Intel May Soon Abandon Celeron Microprocessors
Those Celerons aren't going to be kept up in the technology line up.
Intel's Celeron brand was mocked for its vegetative name when the CPU launched, but eventually the last laugh belonged to the chip as it proved to be a formidable overclocker and value proposition as the Celeron 300A wrote itself into the history books.
The Celeron brand eventually made its way into notebooks as entry-level solutions for mainstream computers. Sadly, the Celeron never achieved any sort of cult status as an overclocker in the mobile space, but it's still been a nice little chip that got the job done for most casual computer users. But that time could be coming to an end.
DigiTimes once again cites Intel's partners as telling it that the Celeron brand will be phased out in 2011. In its place, Intel will fill the gap with low-end Pentium and dual-core Atom offerings.
Intel denied that it would be phasing out the Celeron at all, but X-bit labs claimed that roadmaps it had seen showed that the Celeron wouldn't be receiving any upgrades to Clarkdale/Nehalem or Sandy Bridge cores. This could mean that once Intel phases out Core 2 technology, the Celerons will go with it.

No part of this post made any sense at all.
I just happen to have a Slot1 Celeron 300A sitting on the shelf right here. It overclocked from 333MHz to 500MHz which was pretty good for 1999.
Selling CPU's with this sort of die space (45nm) at under $30 per unit would also cut into their more profitable lines under $100.
Goodbye Celeron ... for now ...
No part of this post made any sense at all.
I just happen to have a Slot1 Celeron 300A sitting on the shelf right here. It overclocked from 333MHz to 500MHz which was pretty good for 1999.
Echo that. I had one of the first Pentium III based celerons (366MHz) overclocked to 550 MHz. One of the best, cheapest CPUs I ever bought (also in 1999).
EDIT: Google turned up a TH article about it here.
Well it is already....but yes it would give more room for AMD to rape.
P4s were bad and the P4-netburst version of Celerons were just plain horrible.
If you had a Celeron 300a, the stock clock speed would be 300 MHz, not 333 MHz.
The cache was part of the processor die, unlike the Pentium II. So, you're wrong on both counts.
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet.
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name, which is no part of thee
Take all myself.
For the sub-literate, it means that a name doesn't matter. Who cares if Intel stops using the Celeron name. It's meaningless. It's not going to change what they release - they'll release the same processor with a different name if they think it makes sense in the market.
They probably just feel there's too much market confusion with the names.
I think it would have made more sense for them to call LGA 1156 the Celeron, and leave Pentium as the high end. Core is an absurd name. It's prosaic and uninteresting, and not that different from naming a car "block" for the engine block. Not that Celeron is a great name either - it sounds like a non-nutritive vegetable, not "celerity" was intended.