Budget 41-50k Laptop for Computer Science Student

Mr.J

Skilled
Q: What's your Budget?
A: Maximum 55K

Q: What will be your primary usage for the notebook be? (e.g. web surfing/office apps/Casual Gaming)
A: Coding, web surfing, and casual gaming (last one is not a priority)

Q: What size and weight considerations do you have? (e.g. Do you want a 17" desktop replacement or you want an ultraportable 12" or something in between)
A: Ok so this is something I've been thinking about. I can either suggest to buy a 55K laptop or a cheaper laptop around 45K + a monitor like BenQ GW2480L.

What are the options available that I can suggest?

Also, I'm from Mumbai so should I suggest buying online or from Lamington Road?
 
just invest in mac book by increasing budget by 20-25k. you won't regrade it. but if you need a gaming laptop in windows, wait for others to suggest. also for mac book do avail the student discount.
 
Asus Vivobook K15 OLED with Ryzen 5 5500U.
It has an OLED display, so take precautions to prevent burn in. Also, add a second 8GB stick.
 
Don't buy 3500u based laptop. It's a very old platform at this point and much slower than current gen processors.

For context, on Passmark i3 1215u scores >3400 on single threaded performance while Ryzen 3500u scores ~1950.

Look for laptops based on 1215u or 1220p. Both are i3, but they're both faster than 11th gen i5 in both single threaded and multithreaded performance. If battery life is important, then 1215u is better as it has 15w TDP, 1220p has 28w TDP.

12th gen i3 laptops should be available around 45k. But availability is not set great, so take some time to find and shortlist good models.

5500u is also a decent option, but not comparable to 12th gen intels. 5500u is about 30% slower than 1220p in single threaded performance based on passmark score.

Both 1220p and 5500u can run 12 threads although number of cores are different. Intel's processors have performance cores and efficiency cores (12th gen onwards) and efficiency cores are single threaded. So it does 12 threads with 10 cores (presumably, 1220p has only 2 performance cores).

Edit: missed to add that i3 has Intel HD graphics while 5500u has Vega 7. Vega 7 is much more powerful, at par with Iris Xe graphics on 11th gen Core i5. Intel HD is very basic. So if you want to do any kind of graphics related stuff (like gaming), avoid i3.
 
Intel options are good to look at, but you'll have to consider other parameters as well. When paired with a 42Whr battery, the 5500U will give you better battery life. Also, all 6 cores on the 5500U clock higher than what you get with Intel. Unless you need it for serious productivity, the e cores won't matter at all.
Heck the CPU you choose doesn't matter much for your tasks. But for light gaming, AMD has the better iGPU, better battery life and better display. So I don't see any reason to consider Intel counterparts.
 
all 6 cores on the 5500U clock higher than what you get with Intel.
Clock speed is a meaningless metric for performance comparison. As stated above, Core i3 1220p single threaded performance is 40% faster than 5500U, higher clock speeds notwithstanding.

Also, for day to day usage, single threaded performance matters a lot more than multi-threaded. Even so, 1220p beats 5500U on multi-threaded performance as well.

Both battery and gaming related points were already mentioned in my post.
 
day to day usage, single threaded performance matters a lot more than multi-threaded
Nope. Pop in a 4 core chip without HT, and it will still be able to run fine, as long as the system has an SSD and 16GB RAM. Those benchmarks claiming that "single core performance" is better is synthetic as well, it is not a replica of actual scenario. And no, clocks speeds do have value, in tasks like gaming and production workloads. If they were truly meaningless, both AMD and Intel wouldn't go at each other's throats to get over 6Ghz. Saying that clock speeds don't matter is just not true.
Also, why would anyone pass up a better display, battery and iGPU performance for the same price?
 
Also, why would anyone pass up a better display, battery and iGPU performance for the same price?
I was just making suggestions. I gave all the information, the decision is up to the OP. I did not suggest any specific models.

Those benchmarks claiming that "single core performance" is better is synthetic as well, it is not a replica of actual scenario.
Synthetic doesn't mean it's some made up number that you can just dismiss. It just means that actual results may not be exactly same. It's not like a synthetic benchmark says CPU is 40% faster but in real world it will be 20% slower. In the real world, it may be 35% faster or 45% faster, but it will still be much faster.
And no, clocks speeds do have value, in tasks like gaming and production workloads.
Clock speeds can only be compared within the same generation and lineup. Otherwise my 13 year old AMD Phenom also ran at 2.8 GHz, that would be faster than all of these CPUs. Apple's M1 runs at only 3.2 GHz, but when it came out, it was faster than all consumer grade processors, including ones running at 3.8 GHz and higher. Comparing clock speeds across generations is pointless.
 
Why tf laptops with AMD 6600 or so are so expensive? The CPU was launched last year. :oops:
AMD is not interested in selling laptop CPUs. They're only interested in selling high end desktop and server CPUs.

They've literally not had an entry level desktop CPU since the previous generation.
 
Synthetic doesn't mean it's some made up number that you can just dismiss. It just means that actual results may not be exactly same. It's not like a synthetic benchmark says CPU is 40% faster but in real world it will be 20% slower. In the real world, it may be 35% faster or 45% faster, but it will still be much faster.
I'm guessing that you're pulling these numbers off a website called nanoreview. You might want to note this, NEVER go to the websites that claim to compare chips for info. Especially not nanoreview. That website just spits bs. It has no information on where it got those results from, which model was used and in what test setup it was benchmarked.
Hilariously, all those numbers that you saw are made up. Do not fall for it. Also, 40% faster is also bs. Do check what your comparing, a 6 core chip and a chip with only 2 p cores and rest e cores. Can't be possible in single threaded workloads.

If this still isn't believable, I'll give you an example of my own. I fell for nanoreview a couple of years back and ended up buying a weaker CPU when i could have gotten a more powerful laptop for cheaper. I realised this only when i used my laptop, and saw that i was missing out on performance that i saw on the web
Avoid nanoreview
 
I'm guessing that you're pulling these numbers off a website called nanoreview
The numbers are from cpubenchmark.net, basically passmark .

As I said earlier, I'm not saying those numbers are exactly what you'll get. I'm just taking them as representative numbers, which they are. Here's a comparison of 5600x, 12100f, 12400f, and 12700f.

You'll see that 12400f is shown as being ~5% faster on single threaded. Here's a youtube video showing 12400f getting 3-5%, better FPS than 5600x

You'll see that 12700f is a little over 10% faster than 12100f on the benchmark. Here's a video showing 12700f getting a little over 10% higher FPS than 12100f:

Now depending on your settings, the difference might be higher or lower than what's shown in passmark. But you'll never (or extremely rarely) have a situation where Passmark says the CPU is 25% faster when in real life it's 25% slower.

So again, synthetic benchmark may not match real world performance exactly, but they are not made up numbers which can be summarily dismissed. A good benchmark is fairly representative of real world performance.
 
Considering between these two:



And this one if above two are expensive for the user.
Both of the Dells are overpriced, and lack features. Asus vivobook is a waste of money, you can only upgrade to 12GB, and that is only after removing the onboard 4GB stick and adding another 8GB stick.
Again, do not fall for those benchmarks and the number of cores. Most of it is bs. There won't be any difference between all of the CPUs for your usage. So for a better battery life + display, Intel does not offer a lot for these price points.
This laptop will be much better than the Dells for the same price. You get 8 cores, so it will be able to handle anything you throw at it. 16GB RAM included as well.
Or if you want to save some, the Ryzen 5 laptop I mentioned earlier is more than enough
 
I echo the sentiment of @princeoo7 . Unless there are some programs which just don't run on Mac (Maybe some CAD software? idk) or gaming, most workloads, the Macbook can handle with ease. The M1 variants can be had for ~70k, but can easily last 2-4 years. Cons include the soldered memory, but 8 GB is barely enough for browsing / coding. Incredibly portable and great battery life.
 
Just some inputs
1) cpu clocks are almost meaningless. Only somewhat relevant within a generation.
2) Newer cpu models in general are better but it depends on what you are comparing with. Older gen but higher tier cpu can still be better, esp in multithreading.
3) Use case is still undefined. Would student be running full fledged simulations ? Or just to take notes and the like while using on campus computers for work. If not clear, a well balanced one makes sense.
4) In general for coding, cpu speeds would be important, but again it depends on what you are coding. For simple stuff any pc will do really. For complicated machine learning type things you would need strong gpus and laptop would probably be not suited for it.
5) OLED panels would be very good, much better than shitty laptop displays that we usually get. But will need to take care against burn in issues. Things like IDEs can have static areas. And anyway, one can always use external monitor.
6) Any amount of cpu power would be useless if ram runs out. 8GB is borderline usable depending on use case. Browser/IDE can take up decent amount of ram, and os on top of that. Now normally, it should be ok - in my own use i do use a 5700U + 8gb laptop, but that's because i know what i am running on it and i don't need that much ram. But, 16gb is much safer because you don't know what will be needed.
Generally ( but not always), we can add ram afterwards. But you may have to take to service center or else warranty can be voided and costs will be higher.
7) From what i could find, 1235U is quite a bit better than 5700U in single thread and about same in Multi threading. While ST is good to have, i don't think in this case its too much of a deal breaker for coding. Things like compilation are multi threaded and programs can be made to use up all the threads too. And for simple programs, it does not really matter. It also depends on what kind of cooling laptop has.

On initial look, the Asus OLED model does look better to me from the rest, much better balanced. Its cheaper than what i got last year with much better panel and more ram. Build quality/reliability i don't know.

I have not done any extensive search and i am not really in touch with options today. But just searching for ASUS + oled in amazon gives some good options. H models of cpus will have even better performance at cost of battery. And with some work one should be able to run cpus in low power mode most of the time and if so you have both good battery life usually + option to run fast when needed.
Example
59k - https://www.amazon.in/ASUS-Vivobook-OLED-14-inch-35-56/dp/B0B31JLF7M/
64k - https://www.amazon.in/ASUS-Vivobook-OLED-14-inch-35-56/dp/B0B31KLNJF/
man, these are much better that what was available last year.. :) But please look at specs for your use case as i only looked at it once.
 
Last edited:
@DestGod @Tracer_Bullet @gourav

How are these for alternative? Only reason I'm not picking up suggested laptops is because they all have OLED screen which is not a feature I'm looking for.
I'm mainly looking for good CPU, SSD storage, and RAM first.




 
I don't have specific experience with too many models.

I'm personally currently using Asus Vivobook and it has been serving me pretty well, 3 years and no issues at all. Though, I'm not a fan of the screen. It's not very bright and colours are a bit washed out. It's fine if you're coding or web browsing, but photos and movies look a bit dull. Not sure if there's any improvement in the current gen. My laptop is 3 years old Ryzen 3500U based unit. Text is pretty sharp though as it's a full HD screen.
 
@DestGod @Tracer_Bullet @gourav

How are these for alternative? Only reason I'm not picking up suggested laptops is because they all have OLED screen which is not a feature I'm looking for.
I'm mainly looking for good CPU, SSD storage, and RAM first.




What is your budget and requirements for the laptop? What will you be using it for? Do specify these in detail. The ones you mentioned in the first post are not on line with your suggestions
The Lenovo laptop looks shady, one thing is mentioned in the title and something else in the description. Check Lenovo website directly maybe.
Acer looks decent but is overpriced and comes with only a 45Whr battery. Battery backup won't last you more than 4 hrs an year from now.
I stand with my recommendations, since you're basically getting the same performance as the i5 for nearly 10k lesser. I stated my reasons as well. Or if you want something better, there's the Ryzen 7 laptop as well. So I don't see any point of going Intel when the vivobook I mentioned earlier gets the job done for much cheaper and comes with more features.
 
Back
Top