TheLivingShadow said: Legend11 said: Umm both are way overpriced but I'll break both of them down.
The first one is complete crap (well it is for anyone buying a new PC). I can't imagine what Vista would be like with just 512MB of ram but I doubt it's pretty. It also obviously has onboard video which is inexcusable at that price.
The second one is a complete ripoff. The Core 2 Duos just had a price drop this week and at least two in that last two months as well which means that computer should be the one priced at $900 if not less. |
Sorry, never mind the prices. I live in Ecuador, where everything is way overpriced. >____> @Your Mother and Ben Kenobi: Thank you for your help, no need to tell me in spanish, really, I understand both almost equally. So I guess this means the second one with a better graphics card is the way to go? Or should I look for another PC in another country? Thank you, both of you. |
Honestly, I don't see any major issue with either computer, apart from the graphics card (or lack thereof). That will be the number-one issue for running games smoothly on either rig.
Core2Duo is the current "best-performing" CPU, but if the first rig features an AMD, they are known to be more "energy-efficient".
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/11/energy-efficiency-intel-left-out-in-the-cold/
You will notice that unless you want to run games like Crysis in full detail and at HD resolutions, then neither rig may fit the bill anyhow!
However, if you are after just general-purpose gaming (e.g. play Unreal 2K4, Far Cry, Rainbow Six, SimCity4, Civilization4, virtually any RTS), then yeah, you could do worse than these two computers.
For the graphics card, I'd look into a Radeon 1900-range, or a GeForce 7900-range. They will suit your needs fine until those DX10 games come out that you just GOTTA play. That'd be probably sometime during Christmas, when it would be perfect timing to hit up your old man again for that upgrade you want!