CPU: i5 is a quad core (EDIT: i5-2450m and 3210m are dual core with HT, my bad) and thus is faster than the i3 which is a hyperthreaded dual core, which is roughly equivalent to the quad core a10
GPU: 630m ~ 7670m
If I were a person that didn't care about preventing an Intel monopoly or the inevitable future of heterogeneous computing, I would get an i5 + GT 630m. But I am not such a person. I used to rock a dual core Turion II @ 2.3ghz with an HD4650, and I played Metro 2033 on it reasonably well, MW2 very well in 1080p, and never once felt it was sluggish in computing even though the Turion II is wantonly mediocre in CPU benchmarks, and that to me is impressive because I would usually have 30 tabs open in Chrome in the background and be playing a game while listening to Meshuggah FLAC audio. So yeah, I punished the *** out of that chip and it never let me down.
What blows me away is that the 7660g integrated gfx on the a10-4600m is actually faster than the discrete 4650 I had, and on top of that the a10 is a better CPU architecture, is a quad core, has a faster clock for single threads, and consumes less power.
Everyone knows Intel is ahead on x86 performance. That's not some kind of secret, I mean, they spend more on R&D alone than AMD's total revenue. What does seem to be a secret, since everyone blithely ignores this, acts like it is patently false, or instead focuses on the exception cases, is that Intel's marginal benchmark superiority doesn't result in anywhere near the same superiority in usage, and thus, rarely matters. Yes, heavy lifting situations with video and file compression and the like are faster on Intel atm. But you have to ask yourself: would I do enough heavy lifting to make those quicker completion times in aggregate worth the price premium for the chip in addition to potentially contributing to a future Intel monopoly?
Regardless of what you buy in the future, please don't be one of those HERP-DERP-I-AM-BUY-INTEL-IT-AM-BENCHMARK-FASTER tools because that is an intensely reductive and myopic approach. Just buy whatever will do what you want it to do at the lowest price. I would argue that for most situations right now, including gaming because few games are very CPU intensive, AMD wins that contest.