Be Excellent To Each Other

Heres what the misses fancies:

http://www.ebuyer.com/350231-lenovo-ide ... op-m51e5uk

And to me for the money it seems a decent option, as it's basically a think pad and they are built like tanks. I don't know about the processor though... The wife wants to edit HD video she's shot on a camera using this machine... And I have no knowledge of the Celeron these days.

What are these processors like now, is these anything else glaringly bad about this deal and are there any much improved options anyone knows about under 300 quid?

Moreover, why are all laptop screens shiny these days? She wants matte screen. They seem to be disappearing.

Ta for knowledge...

Did you read my review of the Celeron G530? If not then have a look here on the forum and take a read.

Celerons are basically high end processors that "once were". When Intel makes CPUs (for example Sandy Bridge) they all come off the same production line. Once the wafers are cut they then test them for stability/clock speeds etc. So as an example here, a quad core CPU with Hyperthreading didn't make the cut as some of the HT cores didn't work properly. They will then lock down the HT and sell that CPU as an I5. Then you have CPUs with defective cores, so they are then locked out and sold as a dual core CPU etc etc. That's how they get their entire product catalogue.

*IF* that CPU is Sandybridge (I'll have a look in a second) then it's going to be full of win. Basically a Celeron is a cut down Pentium, which is a cut down I3, which is a cut down I5, which is a cut down I7. So the core technology *in* the Celeron is the same across the board. All they do on the Celeron is lower the cache memory aboard the chip to reduce cost. However, as I found out when I put a £30 CPU to the test it doesn't seem to matter how much they cut out because Sandybridge CPUs are win.

Right I had a look at it seems they don't tell you what the core technology is. However, it is 32nm so I would strongly imagine it's a Sandy of sorts.

The processor is a very low-end part but it should do the job, there's no such thing as a 'bad' processor these days really.

I'd be more concerned about the low resolution of the screen for video editing work, what software will she be using? The hard drive isn't massive either, that could soon get chewed up if it's being used for video work.

Also, is £300 your limit? You don't need to spend much more to start to get some far nicer specced machines.

All the screens in that price band are the same res, so it's a bit of a non problem really. Good insight on the processors mind, cheers both.

Video editing is one of the few arenas in which beefier CPUs really get a chance to shine. For example when I'm putting together my videos in Sony Vegas Movie Studio, which can contain a lot of titles/effects/multiple tracks etc, when I come to render the final video it'll cheerfully load all four physical and all four logical cores to a solid 80% utilisation, and even then it can take 30 minutes or more to finish the render.

Performing the same task on a Celeron, which is giving away physical cores, logical cores, cache, and just about everything else - will certainly take a hell of a lot longer to complete.

More powerful CPUs also help with effects previews, coping with massive media bins (RAM and fast disks help here too), analysing audio tracks etc etc.

Basically, if you're into video editing, the more power you've got the better.

Absolutely, but then you couldn't expect a £300 laptop to be good at a job that a £1000 laptop would be good at.

There are going to be short comings with the cheaper CPUs. In the Celeron's case it's basically clock speed, they've literally crippled it. Then they locked it down, as they know that frontside clocking on a Sandy will basically blow it up. Very clever IMO.

In the £300 laptop arena though the Celeron will take care of any of AMD's offerings with ease.