Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel's marketing - No Celeron

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 20, 2006 2:51:13 PM

Just a random note, and something interesting I realized but haven't read in any articles (though I'm SURE I'm not the first to think of it).

The Intel celeron has gotten a bum name, not because it's a crappy processor, but because it's often paired with crappy hardware. Cheap motherboards, cheap RAM, and cheap HDs. Not inexpensive: cheap. There's a difference. The celeron has actually been a great performer, especially with regards to overclocking.

To the point, though, it's interesting to note that Intel chose to brand the previous-generation processors the 'value-models' this time around, as opposed to marketing the processors that are half brain-dead as the value models (e.g. E6300, E6400). Being such a large deviation from their previous marketing, you know it had to be a concious and well-thought decision, with a touch of genius.


Consider this:

NetBurst flopped at the high-end. Intel expected a much higher return on their investment into NetBurst. Also consider that if Intel released their new line of processors at ~US$340 and ~US$540 for the E6600 and E6700, respectively, and released the E6300 and E6400 as Core 2 celerons, not only would it have hurt their sales, but I'm sure Intel would've been ridiculed for price gauging their new architecture. Not just that, but most enthusiasts avoid celerons like the plague (as opposed to AMD or a full-fledged proc), and the enthusiast sector was where Intel really needed to earn back some respect.

Drop all of these problems into the Intel Marketing Machine, and out comes the solution: Market the previous-generation processors as the new-age celeron, and remove the celeron brand from the Core 2 line completely. This way, enthusiasts can get a spiffy next-gen processor at ~US$200 without carrying forward the burdon of the celeron brand. Intel can actually generate some return from NetBurst, and most-of-all, saves some face in the process.

All and all, I think it's important to look at and appreciate how well Intel handled the marketing of their new Core 2 architecture. Had they carried forward the celeron brand, they would have diminished the value of the new architecure, continued to suffer from a failing NetBurst architecture, and been criticised for over-pricing their new product lineup.

Considering Intel's recent "WTF are they thinking" moves (if you think back to the new processor numbering and other such marketing follys), it's good to know Intel's head is now resting securely in a forward direction.
December 20, 2006 4:14:37 PM

Intel is phasing out it's old outdated NetBurst architecture as fast as it can produce new masks for lower grade C2D's. Pentium 4's will be all but gone by Q3 '07 and Pentium D 8xx series will be gone also. All the information I've seen is that Intel is going to carry its Core architecture over to a new line of Celeron processors.
December 20, 2006 4:20:14 PM

Quote:
Consider this:

NetBurst flopped at the high-end. Intel expected a much higher return on their investment into NetBurst. Also consider that if Intel released their new line of processors at ~US$340 and ~US$540 for the E6600 and E6700, respectively, and released the E6300 and E6400 as Core 2 celerons, not only would it have hurt their sales, but I'm sure Intel would've been ridiculed for price gauging their new architecture. Not just that, but most enthusiasts avoid celerons like the plague (as opposed to AMD or a full-fledged proc), and the enthusiast sector was where Intel really needed to earn back some respect.


I hardly think my E6400 equivalent to a Celeron. As far as I know all E6xxx series is actually the same cpu, same transistor count etc. Celeron was a very crippled cpu to begin with. My E6400 is comparable to AMD X2 5200 and FX-60. Baring in mind that it o/c like no other!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your logic is flawed.
Related resources
December 20, 2006 4:42:02 PM

I thought Intel was just going to name their new Celeron line "AMD".




(Sorry, but I thought it was funny. :p  )
December 20, 2006 4:47:41 PM

Quote:
I thought Intel was just going to name their new Celeron line "AMD".




(Sorry, but I thought it was funny. :p  )


cheesy, but I thought it was funny 2!
December 20, 2006 4:53:41 PM

Somewhere in the "Intel to cut Core 2 prices 40%" thread there was a link showing that Intel has roadmapped for a new line of "Pentium and Celeron CPUs."

Didn't say if they were officially going to follow the naming scheme, but that (Celeron) segment of their market is quite large.
December 20, 2006 4:56:30 PM

I guess I don't know that much about the Celerons vs Pentiums since I was only watching AMD at that point, but isn't a Celeron just a Pentium with less cache? And isn't the E6400 just a slower E6600 with less cache?

Jo
a c 83 à CPUs
December 20, 2006 5:12:33 PM

Quote:
The Intel celeron has gotten a bum name, not because it's a crappy processor, but because it's often paired with crappy hardware.


No, the celeron is a crappy processor. Think about netburst arch. Long pipeline, no IMC, etc. The lack of IMC makes it rely on how amounts of L2 cache. This is what Intel removed to make the celeron. If you disable large amounts of L2 cache from a netburst CPU, then its going to run like crap...
December 20, 2006 5:13:31 PM

Quote:
I thought Intel was just going to name their new Celeron line "AMD".




(Sorry, but I thought it was funny. :p  )



lol. Fanbois rejoice :) 

Quote:
I hardly think my E6400 equivalent to a Celeron. As far as I know all E6xxx series is actually the same cpu, same transistor count etc. Celeron was a very crippled cpu to begin with. My E6400 is comparable to AMD X2 5200 and FX-60. Baring in mind that it o/c like no other!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your logic is flawed.


And this is my point exactly. The celeron is not a 'crippled CPU'. Dating back to Celeron's inception, the celeron has mainly been a mainstream processor with less cache. From the P4 forward, the cache was the only difference.

Celeron computers always perform poorly because they have the poorest quality components, giving the processors themselves an undeserved bad reputation. Other than the cache, Celerons are the same beasts as their fully-cached counterparts. The lower FSB's and such are generally marketing improprieties; not hardware limitations.

I hate to burst your bubble, but your E6400 is the celeron-equivelant Core 2.

(link)


Quote:
Somewhere in the "Intel to cut Core 2 prices 40%" thread there was a link showing that Intel has roadmapped for a new line of "Pentium and Celeron CPUs."


Thanks. I'll have to look that up. I wonder if they're keeping the celeron brand??
December 20, 2006 5:19:16 PM

Quote:
The Intel celeron has gotten a bum name, not because it's a crappy processor, but because it's often paired with crappy hardware.


No, the celeron is a crappy processor. Think about netburst arch. Long pipeline, no IMC, etc. The lack of IMC makes it rely on how amounts of L2 cache. This is what Intel removed to make the celeron. If you disable large amounts of L2 cache from a netburst CPU, then its going to run like crap...

This sounds more like a fanboy rant than a comment against the Celeron.

If you don't like the P4, that's all well-and-good, but the point I'm trying to make is that the Celeron chip itself is a quality part with a bad name. It's a "Half-retarded" P4 :) 

I should correct myself: the point I'm trying to make is that the E6300 and E6400 are the Core 2's 'unbranded' celeron. The IMC/NetBurst debate is totally out of scope.
December 20, 2006 5:30:24 PM

Quote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but your E6400 is the celeron-equivelant Core 2.

I disagree.. the E4400 series that intell will come out with next year is much closer to a celeron - equivelant Core 2.
December 20, 2006 5:33:51 PM

Quote:
I guess I don't know that much about the Celerons vs Pentiums since I was only watching AMD at that point, but isn't a Celeron just a Pentium with less cache? And isn't the E6400 just a slower E6600 with less cache?

Jo


This is where perspective comes in. You could also say that the E6600 is just an E6400 with more cache. This is where a test between the E6400 and the E6600 at equal MHz would come in handy. Then you could really start to understand how much affect the cache has on performance. It it isn't a very big jump in performance to the the greater cache then I think the way I just said it is most appropriate. Doubling the cache to get an extra 2% performance at the same clock speed doesn't exactly justify the extra cost.
December 20, 2006 5:39:33 PM

Quote:
Doubling the cache to get an extra 2% performance at the same clock speed doesn't exactly justify the extra cost


Actually, I believe the benches show around a 20% gain for the added cache at the same clock. a 3.2 GHz E6400's performance is very close to a stock E6700 (slightly more if I'm not mistaken).


Quote:
I hate to burst your bubble, but your E6400 is the celeron-equivelant Core 2.

I disagree.. the E4400 series that intell will come out with next year is much closer to a celeron - equivelant Core 2.

I'm speaking with respect to Intel's changed marketing strategy.

A Celeron D 3GHz was a Pentium D 3GHz (or close) that failed 1/2 the cache check. The E6300/E6400 are E6600/E6700's that failed their cache checks, the same as the previous 3 generations of celerons. The celerons, like the E6300/E6400, are born AS E6600/E6700, and are made into the lower-grade chips by blowing a fuse and disabling 1/2 the cache.

This means that your E6400 may have been a X6800 that failed 1/2 the cache check. This method also means that your E6400 may have been an E6700 with NO problems, but Intel had a higher demand for the lower-branded chips and blew the fuse on good chips to meet demand. Other than the cache, the chips are identical.

Maybe not the point, but the main supporting argument remains the same: The Celeron isn't the kid who rides the little bus to school. The Celeron is Pete Rose, born with no legs. He might not make it to the big leagues, but he'll kick ass in the special olympics.
December 20, 2006 5:49:59 PM

Quote:




I hate to burst your bubble, but your E6400 is the celeron-equivelant Core 2.

(link)



Well to use your own reference the e6400 is NOT the celron equivalent

"Conroe-L
Intel will offer a low-cost single-core version of Conroe, code-named "Conroe-L", starting from the second quarter 2007, according to an article on DailyTech[19]. The new Conroe-L processors will not carry the Core nomenclature. Instead Intel is resuscitating the Pentium and Celeron brands for Conroe-L based products
"

IIRC the single core models will be the budget chips, not lower end dual cores.
December 20, 2006 5:52:33 PM

Quote:
The Intel celeron has gotten a bum name, not because it's a crappy processor, but because it's often paired with crappy hardware.


No, the celeron is a crappy processor. Think about netburst arch. Long pipeline, no IMC, etc. The lack of IMC makes it rely on how amounts of L2 cache. This is what Intel removed to make the celeron. If you disable large amounts of L2 cache from a netburst CPU, then its going to run like crap...

This sounds more like a fanboy rant than a comment against the Celeron.

If you don't like the P4, that's all well-and-good, but the point I'm trying to make is that the Celeron chip itself is a quality part with a bad name. It's a "Half-retarded" P4 :) 

I should correct myself: the point I'm trying to make is that the E6300 and E6400 are the Core 2's 'unbranded' celeron. The IMC/NetBurst debate is totally out of scope.

Actually the Netburst debate isn't out of scope. 4745454b's whole point was that Netburst architecture relied on cache for performance; reduce the cache and you drastically cut performance. The Core 2 architecture is much less dependent on cache for performance; the overclocking benchmarks on the net show that the E6300 and E6400 at E6600 or E6700 clocks perform within a single percentage point of the E6600 or E6700. This was also true of the P-III generation Celerons, but the Celeron name was tarnished with the Netburst generation.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 20, 2006 6:00:41 PM

Quote:
Celeron computers always perform poorly because they have the poorest quality components, giving the processors themselves an undeserved bad reputation. Other than the cache, Celerons are the same beasts as their fully-cached counterparts. The lower FSB's and such are generally marketing improprieties; not hardware limitations.


NOT a hardware limitation??? I also love how you refute my argument with a personal attack.

Quote:
This sounds more like a fanboy rant than a comment against the Celeron.


Please tell this fanboy then how he's wrong. By removing half the cache (or in some cases 75%), and putting it on a slower bus (pun intended), how is the celeron still a good chip? Once you do this, its now crap. The "advantage" of netburst was a fast frequency, with large amounts of L2 cache to hold info. Its the only way it could compete with Athlons. If you remove the area it could hold info, and limit the speed at which it could get new info, that large pipeline is going to be starved. Plain and simple. It moved slow because that 31 stage pipeline was always waiting for more info from the ram.

From a performance standpoint, the celeron was crap. It had nothing to do with crap motherboards or the like. The chip was flawed in its design. (before you jump all over me, I am well aware of what the celeron design is.)
December 20, 2006 6:03:32 PM

Quote:

A Celeron D 3GHz was a Pentium D 3GHz (or close) that failed 1/2 the cache check. The E6300/E6400 are E6600/E6700's that failed their cache checks, the same as the previous 3 generations of celerons. The celerons, like the E6300/E6400, are born AS E6600/E6700, and are made into the lower-grade chips by blowing a fuse and disabling 1/2 the cache.


you SIR are an idiot, a celeron D and a Pent. D are completely diff.... ONE HAS AN ADDITIONAL CORE! theres a large difference between a crippled celeron and a Pent. D.... so please stop spreading misinformation. and yeah the lower 6000's have less cache but there not cache dependent like netburst.. they proform nearly the same! thats marketing!
December 20, 2006 6:07:49 PM

gah...so many people to reply.
can't be bothered since I see it's already answered.

Whizzard9992 you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 20, 2006 6:12:09 PM

Thats kinda what I was hinting at, but I try not to make people feel bad. Perhaps he'll learn something as he tries to prove me wrong.
December 20, 2006 6:19:08 PM

Well if my E6400 is a "CELERON" according to Whizzard9992.

Then it must be the BEST CELERON EVER (sorry for capitals) that intel has ever made!!!
December 20, 2006 7:21:36 PM

il bet that he is defending celerons like crazy is becouse he has one.


chris
December 20, 2006 7:58:26 PM

Quote:
Well if my E6400 is a "CELERON" according to Whizzard9992.

Then it must be the BEST CELERON EVER (sorry for capitals) that intel has ever made!!!


Quote:
il bet that he is defending celerons like crazy is becouse he has one.


Wow. These forums have really gone to $hit lately.

First of all, the fact I was trying to make is simple: The same process Intel used to qualify a celeron in previous generations is now used to qualify an E6300/E6400.

I was not insulting your processor, or making an attack against anyone, or saying that the E6300/E6400's should be labelled Celerons. I was not sasying that a celeron is better than an AMD, or that it's even better than a processor that has full cache (though that point could be argued).

If Intel continued how they qualified Celerons with Core 2's, then the E6300/E6400 would have been labelled Celerons, and based on those standards, the E6300/E6400 would be considered the Celerons of the Core 2 Lineup. That was the point. I could draw a picture if that's not entirely clear...

Anyway, not that it matters, but to reply...

Quote:
4745454b's whole point was that Netburst architecture relied on cache for performance; reduce the cache and you drastically cut performance. The Core 2 architecture is much less dependent on cache for performance; the overclocking benchmarks on the net show that the E6300 and E6400 at E6600 or E6700 clocks perform within a single percentage point of the E6600 or E6700. This was also true of the P-III generation Celerons, but the Celeron name was tarnished with the Netburst generation.


*edit* misread

4745454b's point was not valid because NetBurst doesn't have anything to do with what I originally posted. Intel changed their branding and marketing, which has NOTHING to do with netBurst performance in Celerons (or versus AMD for that matter). Even tho they perform similarly, Intel changed their policy from "Failed Cache to Celeron" to "Failed Cache to Lower model."

Quote:
From a performance standpoint, the celeron was crap.

Just because you know that a long pipeline performs better with more cache in no way validates your point. In fact, you can find a LOT of articles where the celeron performs very well against the P4/PD. Why don't you start here? Again, not that it has anything to do with my OP, the smaller cache of the Celeron 4/D was offset by the fact that it could be better overclocked (a similar trait of the E6300/E6400, though again, not to the extent of the C2D)

Quote:
I also love how you refute my argument with a personal attack.


I wasn't attacking you; I was stating that the point you made has nothing to do with my OP about the changing qualifications for Celerons and how it affected Intel's marketing strategy. I said, "Intel stopped calling cache-failed processors Celerons," and your respose was, "NetBurst sucks, so celerons suck."

It's a personal opinion that Celerons have an unjust bad reputation, but that opinion is based on performance statistics from VARIOUS professional reviews and numerous posts from REAL overclockers.

Quote:
you SIR are an idiot, a celeron D and a Pent. D are completely diff.... ONE HAS AN ADDITIONAL CORE

I didn't specify that the celeron D has a core disabled. If you really want to pick apart what I say, the Celerons often have a few features disabled, too. Back to the point (which, AGAIN, has NOTHING to do with my OP) it was still still a Pentium D when it was fabb'ed, and it's still a fair performer (in fact it performs very well when overclocked).

There's nothing like arguing with a bunch of bickering 12-year olds who can't understand a topic post. Instead they have to pick something out of the post that has NOTHING to do with the original topic and squabble over it. Ok. You don't like the Celeron, or NetBurst, or Intel. I get it.


Now i see why there are no serious overclockers left in these forums. :roll:
December 20, 2006 8:14:36 PM

i agree with whizzard its like the a64 and opty thing. the ones that test better are binned as opty's. no before someone wigs out there are a few other differences between the celeron and C2D such as cache and the disabled core. all in all though they are about half the the chip of a C2D thanks to the disabled parts.
December 20, 2006 8:19:22 PM

'Celeron' was almost born with the 'Pertium' brand name and has always been (architecturally) the same chip, so it's logical that with the disappearing of the latter, the celeron will also disappear.
In the multi core era we have entered, value CPUs are simply single core ones, so, with the prices dropping so much, multithreading blooming, it looks like there is always less need for another budget class within single cores. furthermore, if you haven't yet noticed it, both Sempron and Celeron prices are crossing wih those of their bigger brothers creating a nonsense situation.
Both Intel and AMD should start producing only single core CPUs with the minial cache configurations, because 1.both K8 and Core2 performances do not drop considerably with cache 2.They will definitely differentiate single cores from dual cores; single cores will perform abit worse even in singlethreaded apps.
December 20, 2006 8:27:16 PM

Quote:
Just because you know that a long pipeline performs better with more cache in no way validates your point. In fact, you can find a LOT of articles where the celeron performs very well against the P4/PD. Why don't you start here? Again, not that it has anything to do with my OP, the smaller cache of the Celeron 4/D was offset by the fact that it could be better overclocked (a similar trait of the E6300/E6400, though again, not to the extent of the C2D)

Well, not exactly; While Celerons have always offered a decent office performance, most of the time, it's been just that. I ave tried it myself and it hurts like hell to OC a celeron to 2.67GHz and still have it perform like a 2.0GHz P4. The only great celerons ever (IMO) have been Tualatins.
December 20, 2006 9:34:46 PM

Quote:
Just because you know that a long pipeline performs better with more cache in no way validates your point. In fact, you can find a LOT of articles where the celeron performs very well against the P4/PD. Why don't you start here? Again, not that it has anything to do with my OP, the smaller cache of the Celeron 4/D was offset by the fact that it could be better overclocked (a similar trait of the E6300/E6400, though again, not to the extent of the C2D)

Well, not exactly; While Celerons have always offered a decent office performance, most of the time, it's been just that. I ave tried it myself and it hurts like hell to OC a celeron to 2.67GHz and still have it perform like a 2.0GHz P4. The only great celerons ever (IMO) have been Tualatins.

I mostly agree. I wasn't a fan Tualerons. Bear in mind that the OC'ed celeron is 1/2 the price of the P4.

There's no doubt that the celeron is the weaker chip, but it's not as bad as the reputation it has earned, and the price/performance is good (better OC'ed). It's a shame it's earned such a bad rap. I mean don't get me wrong, I'd still be hard-pressed to buy one over a full-fledged one, but just because of the name. THat's kind of the point I was trying to make originally.
December 20, 2006 9:53:00 PM

My company bought a few hundred (if not a 1000+) Dell 520 Latitude notebooks that use Celeron processors. When they were setting up the order they might have been the model of choice, but just after I got mine I checked to see that they were offering a Core chip of some sort. I can easily understand why they'd want to use Celerons.

Pros: Cheap, plentiful, provides more then enough computational power, matches the FSB of the DDR2 533 Samsung RAM.
Cons: Not for what they're used for.

I believe it's the 420 model of the Celeron chip that they chose to go with. Considering that they're not personal use and the biggest computations deals with at most a few tens of thousands of mathematics, the Celeron makes sense.

But damn if that laptop doesn't kick the crap out of my computer in everything except graphics. Come on tax season, start already so I can get my rebate. :cry: 
December 20, 2006 10:48:05 PM

Quote:
Just because you know that a long pipeline performs better with more cache in no way validates your point. In fact, you can find a LOT of articles where the celeron performs very well against the P4/PD. Why don't you start here? Again, not that it has anything to do with my OP, the smaller cache of the Celeron 4/D was offset by the fact that it could be better overclocked (a similar trait of the E6300/E6400, though again, not to the extent of the C2D)

Well, not exactly; While Celerons have always offered a decent office performance, most of the time, it's been just that. I ave tried it myself and it hurts like hell to OC a celeron to 2.67GHz and still have it perform like a 2.0GHz P4. The only great celerons ever (IMO) have been Tualatins.

NEVAR FORGET THE Celeron 300A!
December 20, 2006 11:30:46 PM

Quote:
I didn't specify that the celeron D has a core disabled. If you really want to pick apart what I say, the Celerons often have a few features disabled, too. Back to the point (which, AGAIN, has NOTHING to do with my OP) it was still still a Pentium D when it was fabb'ed, and it's still a fair performer (in fact it performs very well when overclocked).

Completely wrong. PentiumD and CeleronD have nothing to do with each other. The D's in each mean completely different things. In a PentiumD the D stands for Dual core as opposed to a Pentium4(single core). In a celeronD the D stands for desktop to differentiate it from the CeleronM, the mobile version. A celeronD was origianly designed as a P4 not a pentiumD, two different CPUs. The 6300 and 6400 are not the 'celeron' version of c2d. With such high demand for core2 Intel wasn't going to waste time with low end chips until they filled the demand for high end c2ds. Intel already started the 'budget' version of their core chips last year with the Core Solo CPUs in laptops(a more important segment to make low end chips for). To compare the c2d CPUs hierarchy to previous Intel chips you have to remember that Intel had 3 segments; Celeron(low), Pentium(good), Pentium Extreme(best). Right now for Core2 they only have good and best, low will come later.
December 20, 2006 11:41:48 PM

Celeron got its rep as a low end crappy cpu becuase it is. Same as the duron and semperon. Value hardware might as well be called gineric aka a cheap stripped down version of the real thing. If you just want to do small stuf with your computer you can deal with the value crap thats why its there.
December 21, 2006 1:15:13 AM

Quote:

I hate to burst your bubble, but your E6400 is the celeron-equivelant Core 2.


I disagree. Since when has a Celeron (perhaps except the 300A) performed within 5% of a full fledged Pentium?

Just because an E6400 has less cache doesn't make it a 'Core2 Celeron', just as much as AMDs 512KB L2 X2s don't make them 'X2 Semprons' when compared to 1MB L2 A64s/X2s.
December 21, 2006 1:37:23 AM

Quote:
I thought Intel was just going to name their new Celeron line "AMD".




(Sorry, but I thought it was funny. :p  )
:lol: 
December 21, 2006 1:44:09 AM

Quote:
Just a random note, and something interesting I realized but haven't read in any articles (though I'm SURE I'm not the first to think of it).

The Intel celeron has gotten a bum name, not because it's a crappy processor, but because it's often paired with crappy hardware. Cheap motherboards, cheap RAM, and cheap HDs. Not inexpensive: cheap. There's a difference. The celeron has actually been a great performer, especially with regards to overclocking.

To the point, though, it's interesting to note that Intel chose to brand the previous-generation processors the 'value-models' this time around, as opposed to marketing the processors that are half brain-dead as the value models (e.g. E6300, E6400). Being such a large deviation from their previous marketing, you know it had to be a concious and well-thought decision, with a touch of genius.


Consider this:

NetBurst flopped at the high-end. Intel expected a much higher return on their investment into NetBurst. Also consider that if Intel released their new line of processors at ~US$340 and ~US$540 for the E6600 and E6700, respectively, and released the E6300 and E6400 as Core 2 celerons, not only would it have hurt their sales, but I'm sure Intel would've been ridiculed for price gauging their new architecture. Not just that, but most enthusiasts avoid celerons like the plague (as opposed to AMD or a full-fledged proc), and the enthusiast sector was where Intel really needed to earn back some respect.

Drop all of these problems into the Intel Marketing Machine, and out comes the solution: Market the previous-generation processors as the new-age celeron, and remove the celeron brand from the Core 2 line completely. This way, enthusiasts can get a spiffy next-gen processor at ~US$200 without carrying forward the burdon of the celeron brand. Intel can actually generate some return from NetBurst, and most-of-all, saves some face in the process.

All and all, I think it's important to look at and appreciate how well Intel handled the marketing of their new Core 2 architecture. Had they carried forward the celeron brand, they would have diminished the value of the new architecure, continued to suffer from a failing NetBurst architecture, and been criticised for over-pricing their new product lineup.

Considering Intel's recent "WTF are they thinking" moves (if you think back to the new processor numbering and other such marketing follys), it's good to know Intel's head is now resting securely in a forward direction.



Damn you're right, but I'd like to thank intel for dropping the celeron name because i'd much rather have my system be labeled a C2D (beast) machine than a celeron (POS) machine :lol: 
December 21, 2006 2:07:03 AM

Be nice now!!!!
December 21, 2006 2:39:18 AM

SUP, any one know if Intel might introduce a new processor under the Pentium 5 name? i like that name, "PENTIUM 5"...I'm sure it would make any AMD fan boy run and cry in a corner

L8er :) 
December 21, 2006 2:42:30 AM

Quote:
SUP, any one know if Intel might introduce a new processor under the Pentium 5 name? i like that name, "PENTIUM 5"...I'm sure it would make any AMD fan boy run and cry in a corner

L8er :) 

Been there, done that. Pentium was code named P5, so that's the "Pentium 5" :-D
December 21, 2006 2:54:02 AM

SO...Intel's not going to bring back the Pentium name? Core2Duo is so tacky.

L8er :) 
a c 83 à CPUs
December 21, 2006 3:16:48 AM

Quote:
If Intel continued how they qualified Celerons with Core 2's, then the E6300/E6400 would have been labelled Celerons, and based on those standards, the E6300/E6400 would be considered the Celerons of the Core 2 Lineup. That was the point. I could draw a picture if that's not entirely clear...


Does this make all single core CPUs celerons? They do have half the number of cores as the 6000 series. In addition to having less cache, celerons sit on a slower bus (533mhz instead of 800). The 6400/6300 have not only two cores like the higher 6000 series, but sits on the same 1066MHz bus. Celerons have not only reduced cache, but other things that make them celerons. It is a bit simple to call a chip a celeron just because of the amount of cache.

Quote:
4745454b's point was not valid because NetBurst doesn't have anything to do with what I originally posted. Intel changed their branding and marketing, which has NOTHING to do with netBurst performance in Celerons (or versus AMD for that matter). Even tho they perform similarly, Intel changed their policy from "Failed Cache to Celeron" to "Failed Cache to Lower model."


Celerons DON'T perform as P4s. In cpu intensive tasks, they are MUCH slower. Intel hasn't changed their marketing. (branding has changed duh $h!t because we don't use Pentiums anymore....) The lower end chips had MORE then just a reduced cache amount to make them celerons. I'm not sure if there is any way to convince you of this, seeing as you are trying your best to make a non point.

Quote:
I wasn't attacking you; I was stating that the point you made has nothing to do with my OP about the changing qualifications for Celerons and how it affected Intel's marketing strategy. I said, "Intel stopped calling cache-failed processors Celerons," and your respose was, "NetBurst sucks, so celerons suck."


I already included your personal attack, should I include your new one where you claim that we on this forum on bad overclockers? I also never said that netburst sucks. I said netburst requires large amounts of cache inorder to compete with Athlons. If you remove the cache, and put it on a slower bus which limits how fast it can fill information, then you end up with a sucky chip. I don't claim netburst sucks, I claim celerons suck. (netburst celeron as least, there was the 300a...)

Quote:
There's nothing like arguing with a bunch of bickering 12-year olds who can't understand a topic post. Instead they have to pick something out of the post that has NOTHING to do with the original topic and squabble over it. Ok. You don't like the Celeron, or NetBurst, or Intel. I get it.


Should I call you names so I can be a bickering 12yo? Would that make you feel better? While you claim that I haven't brought up anything relevent to your topic, I claim your being so narrow minded that your missing my points. Go read over this thread again. I'm not the only person who is trying to tell you this. I brought up netburst because I hate it? Hardly. I brought it up because I was trying to tell HOW/WHY netburst celeron CPUs suck. I was VALIDATING the reasons I was giving you. I'm sorry you couldn't understand that.

As for overclocking, this is the first you mentioned it. Debating overclocked celerons to non overclocked P4s is a different topic. (one that hasn't been mentioned until now.)
December 21, 2006 3:27:03 AM

what about the celery2duo line!

:twisted:

you know, they could turn a extreme core2duo, rape the cache ,and sell it as extreme celery2duo with 512kb x 2.
December 21, 2006 3:36:39 AM

your logic of athlon x2 with 512 cache wont make then semprons because semprons had 128k of cache they are just dual core venice chips. The 3600+ dual core processor would be more or so a dual core sempron and if you go by intels past logic the 6300-6400 would not be a celeron because they dont have a bus that has been reduced as well. the 4300 i believe its called would fit in that category before the 6300 would because it has all the features except less cache.
December 21, 2006 4:06:35 AM

So,

A you are saying that a Celeron D is dual core, with half the cache? Interesting, haven't found a dual core celeron to buy yet.

As far as the crippled arguement, Celerons are not bad cpu's but they are crippled P4's. I don't really know why you are trying to say they aren't and why it matters either way, but that is what they are. It doesn't matter why the cache was disabled, the fact is, the cache on the CPU's in question is disabled, and it shows in the benchmarks. So, you can say, the lack of cache cripples the performance due to the long piplines to keep full. Where as, the different cahce sizes don't effect K8 in the same way, due to the different architecture.

My point, Celerons are crippled P4's. It doesn't matter whether or not they are the same core, they don't have the same performance at the same clock, and actually, the performance is substantially lower.

wes

Edit: and cache isn't the only difference.
a c 83 à CPUs
December 21, 2006 4:22:36 AM

Quote:
My point, Celerons are crippled P4's. It doesn't matter whether or not they are the same core, they don't have the same performance at the same clock, and actually, the performance is substantially lower.


Your missing his point entirely. He's claiming that because the 6300/6400s have half the cache of the higher 6000 series chips, they should have been called Celeron2duo(?) This is perhaps the dumbest thing to try to argue. Not only is this "news" pointless, its old also. Intel already said they are doing away with the Pentium name, its no shocker that they get rid of the celeron name also. As I've been trying to tell him, and as you mentioned in your edit, there are other differences then the cache.
December 21, 2006 4:35:29 AM

Wow,

Ok, such a lack of common sense involved here that I didn't even grasp what he was trying to say. Not only is his theory on the celerons wrong, but the theory on the Conroes is wrong. And. WTF does it matter what they call them? Just like you said, there are no pentium branded cpu's anymore, so big shocker, the name for the Pentium budget line is gone. WOW 8O!!! Anyway, througout the history of the celeron, they would "cripple" them via cache reduction and bus speed reduction. You could recoupe some of the lost performance via overclocking, but, still couldn't add cache, which caused lower performance with that architecture. As you are aware of.

This thread needs to be deleted, it is lowering the inteligence of the everyone, and is wasting valuable thread space!! (sarcasm)

wes

Edit for OP: A celeron @ 3ghz benched against a P4 @ 3ghz whould yield the Celeron still far behind. An E6300 @ 3ghz vs a 6800 @ 3ghz would yield almost the same results. So, there, thread over, they are not celeron lines, they are just the lower end of the main desktop lineup.

Edit #2: Also, they have Celeron lines with clocks higher than some of the Pentium lines, the Celerons are still slower, if you put 6300 @ a higher clock than the 6600, the 6300 would be faster. Not the same as Celerons..... plain and simple.
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2006 4:45:46 AM

Then again, trying to start a topic about the Celeron/Sempron on an enthusiast computer forum is pointless. The Celerons have ALWAYS been crippled Pentiums. What they are designed for are really cheap systems that are built for everyday task.
December 21, 2006 5:16:44 AM

So many things wrong in this thread. I'll clear up the one's I can remember:

Whether or not a Netburst Celeron "sucks" is entirely based upon the application it is running. For your non-CPU intensive tasks a Celeron and Pentium differ little. For gaming and other L2 cache intensive applications (Gaussian is a biggie), the Celeron does suck. For CPU intensive tasks where L2 cache size is of little consequence, such as audio/video encoding, the Celeron is on more or less equal footing with the Pentium 4.

In case some of you don't know, the Pentium and the Celeron names are going to be used in the Core 2 architecture come Q3 2007, the Pentium being an 800MHz fsb dual core cpu w/1MB shared L2 cache running at 1.6 and 1.8GHz, priced around $100, and the Celeron being a single core, 800MHz fsb, 512KB L2 cache CPU running at 1.8 and 2.0GHz, priced in the $75-$100 range.

BTW, the difference between an Allendale and a Conroe when running at the same speed is less than 5% on average. Divx shows the biggest gain at 10%. No where is there ever a 20% improvement due to the larger cache of the Conroe.

And another thing: The "D" in Celeron D does not stand for "desktop". It in fact stands for nothing, and is used simply to differentiate the Prescott Celeron from the previous Northwood.
December 21, 2006 5:50:38 AM

Joe,

The only thing I am not sure of, that you said, was about the Pentium and Celeron name returning. Do you have any links for this? All I can find is that the name is dead and will not return. Links please....

wes
December 21, 2006 5:58:41 AM

Quote:
Wow. These forums have really gone to $hit lately


Well some threads naturally end up with everyone on the defensive. We are people who have no problems physically assembling a computer but pride ourselves on being able to properly select components and see the good values that common folk don't see. That pride is hurt when people say things like that we paid too much for our parts that provide little added performance or that we bought a sub-par part that was a waste of money altogether.

I like to see people seeing the alternate views, like the idea that started this thread. It makes us think about it - in what ways are celeron/p4 similar to E63/66 and in what ways is the analogy flawed. Many responses debated for or against the validity of the idea yet many others flamed on. I could do without the posts without sound argumentation like just saying product X sucks.

Jo
December 21, 2006 6:53:39 AM

They dumping the Celeron name into the mix as well, or just Pentium is replacing the Celeron name? This is interesting, I don't really see why they would continue to use the name..... but, at the same time, I guess it could make sense.

The reason I guess they would use it, is because Pentiums already are the budget line in comparison to the Core 2 chips. So, they would just be going on with it the way it is. The name based on performance, pentium well below Core 2 performance. Just keep the name, update the arch for the name, and keep lower performance. I wonder Pentium will continue to be the low end, of if every time they intro a new Uarch, they will call the lower performing a Core 2 next time, and the higher performing something else. Let me know if any of this made any sense.

wes
December 21, 2006 6:57:29 AM

The Celeron name will be used on denote single core CPUs. It will run on an 800MHz fsb, have 512kb L2 cache, and be based on the same Core 2 technology as the rest of Intel's lineup. It is the culmination of Conroe-L.
!