So I was playing Dredmor and I was like "I am not good at Dredmor" and then I was like "How does one get better at Dredmor? By playing Dredmor!" ... But then my computer died. So, I was wondering, since I tend to play light games anyway that don't take much CPU power and GPU power what I should look for? I don't want a top-of-the-line computer that I use only 1% of for 500% the price. Since I've never been one for heavy games anyway it's somewhat wasted on a humble Diggle like me. Suggestions? I was thinking this little i3 laptop with Intel graphics in it but I am not sure onboard graphics is a good idea. It's only $349 and that is brand new. Then there's the old and used comp in good condition for $300 that's got a dedicated Radeon with a C2D 2.4ghz. that's something like three years old. So. Confused. Any better suggestions? I can't continue to live without killing mutant carrots for long. SO SAD RIGHT AFTER MY RETURN TO CIVILIZATION! NOW I AM BEGGING AT A LIBRARY OR ON A FRIEND'S COMPUTER FOR AID! YUMMY GUMMY AID!
the i3 is not bad for your purposes, and you can get decent computing power for most older games even on it. Try not to go used unless you have to.
i3 is perfectly fine for what you do, but onboard graphics is generally a bad idea (though this may have changed with the latest nvidia motherboard, I'm not entirely sure. Would have to read up on it.) I'd look for something with a real GPU though. Are you specifically looking for a laptop?
I am not specifically looking for a laptop, but it is space effecient, though one of those cute little boxes with a full comp inside of it would work for me too. So don't go used, I understand and won;t, I wasn't too crazy about it anyway.
I looked a little into it (the onboard graphics) and it's still not very promising. This page shows fps benchmarks using the integrated HD 2000 and HD 3000 graphics which is usually what you'll find in laptops now. And that's not even testing with the i3, mostly the i5 and i7. Most games on the absolute lowest settings. I know you say you doubt you'll play much heavy games but casual games may have good graphics too. Of course, having a real GPU means probably more around 500-700$...
Well, if all you play are games with requirements akin to those of DoD, then a generic laptop with an i3 processor and integrated graphics will be enough for you. If you are really worried about whether it will cope, you can throw some more dollars in and buy a cooling pad (assuming you don't already have one), that is enough to make it not choke itself on stuff unless you want to play games with fancy graphics made in the last 2 years or so. Of course, it depends on what you want from games. I had a laptop with an i3 processor and integrated graphics and used to run Supreme Commander on it on medium details (which is not bad for integrated graphics), but I could've played it on low settings were it not for the fact that some things were rather difficult to make out in water on that setting since I don't care about graphics all that much. So if you care about graphics, you might want to consider spending some more (about 150~200$ more) and getting a laptop with a real GPU, but if you can live with games not looking all sparkly and shiny you might as well just say "whatever" and buy what you planned to buy in the first place.
I think the GPU is the most important part of the system by far. The only exception is if you do not play games. Get a real GPU. Even a weak one is many times the performance of a integrated Intel Abomination pretending to be a GPU. (No offense to Intel, they make awesome CPUs and I particularly love my old Intel SSD, but the GPUs they make are all just an extension of software rendering and all is really done on the CPU. Every time they remake the "Intel GPU" it is the same words that in my opinion, are bold lies. One of these days they may pull a rabbit from their hat and slap me with it. But they have not yet. I welcome them to do it. If you only want light games, I still suggest a real GPU. But it is your money. I wish you luck with your choice.
Oh Daynab. Your link has one minor flaw. It is comparing the absolute worst GPUs available to the Intel integrated junk. They are using DDR3 only and have a memory controller that does not let them use it like would be the case with GDDR3 since it is one request at a time. In other words, they are specifically made to perform terrible. (GDDR3 can send dozens of reads and writes at the same time, while DDR3 cannot. And even a cheap and barely decent GPU uses GDDR5 by now.) But I am not blaming you. Anandtech is the one doing biased reviews. Although it is still hard to see the review as favorable to Intel, they really are.
That was kind of the point to my link though? The integrated ones are performing only half to some of the worst GPUs.
