Yea, informational articles like that are always nice.
One thing that could have been mentioned is how the graphics preferences change when scaling down devices.
On PCs, you get to choose between AMD (OK blob, OK OSS drivers) and NVIDIA (good blob, poor OSS drivers), and recently also Intel (good OSS drivers, poor performance). Which means that if you need raw performance and you don't mind instability and messing around, you should go for NVIDIA; if you want out-of-the-box experience, perfect compositing and stability, while you don't play games, you should go for Intel; if you want a choice of both, go for AMD.
On laptops, this is already different. There aren't that many NVIDIA laptops, and most of them use Optimus, so NVIDIA becomes a poor choice. Between AMD and Intel, AMD OSS drivers are at a disadvantage in that there are currently power saving issues. So in this case, if you want raw power, you should go for AMD, and if you want stability and ease, you should go for Intel.
There is a difference again when talking about low-end laptops, netbooks and x86 tablets. In this area, Intel right now does not produce IGPs, but licenses PowerVR. And they have poor OSS drivers and outright bad blob. So at this level, the one and only sane choice is AMD (incidentally, this is the market AMD is generally aiming at recently).