@sofwik94 I would say that the three I listed are the same as the second laptop you listed in terms of performance. I couldn't find that laptop again—the site just gave an error when I clicked the link—but I remember its specs well enough. What I don't remember is the screen resolution. If it's FHD (1920x1080), then the laptops I listed are better by virtue of having higher-res screens, but anything around 2560x1440 would be equivalent.
As for the slighly more expensive laptops, you could easily find a gaming laptop in the sub-1000€ range, but not a non-gaming laptop that also has a dedicated graphics card. They do exist, just not typically in that price range, and I didn't see any on the three sites you've listed. This isn't a surprise, as it's a difficult and expensive engineering problem to fit gaming-level hardware and the required cooling into a thin and light chassis, even more so when paired with a 14" screen.
I did however find a couple of laptops with higher-level integrated graphics chips, if you're interested. The Radeon 660M (first one below) is about 35% faster than the graphics chip in the three laptops I linked and the second one you linked, and the Radeon 760M (second below) is about 35% faster than that. This is not a massive difference compared to the approximately double the performance of the 760M you'd get from an entry-level gaming graphics card, and I don't know that it's worth the price increase. That's really your call. This more moderate improvement could mean increasing one or two graphics settings by one level; it wouldn't mean ultra settings, at least not with most expansions installed.
Still, here are the ones I found:
https://www.power.fi/tietotekniikka/tietokoneet/kannettavat-tietokoneet/lenovo-yoga-slim-7-pro-14arh7-r5-14-kannettava-tietokone/p-1551501/
https://www.gigantti.fi/product/tietokoneet-ja-toimistotarvikkeet/tietokoneet/kannettavat-tietokoneet/lenovo-yoga-7-r5-8hs16512-14-kannettava/767133
The second one also doesn't have a high-resolution screen, although the 16:10 aspect ratio (1920x1200) means a little more room to work than the standard 16:9 1920x1080.
I suppose I myself would consider the first one above and probably not the second, but then again, the price increase is significant from the cheapest option I linked. There's no one right answer here, only what's best and makes the most sense for you.
