All in all, I'm surprised with the very respectable performance AMD managed to reach. Price, power and thermals will probably play a big part in how successful these parts will become.<p>I've heard many people comparing the TDP of the Intel solution tested in the article (i7-4500U & Nvidia Geforce 750M) to the new APU tested.<p>The 15W reported by Intel is <i></i>not<i></i> directly comparable to the 35W claimed by AMD. The APU includes, among others, the more powerful GPU on the CPU die, which is handled on the Intel system in the benchmarks by the Nvidia card. The power budget of the Nvidia is not included in the 15W figure.<p>The methodology used to derive these TDP specs is also not known and likely differs between the manufacturers.<p>The only proper way to compare the power consumption would be to do a full system power measurement of two comparable devices.
> First, you're sure to notice the use of the FX branding. Make no mistake: this is the same APU as the other Kaveri parts and it has no relation to the desktop FX processors; AMD marketing simply feels the FX brand has a good reputation among enthusiasts and consumers and they wanted to carry that over into the mobile world.<p>I don't think customers are going to appreciate the confusion.
I'm going to go ahead and say that even if these chips are good, they will be saddled with terrible displays, cheap hard drives, and horrible touch pads in oversized cases for $500 crappy laptops.<p>AMD needs to basically own the $500-800 space with a good APU, SSD, and outstanding form factor. Basically if they could make a 13" Macbook Air with one of these CPU's for around $500-750 they would have a winner on their hands.<p>I fully expect that to not happen.