Help me choose between 2 cheap notebooks

[El Presidente]

I'm looking at a new notebook and I've narrowed it down to 2 with identical specs, the only difference being CPU's -

Intel Celeron N2830 vs AMD E2 3800

One ships with the Celeron, one with the AMD.

The Celeron has a higher clock speed, but the AMD has more cores.

Rightly or wrongly, I've always thought that if you're multitasking extensively, more cores is better, but if you've only a couple of apps open at once, higher clock speed would be better. I'd only have 2 apps open at once so I'd probably lean towards the Celeron?

I'm aware neither chips are going to set the world alight, but they'll fit my needs (Internet browsing, media playback and Football Manager) perfectly.

Just in case anyone suggests it, getting a chromebook is out of the question as Football Manager won't run on a chromebook (unless there's a way to get it to work without much fannying about).

 

[AMOCO]

Get the AMD,It;s a quad core.It's much faster then the Celeron.

 

[argedion]

Both are decent for what you are wanting to do so hmmmmm I would go with the celeron for the faster cpu. I mean 4 core running at the top end of 1.3 is going to be dog slow. Especially since you are only running a few apps and not using power hungry apps. If you plan on using games on it though then the GPU is what you are going to want to consider then.

 

[AMOCO]

Both are decent for what you are wanting to do so hmmmmm I would go with the celeron for the faster cpu. I mean 4 core running at the top end of 1.3 is going to be dog slow.

I beg to differ,4 cores are faster than 2 cores.
2 cores have to work harder then a 4 core cpu's.

 

[El Presidente]

Whilst FM is a game, it's mainly text based, so a high end GPU isn't required. Because of what it is and how it works (processing results from other teams/leagues in between matches etc), I thought the faster processor would be better.

I beg to differ,4 cores are faster than 2 cores.
2 cores have to work harder then a 4 core cpu's.

Doesn't that depend on what you're doing? Like I say, I'll have a couple of apps open at once, nothing overly taxing so I thought more speed per core would be better?

It has been a looooooooooooong time since I paid attention to PC Spec.

 

[AMOCO]

Well the more you are doing with your pc,Like running multiple apps and along with other things at the same time,you would want more cores.
But if your just doing small things than the dual core will work too.

 

[lunatic59]

Frankly, what you are asking of either machine isn't enough to max out a single core, let alone 4. Now assuming that the units are identical in every aspect but this one, you'd only be better with the AMD if you are running CPU intensive apps like 3D rendering or media encoding. You may occasionally max out the Celeron, but the smaller cache will give you more of a perceived performance snag.

One of the other things to consider is that the Celeron will consume a little less power which might make a difference with battery life of a laptop.

 

[MoodyBlues]

Just in case anyone suggests it, getting a chromebook is out of the question as Football Manager won't run on a chromebook (unless there's a way to get it to work without much fannying about).

It'll run on my Chromebook with no tinkering.

PS My Chromebook runs Kubuntu.

 

[iowabowtech]

For your needs as stated EP, I'd go with the Intel.

 

[El Presidente]

It'll run on my Chromebook with no tinkering.

PS My Chromebook runs Kubuntu.

If "no tinkering" involves anything more than installing Steam, then using that to download and install the game, that's too much tinkering.

Thanks for the input everyone.

 

[MoodyBlues]

If "no tinkering" involves anything more than installing Steam, then using that to download and install the game, that's too much tinkering.

Okay, you've got me here: how does it install on other [non-Linux] systems?

 

[sreum]

Whilst FM is a game, it's mainly text based, so a high end GPU isn't required. Because of what it is and how it works (processing results from other teams/leagues in between matches etc), I thought the faster processor would be better.



Doesn't that depend on what you're doing? Like I say, I'll have a couple of apps open at once, nothing overly taxing so I thought more speed per core would be better?

It has been a looooooooooooong time since I paid attention to PC Spec.

Yes it all depends on what you are doing.....
If you'll be doing a couple things at a time. Then the duo core is faster.

If you're planning on doing multiple things at the same time then the quad core is better.

In most cases, most people can't even comprehend doing enough at once to over load and slow down a duo core to the same speed as a comparable quad core.

I wont use my smart phone as an example as I over load even my quad core on almost a daily basis.

But my PC's are a different story.....
I have one with a 1.9 quad core and another with 2.6 duo.

If I'm only browsing or streaming the web the 2.6 duo wins hands down every day all day long. But if i start to steam music, download multiple software at the same time, scan the hard drive, watch a silent video clip, and what ever else I can do all at once. Then the perks of having a quad core finally shows up. By keeping everything going on working. Where as a load like that on a duo core will start to lag and music would start to buffer.

 

[El Presidente]

This arrived earlier today: Acer Aspire E3-111 11.6-inch Notebook (Silver) - (Intel Celeron N2830 2.16GHz, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD, WLAN, Bluetooth, Webcam, Integrated Graphics, Windows 8.1): Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

Like I mentioned above, it's not going to set the world alight, but it's well within my budget, wipes the floor with my previous netbook and it does exactly what I need it to.

Okay, you've got me here: how does it install on other [non-Linux] systems?

By downloading the steam client here: Steam, The Ultimate Online Game Platform

Installing, logging in, browsing to my library of games, then downloading the game I want.

There is no Linux/Chrome OS version of the game I want to run which is why I'm not interested in a Linux/Chromebook solution.

Yes it all depends on what you are doing.....
If you'll be doing a couple things at a time. Then the duo core is faster.

If you're planning on doing multiple things at the same time then the quad core is better.

In most cases, most people can't even comprehend doing enough at once to over load and slow down a duo core to the same speed as a comparable quad core.

I wont use my smart phone as an example as I over load even my quad core on almost a daily basis.

But my PC's are a different story.....
I have one with a 1.9 quad core and another with 2.6 duo.

If I'm only browsing or streaming the web the 2.6 duo wins hands down every day all day long. But if i start to steam music, download multiple software at the same time, scan the hard drive, watch a silent video clip, and what ever else I can do all at once. Then the perks of having a quad core finally shows up. By keeping everything going on working. Where as a load like that on a duo core will start to lag and music would start to buffer.

Thank you.

 

[MoodyBlues]

This arrived earlier today: Acer Aspire E3-111 11.6-inch Notebook (Silver) - (Intel Celeron N2830 2.16GHz, 4GB RAM, 500GB HDD, WLAN, Bluetooth, Webcam, Integrated Graphics, Windows 8.1): Amazon.co.uk: Computers & Accessories

Like I mentioned above, it's not going to set the world alight, but it's well within my budget, wipes the floor with my previous netbook and it does exactly what I need it to.

That's what counts, you know?

By downloading the steam client here: Steam, The Ultimate Online Game Platform

Installing, logging in, browsing to my library of games, then downloading the game I want.

There is no Linux/Chrome OS version of the game I want to run which is why I'm not interested in a Linux/Chromebook solution.

I thought you wanted to be able to play Football Manager...and there definitely is a Linux version, which is why I said it would install on my Chromebook, which runs Kubuntu Linux, without issue.

 

[El Presidente]

I thought you wanted to be able to play Football Manager...and there definitely is a Linux version, which is why I said it would install on my Chromebook, which runs Kubuntu Linux, without issue.

FM isn't a game that has an "end game" or you can complete. You just stop playing when you get bored. (I doubt I will for a while as it's an excellent time killer on long, night shifts where nothing is happening )

The version I have is older (FM2012) as it was the only version that would run on my previous netbook and as a consequence, I've invested a lot of time in taking a tiny team from the bottom of the lower leagues to the top league and playing in Europe.

I don't want to lose that progress which is why Windows was a requirement (as the game saves aren't transferable from one platform/version to another).

It's unfortunate, because FM2014 looks amazing!

Kinda sad, I know, but anyone who has spent any time with the game would probably understand.

 

[MoodyBlues]

FM isn't a game that has an "end game" or you can complete. You just stop playing when you get bored. (I doubt I will for a while as it's an excellent time killer on long, night shifts where nothing is happening )

The version I have is older (FM2012) as it was the only version that would run on my previous netbook and as a consequence, I've invested a lot of time in taking a tiny team from the bottom of the lower leagues to the top league and playing in Europe.

I don't want to lose that progress which is why Windows was a requirement (as the game saves aren't transferable from one platform/version to another).

Ah, now it makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

It's unfortunate, because FM2014 looks amazing!

Kinda sad, I know, but anyone who has spent any time with the game would probably understand.

I have no experience with it, but I'm still carrying around saved games, rides, scenarios, etc., from Roller Coaster Tycoon--which I started playing back in the last millennium. I spent hours, well, okay, DAYS! (a lot of days), creating scenarios, i.e., designing a park itself before actually starting to play it as a park. Trees, hills, rivers, lakes, walkways, bridges, lampposts, etc. THEN I'd spend weeks building an amazing park, adding rides, getting visitors to come in and spend money, etc. I also have a "no CD" patch I've carried with me for eons--and I don't feel badly about using it because I *OWN* all of the versions of RCT on CD; the only reason I ever wanted the patch was strictly for convenience, i.e., not needing to bother with the actual CD when playing.