Ah, sorry, I didn't see the feature list at the very bottom of the page. I assumed it didn't include a hard drive or RAM.

Dang, I forgot about the RAM, that means the MSI cost as much as this ASRock.

Video Teardown of ASRock

I have an honest question. I've been checking out the Dell Zino HD for a little while now. I'm considering it as a computer to recommend to very low-use clients who just want email, internet, and word processing. But that ASRock seems like it would be just as capable, and they're in the same price range.

So which one is more powerful? Which CPU is stronger? The Zino has an AMD Dual Core Athlon X2 3250e, whereas the ASRock has the Intel Atom 330 Dual core. I'm trying to compare the closest chips, and for the purpose of this question I'm looking at the 1.5GHz AMD and the 1.6GHz Intel.

So who wins? Without knowing how the CPUs compare, as far as I can see the Dell seems to win out. A build comparable to the $349 ASRock costs $339 for the Zino HD (which comes with Vista and a basic keyboard and mouse - which is nice for my clients). Plus then you get Dell backing you for a year. You also get far more customization at the time of order. For whatever reason, Newegg only has the lowest-end ASRock. They don't have any of the models with built-in wireless or blu-ray.

I know the Zino HD is hardly the beefiest computer out there, but given that the most basic version is $229, and the only necessary upgrade being a $30 upgrade from Vista to 7, it seems like a great value for a computer for grandma. Am I wrong?

If your going PC for the grandmother, go with the AMD based system. An Atom (even a dual core one) is going to be crushed by a proper desktop CPU, even if it is a low end Athlon. A quick search showed the Atom 330 hitting around 1950 in PCMark 05 CPU testing, while the Athlon 3250e hit 2919. For comparison, a 2.26ghz Core 2 Duo hits a bit above 4000.

Keep in mind the low spec now is going to mean a really low end spec a year, two or three from now. Things like Hulu and such are unplayable on a low end machine from just three years ago. I have no idea if your grandmother has need of such internet services, but going low end now may mean an upgrade is needed sooner for them down the road.

Hehe, well, first of all it's not for my grandma. That would be a little tough... No, this was just for a hypothetical grandma.

And I know what you mean, but frankly I think things are slowing down enough to where it's not as bad to buy low-end anymore. For about half of my clients, a low-end computer will do everything they need just fine, and will continue to do so for a long time. I'd say 25% of my clients have never heard of Hulu, and don't care about the new 1080p Youtube. Most of them just want to write up a Word document, email it to someone, and check out the news on the Washington Post.

So 50% don't need high-end, and 40% of my clients really only need a beefier computer because they share it with their children. And that last 10% still don't need to go all out. A Core 2 Duo will suit them fine.

Thanks for the numbers, by the way. Where did you find those?

Since you're going to have to support these machines and you've already figured out that their speeds are adequate, you should probably buy whatever you feel will be the easiest to deal with from a maintenance and warranty perspective. To me, that points to Dell (in a landslide) rather than ASRock, if your choice is strictly limited between those two.

BTW, the only reason that newer versions of operating systems and applications feel like they're maintaining speed is because hardware is getting faster. If the applications were truly maintaining their performance and usage requirements were truly as limited as they used to be, then applications like Word would be lightning fast on current hardware. Photoshop feels just as slow today as it did 10 years ago.

TweakTown put the 330 up against an AMD X2 4850E 2.5GHz.