Deciding between these two laptops. Need pointers.

[Technes]

For my usage, I'm looking for a laptop that will provide me with enough punch for web design, and some minor games. I have found two that suffice.

My budget maxes out at appx. 600 dollars. I have a powerful desktop computer at home for all my other needs, this is simply for on the go and when I'm away from my desktop. It's important to me that the laptop also does not use integrated graphics, thus these two choices were optimal:

http/www.ncix.ca/products/?sku=83175&vpn=NX%2EMCTAA%2E003&manufacture=Acer
http/www.ncix.ca/products/?sku=77400&vpn=K55VD-DH51-CA&manufacture=ASUS&promoid=1258

I entirely understand that ASUS is the better way to go. I do prefer the chiclet keystyle on the linked above Acer computer, however that shouldn't be a selling point when compared with the ASUS. I am interested, however, as to why the ASUS is marked down from a significantly higher price, when it is not as powerful as the Acer. Is it the built quality? I do notice that the battery lasts longer in the ASUS, which is a nice bonus.

Albeit vague to even myself, I suppose my question in this case would be: Why is the Acer priced significantly lesser than the ASUS, given the specs comparison, and which laptop would you suggest I edge toward?

Thanks.

 

[jaguarskx]

Intel CPUs are definitely more powerful than AMD CPUs at the same clockspeed. However, the Acer has a quad core CPU vs. the Asus dual core. For applications (or games) that only use one or two cores, the Asus will provide better performance. For applications that can use more than 2 cores, the Acer might either perform just as well or better than the Asus; it depends on the program or game.

The Asus has a longer battery life because Intel CPUs generally consume less power than AMD CPUs.

With regards to the graphic chips... the GT 610m is pretty weak. The Intel HD 4000 found in Ivy Bridge laptops is considered to just slightly more powerful than the GT 610m. The Acer comes with a dedicated Radeon HD 8750m which provides pretty good performance given the price you are paying. It's performance sits between GT 735m and the GT 640m.

Even the integrated Radeon HD 8650G is more powerful than the GT 610m which is rated to be between the GT 630m and GT 635m. Not sure if the Radeon HD 8650G will "dual graphics" (formerly known as hybrid Crossfire) with the dedicated graphics chip.

From a gaming perspective the Acer is better. From a productivity perspective it could be either or. Like I said, in some programs that can take advantage of the 4 cores in the AMD APU, the Acer laptop may perform just as well or maybe even better than the Asus laptop.

 

[Technes]

snip

Thank you for your response.
What you've mentioned is what I've speculated, so as far as specs, I'm leaning more toward the Acer -- I will be able to utilize all four cores with what I'm doing, and the graphics card will definitely be more useful in a year or two's time. Build quality with later Acers are evidently better than before, even if they're not on par with ASUS builds. I have experience handling computers if you wish to put it that way, and don't see myself abusing a laptop to the extent that I'd need it to be build incredibly well.

I was mostly curious to see if I had overlooked something, as the ASUS is in the 700 dollar range without a markdown, compared to the Acer's base price that is ~200 dollars less.

Thanks again.

 

[jaguarskx]

Probably because $700 was the original price or perhaps it was the MSRP when initially released a year ago.

 

[Technes]

Probably because $700 was the original price or perhaps it was the MSRP when initially released a year ago.

Makes sense. Alright, I'll be picking up the Acer.
Thank you!