.

[armapker]

.

 

[flamehead269]

XD lol, is that like a joke?

well, obviously the first one..

 

[random stalker]

XD lol, is that like a joke?

well, obviously the first one..

really?
so, do entertain me - how does a faster cpu beats the gaming experience of a way faster graphic card?

but fun aside -
the first one has a 8 core processor /more or less / which is better suited at productivity /ripping video and stuff like that/ with an integrated gc /which is not too shabby/

the second one has a faster graphic card which is way better suited for gaming but the processor is tad below par.... the board is 1155 so you could upgrade the cpu on the later one up to i7 if you wish to later on...

 

[scragnoff]

Hi yoyomah20!

Is that a prebuilt system? I'd suggest you not buy prebuilt systems and instead, research the parts, and build the system yourself instead! Or, if you're not too confident yet, have an expert friend do it. This will save you money, and you can learn a lot from the research, too.

Here's a guide about why NOT to buy prebuilts.

 

[armapker]

No, we are building it ourselves but we don't want to buy any more expensive parts, so these (or any equivalent priced setups) are our only options

 

[armapker]

really?
so, do entertain me - how does a faster cpu beats the gaming experience of a way faster graphic card?

but fun aside -
the first one has a 8 core processor /more or less / which is better suited at productivity /ripping video and stuff like that/ with an integrated gc /which is not too shabby/

the second one has a faster graphic card which is way better suited for gaming but the processor is tad below par.... the board is 1155 so you could upgrade the cpu on the later one up to i7 if you wish to later on...

Lol the first one is a quad core APU FM2 socket @ 3.2GHz. The reason is that too funny is becuase intel's CPUs usually do more work per cycle and therefore need less GHz to outperform a AMD CPU (i.e. the Celeron 2.6GHz beats the A6-5400K 3.6GHz in any benchmark). The 630 is a better card than the 7560D but is it worth it to do a dual core?

EDIT: also, this would be used for gaming. he is coming from a laptop dual core amd 1.3ghz, integrated graphics, and 3gb of 1333 memory. lol

 

[yilove4u]

if the builds are the same price, then i would definitely go with the first one.

the amd a8 is much better than the g1610 cpu. by a lot.

the gt 630 is better than the 7560d, but only by a very very little.

for gaming, either graphics option aren't too great unless it's for old games or less intensive current games.

 

[yilove4u]

is the first cpu amd a8-5500 or a6-5400?

the amd a8 is a quad, so it'll beat the g1610.

the amd a6 is a dual, which will get similar benchmarks to the g1610, but won't beat the g1610.

 

[armapker]

is the first cpu amd a8-5500 or a6-5400?

the amd a8 is a quad, so it'll beat the g1610.

the amd a6 is a dual, which will get similar benchmarks to the g1610, but won't beat the g1610.

Accually, change the Nvidia 630 to a Sapphire Radeon 6670. So it would be the Celeron Ivy Bridge 2.6GHz dual core (which gets lower benchmarks than the A8, but it gets a higher single core benchmark, and one of his most played games is World of Tanks which uses only one core) plus the Radeon 6670 (which is better than the 7560D integrated graphics). Basically what I am asking is is it worth it to sacrifice the CPU (do remember that Intel's CPUs still have a higher IPC) for a better graphics card?