Perf diff btw 2 lappys? Celeron N3450 6GB RAM eMMC 5.0 2376x1823 / Core m3-6Y30 4GB RAM SATA SSD HD

[virtuality]

Relevant specs for laptop one:
Quad-core Celeron N3450 with Intel HD Graphics 500
6GB DDR3 RAM
eMMC 5.0 storage
Driving a display of a respectable 2376x1823 resolution

Relevant specs for laptop two:
Dual-core Core m3-6Y30 with Intel HD Graphics 515
4GB DDR3 RAM
SATA SSD storage
Driving a display of a meager 1920x1080 resolution

The geeky question for this excellent tech forum: sure, it looks like the 2nd laptop should appear to be the faster one of the two for most use cases and circumstances... but by how much? How does the 1st laptop laptop having a quad-core, but slower per core CPU with 6GB RAM with slightly less powerful integrated graphics driving more pixels with the OS being installed on a relatively slower but OK eMMC 5.0 storage compare to the 2nd laptop having a dual-core, but faster per core CPU with only 4GB RAM with slightly more powerful integrated graphics driving less pixels with the OS being installed on a relatively faster SATA SSD compare? Especially: what are use cases where the 1st laptop is relatively not so bad compared to the 2nd one? What are use cases where the 2nd laptop is usually better? I guess we get more uses cases for the 2nd part than to the 1st part. I'm not an expert on an overall comparison like this where (as it seems) every component counts, but all curious. What are the takeaways?

 

[DaQuteness]

Hi virtuality,

From what I can tell, you are after a day-to-day laptop that is by the looks of it dirt cheap compared to current market, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Bear in mind there are many other factors to consider when asking for performance difference, anything from Wi-Fi card to laptop material and cooling capability can significantly affect performance.

m3-6y30 series CPUs have ridiculously low TDP (7W full-on) and just 0.9Ghz speed so you should have far better battery life than the Celeron. Having said that, the N3450 does have a bit higher speeds at a low TDP, with 1.1GHz @ 6W. To be honest, knowing how resource-hungry Windows is, and it's downtrodden software population being just as bad, if you're intending on using this for web, media streaming, Office suite and the likes, I would go for the first option, however a weaker GPU has to drive a high-res screen. It will do the job, but don't expect too much of it.

While the latter laptop's spec is marginally better in terms of graphics, the CPU and RAM is weaker, which means overall worse experience because your laptop will be drawn back the entire time by the weaker CPU and less RAM pool. Windows + Chrome/Firefox/IE will take the 4GB ram and chew it up instantly. Actually, it's not even 4GB because both cases have shared memory.

To answer your questions in order: 1. They tend to even out, although I would probably go with the first purely for the extra edge in RAM and CPU, the GPU will handle media just fine as long as it's nothing over 1080p.and 2. There's no particular case where one would do better than the other except maybe better battery life for the 2nd one by the looks of it. I wouldn't even consider gaming on these laptops except web-games and even there you wouldn't see a big difference.

Having said all of that, I would strongly suggest going for a light version of Mint-based Linux specifically designed for low-powered computers, even Raspberry Pi. You would get so much more performance out of it as they are extremely low-power/low-resource kernels, so you can put more RAM and CPU to work for the apps instead of OS.

Hope this helps, cheers!
V.

 

[you2]

I can't comment on the M processors but the N processors are pretty darn slow. I would not go below a pentinum class processor. Also the cost difference between atom/celeron and pentinum is minimal (though the N processors do use less power). I just can't see running much on those boxes above and beyond bare-bone linux. I should check on passmark where the M processors fall but you can do that. At the very min you should try out an equiv system at bestbuy or similar store. I had an atom based laptop as a very small portable but it was just too darn slow to enjoy (sort of like an iphone 1). These systems are a little faster (2x?) but still pretty darn slow. Also you don't indicate how large the solid state drive are (I don't think it matters much if it is sata ssd or emmc. Also i would prefer the lower resolution screen but more memory. However more important than resolution is quality of the lcd. Can the memory be expanded in either system ?

 

[virtuality]

Hi DaQuteness,

Thank you for your insights! Let's dig a little deeper:

Geekbench 4 score for the Celeron N3450 (Windows 64-bit, best single-core score)
Single-Core Score: 1470
Multi-Core Score: 4220

Geekbench 4 score for the Core m3-6Y30 (Windows 64-bit, best single-core score)
Single-Core Score: 2960
Multi-Core Score: 5430

Can we believe Geekbench scores? Do they mean anything? I'm sure the results account for burst frequency (2.2 GHz for both CPUs). I'm not an expert in this, but the Celeron and the Core family (even the ultra low powered Core m) must have different architectures, as the Geekbench results show quite different benchmark results for similar clock speeds.

Do the number of cores matter in any everyday use case?

From what I can tell, you are after a day-to-day laptop that is by the looks of it dirt cheap compared to current market, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Concentrating on the second part of your sentence (regardless what I'm after), it depends what do you mean by laptop that is by the looks of it dirt cheap compared to current market. For example last year's base model of Microsoft Surface 4 Pro was a little bit of a mix between my two examples: all the specs of the 2nd model with the screen of the first, and the SATA SSD upgraded to perhaps the worst NVMe based SSD in production. It had an MSRP of $799 and it still sells for $699 on Microsoft's site as last year's model. That's for it being cheap.

Bear in mind there are many other factors to consider when asking for performance difference, anything from Wi-Fi card to laptop material and cooling capability can significantly affect performance.

That's a good question about the Wi-Fi card: the second model has Intel, and about the first model I can reasonably assume it has a good one, like Intel too. If an Intel wireless card is any good.

Let's say I don't care that much about battery life, as most of the time the machine would be plugged into a wall outlet. I'm not sure about the heating, and if it matter knowing it would run from the wire, not from battery.

Having said all of that, I would strongly suggest going for a light version of Mint-based Linux specifically designed for low-powered computers, even Raspberry Pi.

I got the Linux Mint part, but I'm not sure about your mentioning the Raspberry Pi. It's an ARM-based mini computer, while both laptops are Intel/based. Any operating system build built for one is incompatible with the other.

 

[DaQuteness]

Hi virtuality,

Trying to answer in an orderly fashion here:

Can we believe Geekbench scores? Do they mean anything? I'm sure the results account for burst frequency (2.2 GHz for both CPUs). I'm not an expert in this, but the Celeron and the Core family (even the ultra low powered Core m) must have different architectures, as the Geekbench results show quite different benchmark results for similar clock speeds.

Do the number of cores matter in any everyday use case?

Scores honestly don't say a good deal to me in low-end spec, because they focus on clean installs and owning 100% of the available power while single-tasking so to speak. In reality you'd have Chrome of Firefox or some other browser open with 10 tabs which chew up 1,5GB of RAM if not more, while also trying to maybe deal with a productivity suite and stream a movie. Rather, they show the potential, not the effective. Doubling back on my previous statement that Celeron might be a better choice, I should probably mention that newer CPUs like m-series might benefit from a bit more lifetime support (i.e. warranty and tech support).

For example last year's base model of Microsoft Surface 4 Pro was a little bit of a mix between my two examples

Fair point, I should redirect you to EVE-Tech if you haven't heard of them yet, they actually have an m-series CPU in theirs: http://eve-tech.com/eve-v/

I hadn't considered hybrids in this category, my bad.

That's a good question about the Wi-Fi card: the second model has Intel, and about the first model I can reasonably assume it has a good one, like Intel too. If an Intel wireless card is any good.

Let's say I don't care that much about battery life, as most of the time the machine would be plugged into a wall outlet. I'm not sure about the heating, and if it matter knowing it would run from the wire, not from battery.

Ironically, I have a Celeron N2230 in my laptop and it's a surprisingly feature-packed card, supporting stuff like promiscuous mode, active monitoring, packet snooping etc., more suited to pentesting. So it really depends on WHICH Intel you end up with, find out if it's 1x1 or 2x2.

Excessive heat will eventually reduce the lifespan of your components, first one being affected is the battery. Then the CPU will be throttling an already slow frequency.

I got the Linux Mint part, but I'm not sure about your mentioning the Raspberry Pi. It's an ARM-based mini computer, while both laptops are Intel/based. Any operating system build built for one is incompatible with the other.

I had mentioned the Pi just to reference the lightness of Linux flavour that would yield best results in constant situations.

Cheers!
V.

 

[virtuality]

Scores honestly don't say a good deal to me in low-end spec, because they focus on clean installs and owning 100% of the available power while single-tasking so to speak.

How did you decide the widely used and respected Geekbench scores aren't good anymore? Even more strangely, only for those CPUs you define as low end. In Single-core Geekbench score, how many points it would be, where's the dividing line in Geekbench score between low end and not so low end for you? Just curious.

As I use light virtualization and portable applications, every reboot is like a clean install to me anyways.

I should probably mention that newer CPUs like m-series might benefit from a bit more lifetime support (i.e. warranty and tech support).

?

Every year Intel releases a new CPU across all the lineup, including Celeron and Core m. Yes, I compared last year's Core m with this year's Celeron, but that was deliberate. I'm honestly not sure what do you mean by Intel supporting a CPU sold soldered into a notebook. You usually get support from the notebook manufacturer. And warranty period is guided by the unit's purchase date, not the year the CPU model was first introduced to the market.

Fair point, I should redirect you to EVE-Tech if you haven't heard of them yet, they actually have an m-series CPU in theirs: http://eve-tech.com/eve-v/

Thank you for the link, I'm aware of this coming soon (well, coming soon for a long time) product. But what did you want to say with this? I didn't ask for purchase recommendations here. I simply wanted to know the relative strengths and weaknesses of two, very specific configurations, not a third.

Ironically, I have a Celeron N2230 in my laptop and it's a surprisingly feature-packed card, supporting stuff like promiscuous mode, active monitoring, packet snooping etc., more suited to pentesting. So it really depends on WHICH Intel you end up with, find out if it's 1x1 or 2x2.

Talking about the Wi-Fi. Do you think it's a more defining factor in the laptops' overall performance (being it 1x1 or 2x2) over stuff like the CPU/RAM/storage/number of pixels driven?

Excessive heat will eventually reduce the lifespan of your components, first one being affected is the battery. Then the CPU will be throttling an already slow frequency.

Gotcha!

 

[virtuality]

Dear moderator, I concluded that - even though the title of the topic explicitly mentions laptops -, given the scope of the topic, this discussion would be more interesting in the General Hardware forum section. I mean I expected insights from a wide variety of AnandTech Forums people, and somehow we ended up with just a 1-on-1 conversation with DaQuteness. I'm puzzled. Nothing wrong with his contribution, but maybe other people's insights are found in General Hardware for this kind of, well, more general hardware question.

Please move this conversation over to General Hardware if at all possible! My bad I wasn't aware I open it in the wrong place.

 

[DaQuteness]

How did you decide the widely used and respected Geekbench scores aren't good anymore? Even more strangely, only for those CPUs you define as low end. In Single-core Geekbench score, how many points it would be, where's the dividing line in Geekbench score between low end and not so low end for you? Just curious.

As I use light virtualization and portable applications, every reboot is like a clean install to me anyways.
Gotcha!

I never said they're not good anymore, just that I personally don't consider them for low-end CPU's because in my experience dealing with similar units, scoring and actual user experience were two things a canyon apart. How would you even use virtualization on this setup?? If that is one of your main uses then the more cores the merrier and a low-end configuration vm like Qemu or Xen to get almost native performance in my experience, otherwise you'll do yourself in waiting for it to start

Thank you for the link, I'm aware of this coming soon (well, coming soon for a long time) product. But what did you want to say with this? I didn't ask for purchase recommendations here. I simply wanted to know the relative strengths and weaknesses of two, very specific configurations, not a third.

Just another reference to the applications of m3-processors that I had not considered.

Talking about the Wi-Fi. Do you think it's a more defining factor in the laptops' overall performance (being it 1x1 or 2x2) over stuff like the CPU/RAM/storage/number of pixels driven?

To me it definitely is, the laptop is meant to be portable or at least cable-less except the power cord, and crappy wi-fi cards hinder that greatly, giving the user an even worse experience.

Dear moderator, I concluded that - even though the title of the topic explicitly mentions laptops -, given the scope of the topic, this discussion would be more interesting in the General Hardware forum section. I mean I expected insights from a wide variety of AnandTech Forums people, and somehow we ended up with just a 1-on-1 conversation with DaQuteness. I'm puzzled. Nothing wrong with his contribution, but maybe other people's insights are found in General Hardware for this kind of, well, more general hardware question.

Please move this conversation over to General Hardware if at all possible! My bad I wasn't aware I open it in the wrong place.

Totally agreed on other people's insights... I haven't been here for a long while now and attendance is not nearly as intense as it used to be a few years back :| Opened up a thread asking people for opinions on a £2500 laptop and eGPU, was hoping to get a flood of options given the budget yet nothing has happened.

Sorry, I'll step away, didn't mean to hijack the conversation! The question is anything BUT general, actually couldn't get more specific than this.

Cheers, hope I've been of some help on this subject
V.

 

[virtuality]

I never said they're not good anymore, just that I personally don't consider them for low-end CPU's because in my experience dealing with similar units, scoring and actual user experience were two things a canyon apart. How would you even use virtualization on this setup?? If that is one of your main uses then the more cores the merrier and a low-end configuration vm like Qemu or Xen to get almost native performance in my experience, otherwise you'll do yourself in waiting for it to start

I said, light virtualization. That's a completely different animal. Software like Faronics Deep Freeze. May even change your life!

So, you find Geekbench scores useless for CPUs scoring below how many points/useful above how many point?

To me it definitely is, the laptop is meant to be portable or at least cable-less except the power cord, and crappy wi-fi cards hinder that greatly, giving the user an even worse experience.

Fine. But I still don't quite get how in your view specifics of the Wi-Fi (such as being 1x1 or 2x2) is a defining factor, even more so than the CPU/RAM/storage/number of pixels to push, even assuming Wi-Fi is not turned off... But say, you use it with strong a strong Wi-Fi source/for light Internet use... Wi-Fi is just not an issue.

OFF: It's OK!

 

[Torn Mind]

Core M is superior to Atom in every way performance-wise. Core M is based on Skylake while Atom is on the Apollo Lake architecture. Put both of those chips at the same clockspeed and Core M will outperform Atom easy, especially once you factor in that it boosts to 2.0 GHZ.

The integrated graphics on the m3 is also superior, with 24 execution units compared to 12 on the N3450.

I'd get into more details when I have more time on my hands.

 

[Torn Mind]

I can't comment on the M processors but the N processors are pretty darn slow. I would not go below a pentinum class processor. Also the cost difference between atom/celeron and pentinum is minimal (though the N processors do use less power). I just can't see running much on those boxes above and beyond bare-bone linux. I should check on passmark where the M processors fall but you can do that. At the very min you should try out an equiv system at bestbuy or similar store. I had an atom based laptop as a very small portable but it was just too darn slow to enjoy (sort of like an iphone 1). These systems are a little faster (2x?) but still pretty darn slow. Also you don't indicate how large the solid state drive are (I don't think it matters much if it is sata ssd or emmc. Also i would prefer the lower resolution screen but more memory. However more important than resolution is quality of the lcd. Can the memory be expanded in either system ?

Pentiums can also be Atom based if it has that letter "N" or "J", and maybe other letters. The big core Pentiums and Celerons have no letter, like the Sandy Bridge based Celeron 847, which could be considered a prototype of sorts for the Core M line, since it was a big core at low clockspeeds.

 

[Torn Mind]

Relevant specs for laptop one:
Quad-core Celeron N3450 with Intel HD Graphics 500
6GB DDR3 RAM
eMMC 5.0 storage
Driving a display of a respectable 2376x1823 resolution

Relevant specs for laptop two:
Dual-core Core m3-6Y30 with Intel HD Graphics 515
4GB DDR3 RAM
SATA SSD storage
Driving a display of a meager 1920x1080 resolution

The geeky question for this excellent tech forum: sure, it looks like the 2nd laptop should appear to be the faster one of the two for most use cases and circumstances... but by how much? How does the 1st laptop laptop having a quad-core, but slower per core CPU with 6GB RAM with slightly less powerful integrated graphics driving more pixels with the OS being installed on a relatively slower but OK eMMC 5.0 storage compare to the 2nd laptop having a dual-core, but faster per core CPU with only 4GB RAM with slightly more powerful integrated graphics driving less pixels with the OS being installed on a relatively faster SATA SSD compare? Especially: what are use cases where the 1st laptop is relatively not so bad compared to the 2nd one? What are use cases where the 2nd laptop is usually better? I guess we get more uses cases for the 2nd part than to the 1st part. I'm not an expert on an overall comparison like this where (as it seems) every component counts, but all curious. What are the takeaways?

The second unit will be substantially faster due to having a faster chip and faster storage, especially when the system is in a light state. The faster storage can mitigate the less RAM since pagefile reading will be faster on an SSD than with eMMC.

Also, I must say that the resolution you mention in the first system is bizzare and probably nonexistent in real life.

The only way the first unit would be tolerable compared to the second is in Notepad, maybe light office tasks, or if your browsing involves html only sites with little scripts-- or in other words, browsing like it is 1999. Only if you need a computer but can't afford computer 2 would you buy computer 1.

While more RAM would be more advantageous in a heavy browsing session, the slower CPU cores are less able to handle the script heavy websites that are oh-so-common these days and thus you will still experience lag if you love visiting sites like nfl.com, nhl.com, major news sites, yahoo, gmail, etc, etc, all while having slower cores for general tasks.

Heck, the m3 can beat a Sandy Bridge Celeron G550 in Passmark, a chip that I have personally used.

 

[virtuality]

Also, I must say that the resolution you mention in the first system is bizzare and probably nonexistent in real life.

Oh. It's just the same display Microsoft Surface uses (according to Forbes), or at least it has the same parameters. Nothing special.

Otherwise, thanks for your great analysis!

 

[Torn Mind]

Regading benchmark scores....

They are a single, unitless number that approximates processing power, but it is the percentage difference in scores that must be used to have any intelligible interpretation of what is faster. Also, they are valid when a certain threshold is crossed between the difference of two scores, although what that threshold is can be debateable up to a certain point. If a chip's benchmark score is double of a another, the higher scoring chip is undeniably better. If two chips are only 20 percent different, then other factors can certainly swing the "feel" of a system.

When a system is bogged down, yes it will perform slower, but one aspect of a computer being powerful is precisely being able to perform tasks faster when it is bogged down. The trailing chip will be slower and hit its bottleneck sooner than the faster chip, end of story. Having used a Pentium III, Northwood Celeron(2.00 GHz), Prescott Celeron (2.53 GHz), Sandy Bridge Celeron(2.4 and 2.6 GHz), and various Ivy Bridge i7s, the faster the chip, the more you can do before it is bogged down, and when it is bogged down, it still does things faster.

The first computer would be interesting as a video viewing laptop due to the superior screen though.

 

[cfenton]

If you're still looking, go with laptop two. It has a better processor and a real SSD. 1080p is totally fine on a laptop. My only worry would be the RAM, but it's not like 6GB is going to be much better than 4GB.