Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
I was reading through this article about Intel deciding to implement
64-bit on their Celerons:
InformationWeek > Microprocessors > Intel Plans 64-Bit Celeron Push >
April 1, 2005
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml%3Bjsessionid=MZ5VCRDPIGZSIQSNDBCSKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=160403375
What struck me about this was that these "Celerons" they're talking
about cost as much as some Pentium 4's and Athlon 64's, upto $700. Why
bother selling them if they cost that much? It's either going to cut
into Pentium sales, or the Pentiums are going to cut into these Celeron
sales. But then it occurred to me, that if they cost as much as Pentiums
anyways, what difference does it make? It wouldn't make a difference to
Intel if it sold Pentiums or Celerons, both would be the same margin. So
this leads to the question, why is Intel doing this? If it comes out
with a Celeron that has the same features and costs the same as a
Pentium, where does the differentiation come from?
I think the answer is that Intel has given up its well crafted
decade-old market differentiation strategy, of value-priced processors
(Celerons) and performance processors (Pentiums). Why has it given up
this strategy? Because AMD was using it's own strategy against it for
the past year. AMD had firmly hurded the entire Intel line into a
mid-range category, fenced in all sides by AMD processors. At the
bottom, Sempron not only competed against Celerons, but also low end
Pentiums. At the other end of the market, the top-end Pentiums were only
good enough to compete against the low-end Athlon 64's. It must've been
very embarrassing for Intel that its Pentiums were sometimes competing
against Semprons which are only supposed to compete against Celerons. So
this must be the reason it decided to create an expensive Celeron -- it
wants to give some of it back to AMD, now it can say Athlon 64's can be
compared against Celerons too which would be embarrassing to AMD.
We might now be leaving the era of well-differentiated product lines.
There may not be any longer any difference between Celerons and Pentiums
in either features or price, from this point forward.
Yousuf Khan
I was reading through this article about Intel deciding to implement
64-bit on their Celerons:
InformationWeek > Microprocessors > Intel Plans 64-Bit Celeron Push >
April 1, 2005
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml%3Bjsessionid=MZ5VCRDPIGZSIQSNDBCSKHSCJUMEKJVN?articleID=160403375
What struck me about this was that these "Celerons" they're talking
about cost as much as some Pentium 4's and Athlon 64's, upto $700. Why
bother selling them if they cost that much? It's either going to cut
into Pentium sales, or the Pentiums are going to cut into these Celeron
sales. But then it occurred to me, that if they cost as much as Pentiums
anyways, what difference does it make? It wouldn't make a difference to
Intel if it sold Pentiums or Celerons, both would be the same margin. So
this leads to the question, why is Intel doing this? If it comes out
with a Celeron that has the same features and costs the same as a
Pentium, where does the differentiation come from?
I think the answer is that Intel has given up its well crafted
decade-old market differentiation strategy, of value-priced processors
(Celerons) and performance processors (Pentiums). Why has it given up
this strategy? Because AMD was using it's own strategy against it for
the past year. AMD had firmly hurded the entire Intel line into a
mid-range category, fenced in all sides by AMD processors. At the
bottom, Sempron not only competed against Celerons, but also low end
Pentiums. At the other end of the market, the top-end Pentiums were only
good enough to compete against the low-end Athlon 64's. It must've been
very embarrassing for Intel that its Pentiums were sometimes competing
against Semprons which are only supposed to compete against Celerons. So
this must be the reason it decided to create an expensive Celeron -- it
wants to give some of it back to AMD, now it can say Athlon 64's can be
compared against Celerons too which would be embarrassing to AMD.
We might now be leaving the era of well-differentiated product lines.
There may not be any longer any difference between Celerons and Pentiums
in either features or price, from this point forward.
Yousuf Khan
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram