Atom x5-e8000 vs celeron n3060

[SaHaRzZz]

I just cant find enough information to determine which one is better for a laptop with a lightweight linux system,

It will be a secondary computer for when im leaving the house, nothing serious.

 

On paper it seems like the atom beats the celeron, what do you think?

[porina]

Both are same generation/architecture, so the differences will mostly come down to core counts and clock. The E8000 has 4 cores compared to the 2 cores of the N3060, similar TDP at 5W and 6W respectively. Celeron has higher base clock, and I don't see the turbo clock for the E8000 on Intel's site so hard to tell how it might compare, particularly for single thread.

[SaHaRzZz]

Just now, porina said:

Both are same generation/architecture, so the differences will mostly come down to core counts and clock. The E8000 has 4 cores compared to the 2 cores of the N3060, similar TDP at 5W and 6W respectively. Celeron has higher base clock, and I don't see the turbo clock for the E8000 on Intel's site so hard to tell how it might compare, particularly for single thread.

Thats the thing, on intel's site it says that it doesnt support turbo tech, but on pther comparison sites it says that it turbos to 2ghz.

Very confused about that one

[porina]

1 minute ago, SaHaRzZz said:

Thats the thing, on intel's site it says that it doesnt support turbo tech, but on pther comparison sites it says that it turbos to 2ghz.

Very confused about that one

I missed that, but see it now. It is sold for embedded systems so maybe they just want predictable performance. If that is true, quad cores around 1 GHz probably isn't going to be great for OS uses, compared to dual cores at 1.6 or higher. 

[SaHaRzZz]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

I missed that, but see it now. It is sold for embedded systems so maybe they just want predictable performance. If that is true, quad cores around 1 GHz probably isn't going to be great for OS uses, compared to dual cores at 1.6 or higher. 

Do you think it will be capable of running a lightweight linux system?

No more than internet and some terminal activity, maybe a bit of low res youtube

[porina]

Just now, SaHaRzZz said:

Do you think it will be capable of running a lightweight linux system?

No more than internet and some terminal activity, maybe a bit of low res youtube

It is hard to say. Atom CPUs are slow anyway, and combined with a low clock... for Windows I certainly don't think it would be worth using. Your "lightweight Linux", I don't know. How light is it? I think for general responsiveness 2 faster cores are better than 4 slower ones.

 

I have an N3050 nettop. Dual core, 1.6 GHz, 2GB ram, 32GB eMMC. I recently updated it to Win10 1909. Even firing up Chome feels like it takes forever with nothing else running at the time. Windows background tasks, when they run, just kill it until it is done.

[SaHaRzZz]

16 minutes ago, porina said:

It is hard to say. Atom CPUs are slow anyway, and combined with a low clock... for Windows I certainly don't think it would be worth using. Your "lightweight Linux", I don't know. How light is it? I think for general responsiveness 2 faster cores are better than 4 slower ones.

 

I have an N3050 nettop. Dual core, 1.6 GHz, 2GB ram, 32GB eMMC. I recently updated it to Win10 1909. Even firing up Chome feels like it takes forever with nothing else running at the time. Windows background tasks, when they run, just kill it until it is done.

using Windows with these kind of CPUs is brave imo,

I think they are aimed at ChromeOS and things like that, but I guess 2 faster cores are better than 4 slower ones,
it's just that I don't get why some comparison sites show 2ghz on the atom cpu and it's even written in intel's site "up to 2ghz"