3-330um and i5-430um are dual core CPUs. Both are lower power CPUs.

The thing is I doubt the Intel HD @500Mhz would allow decent 1080P video playback and some light multi-tasking.

So it's a consensus if Im not using the laptop for 3d gaming or graphic tasks (photoshop, video editing, etc.) a core i3 330 with intel graphics will be ok, but adding the ati 5450 card helps....and getting the core i5 430 um gives me a boost during work, like if Im doing multitasking?

Im just not clear yet how fast the Intel HD graphics runs when the CPU is underclocked.

I think you're OK for HD video. NotebookCheck did some testing on Intel HD graphics: Shows it can handle the very light 3D games like Sims3 and World or Warcraft. They also mentioned it was decent handling HD video

But most 3D games will work better with the HD 5450.

Generally yes.

But Photoshop and video editing is the CPUs job, not the GPUs.

It looks like 500Mhz might be the top speed of the Intel HD graphics chip: "Intel HD Graphics 166-500MHz"
That really cuts into the 3D gaming scores shown in the Intel HD Graphics link above.

When comes to processor choice, I would personally choose the i5 430 over the i3 330 w/radeon graphics. The dedicated graphics card would certainly decrease battery life. However, like others have said, if you have any remote chance of wanting to game, get the i3 w/ radeon. If your only going to be using office applications, the 330 would suite your needs just fine.

I have tm2 i3 with ati 5450 graphics and 4gig ram.

For desktop applications and media playback:
i3 and intel graphics are powerfull enough. The biggest bottleneck for current desktop systems is the slow harddrive so you will get way more increase in snappiness by getting an ssd then upgrading the cpu with a few extra cycles. Intel graphics is made to be perfectly usable in all situations for desktop windows 7 usage including hd playback.

If you want to play any games, the intel will do fine upto doom3 in medium settings. Thats where it ends. All older games will run fine too. The ATI will do: Far Cry 2 on medium/high, Crysis on low/medium, CSS and TF2 on medium just fine, CPU is bottelneck here. GTA4 won't run too good because of huge cpu requirements. U can certainly find some good looking games that are fun to play for the ati graphics solution.

For battery power: the tm2 has switchable graphics so the ati solution also has the intel chip and you can switch on the go.