Besides offering different levels of performance, AMD is also differentiating their Kaveri APUs based on other features. Eyefinity and TrueAudio support will be limited to the A10 and FX APUs; the A6/A8 APUs lose this functionality. Similarly, the A6 does not have Dual Graphics functionality; I didn't have much luck with Dual Graphics on Richland/Trinity laptops, but with the iGPU and dGPU both being GCN architectures now there's at least more potential to extract additional performance through CrossFire. Finally, note that the A6 APUs get ARM TrustZone functionality, whereas the higher-end A8, A10, and FX APUs do not.

HalfAHertzI kind of think that's the wrong move. They've been pushing and marketing all these features so hard and at the same time chose to limit their spread.

john_It is a wrong move. Intel can do stuff like that because they are playing alone. Nvidia can do stuff like that thanks to their strong brand name and because we are used to their arrogance. But if AMD do stuff like that it will only alienate part of their loyal customers. I can understand the idea to differentiate their products but they have to realize that they are SECOND in BOTH markets. After delaying for about forever the A8-7600 on the desktop, because they possibly realized that it was so good that it would kill the A10 sales, they are doing a second stupid move here that will probably kill TrueAudio and will eliminate an advantage their chips have over Intel+Nvidia setups. Add to that that they still say nothing about AM1 and Beema and AMD is getting really serious in business but in all wrong ways from the consumer point of view.

LiptonI think it's the right move to make and you made a good argument for that move:
"After delaying for about forever the A8-7600 on the desktop, because they possibly realized that it was so good that it would kill the A10 sales,"
From my perspective, this is exactly why they need to keep some features exclusive to FX/A10 in order to get people buying those instead. Only time will tell if it's a good strategy, but I think it's the right move to get higher profit margins on a few segments, which is something they naturally want. And who knows, in the future [some of] these features might in some form or another trickle down in the lower segments if they see a clear demand there.

TheinsanegamerNFX APU: Up to 58 percent better graphics performance8 and more than 1.13x the compute performance9 versus Intel i7-4500U ("Haswell")
congratulations, your 35 watt "quad core" can beat a dual core intel chip that pulls 17 watt. how does it compare to the likes of a 37 watt, say, i5 4300m? the slowest quad core i7, the 4702, would wipe the floor with amds quad core.

TheinsanegamerNFX APU: Up to 58 percent better graphics performance8 and more than 1.13x the compute performance9 versus Intel i7-4500U ("Haswell")
congratulations, your 35 watt "quad core" can beat a dual core intel chip that pulls 17 watt. how does it compare to the likes of a 37 watt, say, i5 4300m? the slowest quad core i7, the 4702, would wipe the floor with amds quad core.

arbiterI have a bold idea, instead of doing amd's top part vs intel part with mid to low end igp on it which seems to be case for most these slides you see, take one not with HD 4400 which are what AMD tout's are fair, not the 4600 like one in link R0H1T provided but using the HD5000 series gpu? Top gpu on both chips against each other, intel has one in same TDP class so why not a fair fight instead of these intentionally weighed in AMD's favor battle?

i7-4702MQ has HD 4600 on it.
2 quoted in AMD numbers i5 4200u and i7 4500u are HD 4400 gpu's.

HalfAHertzThat's all fine and dandy if you don't care about the price but please consider that the HD5000 one cost as much as 3 top APUs.(500$+ last time I checked)

arbiteri am lookin at the prices per tray on intel's site and they have plenty of them in same price range so what is your next excuse? in i5 range, price for tray is only 30$ more so not that much. i7 range is about same to.

HalfAHertzYou might be right. There isn't a lot of information on sku prices for laptop manufacturers. I think it's because each OEM has to negotiate its own rates. Could you please share your sources?

On intel's website I found out the following information:

The cheapest i7 with HD5000 on intel's site starts at 426$
The cheapest i5 with hd5000 graphics starts from 315$
the cheapest i3 with hd5000 graphics starts from 315$ as well.

The prices for mobile kaveri are not out yet. But I don't think they'll be much higher than low to mid 200s for the top sku. That would mean that AMD would be a no-brainer vs an i3, but once you get to i5 levels of performance, things start to get more blurry.