(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

well?, which one is the best?

stick with xp opr vista they give u more game choices

Decide based on your own needs/wants.

I can't tell you exactly what would be the best for your situation. Hell, if you want a computer for stability, all three of those would be good.

First, when comparing computers, list it part by part in the same order. I have to dig through that list to find each PSU, GPU, etc. Just write out the parts of each compared to the others.

Here's a mistake that I found, but it's a personal choice on my behalf. You are having only one hard drive in each system as far as I can tell, all of which are SATA II. Personally, my experience with SATA hard drives have been shit. Within my first six months, I had to replace my Seagate Barracuda ES2 three times because it would fail. With my Samsung Spinpoint P series, I had to replace it twice. With my Western Digital Caviar SE, I had to replace it once and then it broke within a week and I got so frustrated with the customer service that I just threw it out. They are amazing drives for storage, absolutely amazing. But the problem is that they are slower than other drives and aren't made for the high use that operating systems really require. If I were you, I'd go with SATA as a storage drive, but get a SCSI drive(preferably for speed/performance) with a SCSI adapter since many motherboards don't support SCSI right off the bat, or an IDE drive(preferably for reliability and to free up a PCI slot from the SCSI adapter that would've been there.)

Just looking up and down, the V2 looks a bit more full, and a bit more reliable. I have always chosen MSI over Gigabyte, but that's just me. Other than that, if money is really an issue, you can really choose any of the three and you won't see a noticeable drop in performance/reliability. All three contain the same CPU as I looked over them, and the same GPU. That means everything comes down to the motherboard support, and the accessories(cases, etc). For me, with the motherboard, it would make it so that V2 wins because of MSI, but I could beg to differ if I see the stats side by side. I am just choosing the brand from looking at it.

In reply to Rust, not all SATA hard drives are like that. I've had no problems with my Hitachi hard drives. I've had two 400GB Hitachi drives in my gaming computer for over 3 years without problems. And I currently have a storage server with 5 1TB Hitachi drives and it runs fine. I get about 80MB/s read per drive with a total read speed of 259MB/s. They're in a RAID 5 setup though so that I don't lose any data if one of them fails.

In fact... I've had more trouble with the SCSI hard drives in one of my rack mount servers. Just yesterday two of my three 73 SCSI hard drives in a RAID 5 setup failed, so now the array is in read-only mode and I'll likely have to back everything up and do a reinstall. Though generally SCSI drives are more reliable and faster, they will cost you a lot more than SATA drives. SATA drives + RAID 5 is probably the best balance of price, speed, and reliability.

I realize that, but it really put me down in the dumps about the drives all together. I never had Hitachi drives, but I actually heard that they are pushing up the notch of reliability and service and all that. They are still behind, but I was thinking of buying some new hard drives from them. Seagate has been so nice with service though. Samsung simply sends you a whole new retail hard drive in the box and everything, Seagate sends you an OEM but the packaging is amazing and all that.

But back onto topic. Personally, with servers as well as home computers, I found that SCSI for an operating system, aka having the C: drive being solely dedicated to Windows/Linux/Mac, and then all other programs being installed onto the SATA drives tends to actually be quite reliable. It takes off the load off a single drive for everything, and by having the operating system on the SCSI, you are guaranteed speed, reliability, and performance beyond most computers that are made on a single. Of course, with servers, anything that is high bandwidth will probably want to be put on a SCSI drive, while anything that is just made for storage and medium to low bandwidth tends to be on SATA. At least that is the industry template for data now-a-days.

I woud get V2. I am getting this one > You must login or register to view this content.