Hello!
I've been searching for a cheap laptop for homework, and music creation. (Nothing too complex because I can master tracks on my higher-end desktop + it's all shitty synths
)
My budget is 350$, and I'm trying to get the best performance/price.
However, I've found it to be quite difficult to determine the actual performance behind a CPU.
The usual CPU's for ~350$ are Celeron's and i3's.
To my knowledge, the best CPU I could find was the Celeron N2840, which is dual core 2.6Ghz.
However, the i3-4030U, which I've seen gets better benchmarks, is a dual core 1.9Ghz.
Here is the benchmark link: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4010U-vs-Intel-Celeron-N2840
Am I missing something? It would make sense to me a dual core 2.6Ghz should be faster than a dual core 1.9Ghz... Yet benchmarks say otherwise.
If anyone has any insight to these lower-end CPU's I would be very appreciative.
I've been searching for a cheap laptop for homework, and music creation. (Nothing too complex because I can master tracks on my higher-end desktop + it's all shitty synths
)My budget is 350$, and I'm trying to get the best performance/price.
However, I've found it to be quite difficult to determine the actual performance behind a CPU.
The usual CPU's for ~350$ are Celeron's and i3's.
To my knowledge, the best CPU I could find was the Celeron N2840, which is dual core 2.6Ghz.
However, the i3-4030U, which I've seen gets better benchmarks, is a dual core 1.9Ghz.
Here is the benchmark link: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i3-4010U-vs-Intel-Celeron-N2840
Am I missing something? It would make sense to me a dual core 2.6Ghz should be faster than a dual core 1.9Ghz... Yet benchmarks say otherwise.
If anyone has any insight to these lower-end CPU's I would be very appreciative.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram