F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Comparing Atom x5-e8000 and Celeron N3060 highlights their differences in performance and features.

Comparing Atom x5-e8000 and Celeron N3060 highlights their differences in performance and features.

Comparing Atom x5-e8000 and Celeron N3060 highlights their differences in performance and features.

Z
Ziiks84
Member
99
02-14-2016, 11:07 AM
#1
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?
Z
Ziiks84
02-14-2016, 11:07 AM #1

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?

G
Gustavgurra03
Posting Freak
815
02-15-2016, 07:06 AM
#2
They share the same generation and architecture, so any differences mainly stem from core count and clock speed. The E8000 offers four cores while the N3060 has two, both with similar power limits at 5W and 6W respectively. The Celeron provides a higher base clock, and it doesn’t appear to have a turbo option listed on Intel’s site, making direct comparisons for single-thread performance harder.
G
Gustavgurra03
02-15-2016, 07:06 AM #2

They share the same generation and architecture, so any differences mainly stem from core count and clock speed. The E8000 offers four cores while the N3060 has two, both with similar power limits at 5W and 6W respectively. The Celeron provides a higher base clock, and it doesn’t appear to have a turbo option listed on Intel’s site, making direct comparisons for single-thread performance harder.

G
Goonerr
Junior Member
4
02-19-2016, 12:43 AM
#3
The information comes from different sources with conflicting details. Intel’s official page mentions they don’t support Turbo Tech, while other comparison sites claim it reaches up to 2GHz. This inconsistency is making you a bit puzzled.
G
Goonerr
02-19-2016, 12:43 AM #3

The information comes from different sources with conflicting details. Intel’s official page mentions they don’t support Turbo Tech, while other comparison sites claim it reaches up to 2GHz. This inconsistency is making you a bit puzzled.

D
Demonsss91
Posting Freak
767
02-19-2016, 08:34 AM
#4
It seems the product is aimed at embedded systems and may prioritize consistent performance. For operating system tasks, dual cores clocked at 1.6 GHz or higher are likely better than single-core 1 GHz quad cores.
D
Demonsss91
02-19-2016, 08:34 AM #4

It seems the product is aimed at embedded systems and may prioritize consistent performance. For operating system tasks, dual cores clocked at 1.6 GHz or higher are likely better than single-core 1 GHz quad cores.

M
Manolos007
Junior Member
48
02-23-2016, 06:07 PM
#5
Could it handle a simple Linux setup with minimal resources? Just a quick internet check and some terminal work, perhaps a low-resolution YouTube clip.
M
Manolos007
02-23-2016, 06:07 PM #5

Could it handle a simple Linux setup with minimal resources? Just a quick internet check and some terminal work, perhaps a low-resolution YouTube clip.

B
bartlott
Member
82
02-26-2016, 07:22 PM
#6
It's difficult to judge. Atom CPUs are inherently slow, and paired with a low clock speed... for Windows I wouldn't consider it worthwhile. Your "lightweight Linux" sounds questionable. How minimal is it really? For smooth performance, two cores seem preferable to four sluggish ones. I own an N3050 nettop – dual-core, 1.6 GHz, 2GB RAM, 32GB eMMC. I just upgraded it to Windows 10 1909. Even launching Chrome feels like a long wait when nothing else is running. Background processes drain the system until they finish.
B
bartlott
02-26-2016, 07:22 PM #6

It's difficult to judge. Atom CPUs are inherently slow, and paired with a low clock speed... for Windows I wouldn't consider it worthwhile. Your "lightweight Linux" sounds questionable. How minimal is it really? For smooth performance, two cores seem preferable to four sluggish ones. I own an N3050 nettop – dual-core, 1.6 GHz, 2GB RAM, 32GB eMMC. I just upgraded it to Windows 10 1909. Even launching Chrome feels like a long wait when nothing else is running. Background processes drain the system until they finish.

T
trawberr112
Member
129
02-26-2016, 08:48 PM
#7
running on Windows with these kinds of processors is impressive, I believe. They seem targeted toward ChromeOS and similar platforms. It’s clear that having two faster cores is better than four slower ones, even though I’m confused why some comparison sites list 2 GHz for the Atom CPU—Intel’s site also mentions "up to 2 GHz."
T
trawberr112
02-26-2016, 08:48 PM #7

running on Windows with these kinds of processors is impressive, I believe. They seem targeted toward ChromeOS and similar platforms. It’s clear that having two faster cores is better than four slower ones, even though I’m confused why some comparison sites list 2 GHz for the Atom CPU—Intel’s site also mentions "up to 2 GHz."