Saying 'my new integrated GPU is now half as fast as the slowest discrete card!' is not a great marketing win. If you want to play games well you need something better and if you don't care about games you don't care how fast the integrated graphics are.

AMD has never been saying that. When Llano came out, it was on par with mid-range discrete cards. You could clearly play quite a few modern games on it: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4444/amd-llano-notebook-review-a-series-fusion-apu-a8-3500m/11

Why? I'd rather have a bunch of 80gig disks in a RAID 50 it would be much faster than a 2TB drive and far more stable in case of data loss.

Because 25 hard drives would be a bitch to carry around in your laptop?

Whatever. I think you don't have a wife to realize what is and isn't wife-friendly.

I have a simple HTPC setup with a Harmony remote that control everything through a single 'activity' button press, and I still need to go "fix it" once a week. PC freezes, XBMC hangs, IR signals have no 'ack' protocol so they get missed...

Shit happens to most PC-based setups. Wives don't want to deal with the shit. Hence, most things outside of TV aren't wife-friendly.

AMD is clearly talking about using both x86 and GPU for compute work vs. focusing on x86 only... the ARM thing is just a wild speculation, or wishful thinking.

Local operators are the rule of the day in much of the province (I'd say most, but I don't actually know that for sure).

With GTA being almost half of of the population of Ontario, "most", or even "much", is certainly not accurate.

Absolutely. The best movie experience, ever! Everything was exactly the way it should be for a totally fun movie watching experience.. and, add all the special theme nights, and it's the only way to see a movie, once you've been there.

'cept a .22 cal air-powered pellet gun that shoots pellets at 1100 fps might as well be a firearm

Everybody knows that a human eye can't perceive anything more than 60 fps. You need a pellet gun doing 1100 fps only because you have a small.... oh, wait, wrong thread?

If we're going to be calling bullshit, then I'll pitch in... The S95 is f/2 only at widest angle, 24mm, which is useless for portraits, unless you're going to put it a foot from someone's face. And I doubt that your primary goal is to take wide-angle full-room shots in low light.

On the other hand, it goes up to ridiculously slow f/5.9 at 120mm zoom, and I'm sure your "good glass" does do a lot better than f/5.9 at 120mm.

So, there's no way that S95 is usable in low light without flash, except for the most contrived scenarios. (I'll also call bullshit on the GP's "never use flash" comment... if you have an SLR, you might as well learn how to light things.)

I'd throw my 3200ASA concert photography from my 5d up against your shitty crop-sensor medium ISO shots

I doubt anyone would disagree that your full-frame $2K+ camera will take better high ISO shots than a budget SLR -- what's the point of bringing that up, at all? All he's saying is that if you can use a faster lens instead of maxing out your ISO, it's going to look better.

Because we are getting to the point in technology that us humans won't be able to perceive the difference in graphics. You can only make something so lifelike, after that you might as well aim at efficiency.

Is there a single game out there that's so lifelike that you can't perceive the difference between it and a real video?

There's plenty more room for improvement, we're not getting anywhere close to that point.

In those tests, i3 is being tested with external graphics, compared to AMD with the same external graphics. Basically, it's a CPU vs CPU test. Which is pretty ridiculous because they are both targeted to users who will not buy external cards...

The actual i3 vs A8 tests with their associated graphics are tested later in the article here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/21730/8. The results aren't even close - AMD is more than playable, i3 is not.