In response to to the cheap laptops that use underpowered CPU, there is a motive: profit.
I remember talking with a BlackBerry rep back when I worked for Rogers, a local telecom. I mentioned we had so many issues with the BB Curve models, high issues rate. He told me something I won't forget. Those models were never intended to be for the N. American market. They were for a different economic zone, like Africa. But when the telcos saw how cheap they were, they wanted to profit.
It's the same with many laptops. The E Series chip, a wimp of a chip that's still sold in some forms today, was never intended to be a mainstream chip. It was designed for embedded systems, where granular control made it possible to balance performance with cost, making it ideal.
I have a feeling some of the A Series may have had the same origins. There was also a C Series CPU from AMD, similar speeds. C-60 I think. I had a Acer tablet with one of those and it did not too bad for light duty.
I think somewhere there is a road map which shows the evolution of the current AMD CPU, and I think G56-TN, C Series and A Series all have a common lineage. But AMD never said those chips would lift mountains. But the OEM's sure love to claim it.
For example, I have a Dell Wyse Z90, which runs on a G56-TN. It runs Embedded 8, and can do one task at a time, but capable. I have an Intel Compute stick that is somewhat sluggish, crippled by a CPU that loves to entertain but can't cook worth anything. :/
Anyways, if chips did what they were supposed to and greedy company didn't try and rip people off, this conversation would be not happening.