So no one seems to be mentioning the following, so ill go ahead and do so:
The A6 is part of AMD's new "APU" line of processors. What this breaks down to is that there's a GPU sitting next to the CPU on the processor. When you add in a compatible "discrete" card, with a compatible Motherboard, they run in "CrossfireX" mode (more specifically, "Dual Graphics" mode) in which the synergy between both GPUs running together make them perform like a higher-spec card.
The thing is, though, that the HD 6520G is the GPU on the processor core, not a discrete card".
[http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K10/AMD-A6-Series%20A6-3420M.html] the "Notes" section here shows the association. So don't imagine that this laptop is going to have a better graphics card than the specs show. There's no discrete card, here, only the "onboard" card.
Another thing to consider is how the APU uses memory. Most video cards for desktops have fast memory on the card to feed the GPU. The APU does NOT. From what i understand, the APU is going to dedicated some of the Mobo RAM as "GPU" RAM, unless there's a discrete card to act as "Master", in which case the Processor's GPU is "slaved" to the Discrete card, and uses its memory, freeing up the system memory. 4GB is most likely NOT enough to run most games on anything other than low settings.
1.5GHz feels "slow", considering that most programs today don't make great use of multi-core processing ( the notable exception being OSes, which simply assign different programs to different cores, though each program is basically limited to a single core ). In a LOT of circumstances, having 2x2.0GHz cores is more useful than say 4X1.5GHz cores, simply because of the aforementioned core usage. Intel's i5 line has Turbo (basically auto-overclocking) when a core reaches full load) to help with this. Some processors have another core "help out" when a certain core hits max load, but then... you have that other core sitting idle until one core hits max (not efficient); this is also HARDWARE, not SOFTWARE, which means that the programmers didn't account for it. Running 2 cores in this way means a HUGE loss of efficiency, as more and more hardware is pulled from normal operation to handle these events.
In gaming, when we see multi-core recommendations for a game, it usually amounts to the game being written such that the main gameplay logic is on one core, a different core runs the audio thread, and another might run networking (especially on games with no dedicated server). Many newer games are like this, but... many games that came out between 1-4 years ago are NOT running this way, as the technology and mindset were new. Gaming took a while to make better use of these newly available resources. Even so, most games end up maxing out the load on the gameplay logic core, while the other get to about 50% max load. personally, I would want to see at LEAST a 2.0 GHz tri-core or better for anything that you want to play from 4-1 years ago, and a 2.0GHz quad-core for anything from the past year.
Forget about BF3, im not sure i'd want to play D3, Borderlands, or L4D on this machine (though admittedly i do like them running pretty). To me, even if you were willing to drop the cash on more RAM ( 8 is the max, unfortunately ) this still isn't anything more than a "it's better than nothing" gaming platform.
If you are set on gaming, then get more RAM, and consider a SSD, and an external Wireless N adapter, or simply decide not to play online, or to only play wired. Your'e going to be bottle-necked though, as the laptop doesn't have Gigabit Ethernet (in any form). Don't bother on a really expensive SSD, since its running SATA, limiting it to 3.0GB/s as opposed to the 6.0Gb/s we see on desktop Motherboards (though ANYTHING SSD will be leagues faster than the 5400 RPM drive).
