tomfreak :
seriously AMD, these APU are great but the performance problem on these APU isnt the quad core itself, but the single threaded performance of the CPU. A faster single core or dual would be much better than quad core. This is from me a E350 zacate user.
Your E-350 uses Bobcat cores. These new APUs all use Jaguar cores. Jag cores provide roughly 15% higher IPC (sometimes more). Meaning, at the SAME clock speeds, it's 15% faster in single threaded applications. On top of this, they're more power efficient, and there are quad core models. The upper models even support DDR3 1600 now, which is pretty good for such a small, lightweight chip.
Single core performance is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the real world. Some reviews take perfectly good multithreaded software and run it on a single core to say "See! Look at this thing that would never actually happen in real usage of this software, but somehow is important still!". Just about anything that actually NEEDS more power at least sees moderate threading. Anything less demanding... well it already runs fine. There are a few exceptions to this, of course.
So final performance vs an equivalent Bobcat is often significantly better. For example, an A4-5000 has slightly better per-core performance (despite the slight clockspeed disadvantage), twice as many cores (and L2 cache), and faster memory support.
1066. This is a very low power model targeted at tablets. Higher speed memory would increase power requirements. Both the memory controller and the memory itself would chew up more power. That's why only they only offer the DDR3 1600 capability on (most of) the 15W+ models for larger devices.
Strangely enough, the A4-1250 does support 1333. Pretty good for this power range, although that's only a two core model.
Edit: I saw a 15" laptop on Newegg with an A4-5000 on sale for $330. That's not bad. Not very long ago, a similar E-350 laptop cost that much.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram