Intel: Atom is Eating into Celeron, and That's OK
That's not the same as eating celery, right?
These days when someone is in the market for a portable computer, the choices now include netbooks. Most casual internet users mainly surf the web according to their interests and keep communicate via email and social networking sites.
With netbooks being the inexpensive solutions that they are, it’s easy to see why they’re eating into sales of notebooks. In fact, Intel puts netbook cannibalization of notebooks at around 16 percent – which means that the notebook segment lost around a sixth of its sales to the cheaper netbooks. This is of some concern to the industry as lower priced products could mean lower profits, but Intel doesn’t seem worried.
In fact, Intel argues that netbooks aren’t exactly taking over notebooks, at least not in a negative way, and has more untapped selling potential.
“The market has not all lept over to Netbooks,” said Intel Chief Sales and Marketing Officer Sean Maloney, according to CNet. “We're very comfortable with having established the (Netbook) category. We believe now that Netbooks are an under-distributed product line.”
Those looking to get a laptop for cheap are likely looking at Celeron-powered machine, and if the consumer buys an Atom instead, that doesn’t bother Intel.
“Atom is eating into Celeron. And we're quite fine with this,” Maloney said.
“There's great concern about the potential of the Atom mix because it's a lower selling price product, but it's also a lower cost product,” said Intel CFO Stacy Smith in a Reuters story. “And that cost really enables us to ramp it without having an adverse effect on the overall product margin of the business.”
Smith added that the Intel Atom costs a quarter of what it does to produce a quad-core chip (without specifying which quad-core).
This summer those shopping for a laptop will get another option thanks to Intel rolling out CULV (consumer ultra low voltage) chips that’ll enable affordable thin and light notebooks priced between netbooks and full-featured notebooks. We’ll likely get to see more of those at Computex next week.
- SATA Spec 3.0 Now Official; 6 Gb/sec. Speeds
- Packard Bell Unveils Nvidia Ion Nettop
- Core i7 Laptop Maker Talks to Us About Merits
- Microsoft Launching Bing.com on June 3
- IBM Files Non-compete Suit Against Former Worker
- QOTD: Which is Your Next PMP: iPod, Zune, Other?
- BioShock 2 Dated for November 3 Release
- Intel Shows Off 8-Core, 128 Thread Nehalem-EX
- U.S. Army Upgrading to Windows Vista, Office 2007
- Google Wave is a Giant Social Noticeboard
- Searching for Screensavers Risky, Viagra is Safe
- An Update on AMD's Changing the Game
- Pixel Qi Demos Amazing E-Ink Laptop Screen
- Dell Earnings Fall by 63 Percent, Waiting for Win 7
- Windows 7, Vista Downgrade to XP Rights Updated
- Asus Fuses Together 2 GeForce GTX 285's
- Tiger Woods Ditching Discs, Going Browser Only
- Microsoft Warns About DirectX Exploit
Well why don't they get rid of the Celeron? It's not like anyone will miss it.
a quarter of what it costs to make a quad core!!?!??!?!?! atom what the hell?? so why the hell do they sell the damn quads so expensive!?!? was it the developement costs or what. I think its time the introduce the 100< dollar core 2 quad.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/30 [...] st-6-to-8/
The Celeron Needs to be single core with HT, and have REAL speedstep. Then I would think Celeron would be a great budget CPU. The current single core Conroe-L celeron is pretty good, but HT ability would make it even more usable, and a speedstep with ultra-low voltage/MHz at idle (e.g. bring back the Pentium M power states) would make it a delight for a low power everyday machine. Don't really care for the Dual core Celerons. I feel that gap should instead be filled with faster single core Celerons and let the Pentium Dual core be Intel's entry into real multicore processing.
If I have to choose $400 I will buy a normal laptop with Celeron. Why? Because it is fully functional laptop with a fully functional screen (14").
If Intel does indeed plan to introduce a dual-core Atom this year or next year with Medfield, I see no reason why the Celeron brand should stay on. Even cheap desktops being sold today are now using the Atom.
If only Atom wasn't slower than a Celeron... Computer's are supposed to get faster over time, AFAIK this is the first time they've ever gotten slower... Well done.
just like we will have i5/p57 and i7/x58
Because vista is a resouce hog that will totally bog down a P3 1.x type of CPU (such as the atom) which otherwise runs okay on a little computer with a little bitty battery... that is what is made for. Low power, cost & size
If price is a factor, the AMD64 X2 dual core CPUs are $30~60 and are easily several times more powerful than Atom, Celerons and Pentium Dual Core, which these AMDs are fine for desktops and can run Vista/Win7.
Celeron was a main crap , it can't even compete with the Sempron
ok for those who haven't been really keeping up with processors, a Celeron CPU is the same core as a current main stream processor. In this case, the current mobile Celeron is a C2 Merom or Penryn. What's the difference? Lower FSB, no support for virtualization and lower amount of cache on chip. And haven't been confirmed yet, but there are rumors from my Intel buddies that there are dual core Celerons on their way to notebooks by the end of the year.
joefriday, the Celeron brand has had REAL speedstep since Jan 08, started with the 1000 series.
luscious, Atom chips are already dual core AND HT to boot. check out the Atom N330. now what I'm hoping for in the future is a native dual core Atom. Intel is not looking at releasing the next version of the Atom until they have exhausted their supply of old crusty inventory of 945GC chips first. In the mean time, they can play court with nVidia over the Ion and refine the next generation of Atom to truely be a native x86(x64) SOC.
Because vista is a resouce hog that will totally bog down a P3 1.x type of CPU (such as the atom) which otherwise runs okay on a little computer with a little bitty battery... that is what is made for.
I like when people like you talk out of their ass when they have absolutely no idea wtf they are talking about.....
I have an HP 1035NR netbook with an Atom Processor and I AM RUNNING VISTA ULTIMATE ON IT!!! And guess what???? It runs GREAT!!! The only thing that sucks is GMA graphics but that's Intel's fault...
So don't bash Vista when you have no idea what your talking about... Vista isn't a resource hog... you are just a noob who doesn't know how to use it or configure it correctly...
If I have to choose $400 I will buy a normal laptop with Celeron. Why? Because it is fully functional laptop with a fully functional screen (14").
That's not the point. The point is that it is small and still you could read a PDF doc, email, chat and browse the web while the thing fits in your handbag.
Wow Intel made a good point, a SINGLE core costs A FOURTH of what it costs to make a QUAD core. >.>
No ****, sherlock.
I like when people like you talk out of their ass when they have absolutely no idea wtf they are talking about.....I have an HP 1035NR netbook with an Atom Processor and I AM RUNNING VISTA ULTIMATE ON IT!!! And guess what???? It runs GREAT!!! The only thing that sucks is GMA graphics but that's Intel's fault...So don't bash Vista when you have no idea what your talking about... Vista isn't a resource hog... you are just a noob who doesn't know how to use it or configure it correctly...
Its likely he, and all the people who negative voted your post have never used vista at all, some post-SP1 and are basing their opnion purely on rumour.
man i been waiting for Celeron to die for years. Its just not worth the saving's to have a slow and crippled CPU like that
I Have a Celeron E1200 running my home server and would not trade it for an atom EVER. Core2 architecture is way more advanced and I got the chip for $55CAD. Also it fits in a full size board with a SATA raid card and 2 PCI TV Tuners. Suck on that ATOM.
Honestly, no one's going to hiss the Celeron.
More like netbooks the size of 2LCD screens, but only having 1 LCD screen and a keyboard.
Asus had rumors of selling a "keyboard pc" (meaning everything is in the keyboard, just connect the mouse and screen to it and you're ready to go!
.....I have an HP 1035NR netbook with an Atom Processor and I AM RUNNING VISTA ULTIMATE ON IT!!! And guess what???? It runs GREAT!!! The only thing that sucks is GMA graphics but that's Intel's fault...So don't bash Vista when you have no idea what your talking about... Vista isn't a resource hog... you are just a noob who doesn't know how to use it or configure it correctly...
1- Try running your vista, a youtube video at full screen while having a virus scanner installed and with AERO on, I mean, that's why you buy vista no? Vista is sloppy even on my C2D 2Ghz laptop!
2- Intel makes the GMA chipset, so it is their fault!
3- Vista is worlds greatest recource hog OS! Can't think of any other OS working so sloppy, no Linux, No other windows, no Mac.. They're all more responsive!
4- You can configure Vista all you want! You can cripple it by disabling services but then you no longer are running Vista. Disabling services makes your OS not run certain tasks; while you can do everything Vista can in XP with half the resources.
Ow, and seemingly you know more about calling people bad words than you know something about pc's!
1- Try running your vista, a youtube video at full screen while having a virus scanner installed and with AERO on, I mean, that's why you buy vista no? Vista is sloppy even on my C2D 2Ghz laptop!
2- Intel makes the GMA chipset, so it is their fault!
3- Vista is worlds greatest recource hog OS! Can't think of any other OS working so sloppy, no Linux, No other windows, no Mac.. They're all more responsive!
4- You can configure Vista all you want! You can cripple it by disabling services but then you no longer are running Vista. Disabling services makes your OS not run certain tasks; while you can do everything Vista can in XP with half the resources.
Ow, and seemingly you know more about calling people bad words than you know something about pc's!
LOL here's another sheep on the "hate vista" bandwagon. if he had these problems with disabling stuff he wouldn't have mentioned it. sounds like he just has a better laptop or netbook than you
I've got a Celeron 1200 running secondary to my quad-core, makes for a very usable light-medium duty workstation for my better half.
That said, I'd do An Atom N330 on Ion in a heartbeat instead if the case it went in was half decently laid out...
1- Try running your vista, a youtube video at full screen while having a virus scanner installed and with AERO on, I mean, that's why you buy vista no? Vista is sloppy even on my C2D 2Ghz laptop!2- Intel makes the GMA chipset, so it is their fault!3- Vista is worlds greatest recource hog OS! Can't think of any other OS working so sloppy, no Linux, No other windows, no Mac.. They're all more responsive!4- You can configure Vista all you want! You can cripple it by disabling services but then you no longer are running Vista. Disabling services makes your OS not run certain tasks; while you can do everything Vista can in XP with half the resources.Ow, and seemingly you know more about calling people bad words than you know something about pc's!
How bout this- With my C2Q Q6600 I am currently 1. listening to music 2. encoding videos from avi to flv format using Adobe Media Encoder CS4 3. using getdataback to recover a clients data 4. surfing the net and 5. have Kaspersky Internet Securities 2009 scanning in the background. Guess what?? I am only using 60% of my processor and only using 3GB out of my 4GB and I am doing some pretty intense stuff and it's all done on Vista WITH AERO ON TOO!!!!... So you too need to stop talking when you just proved you know nothing about computers.....
2. I'm pretty sure I said that it was Intel's fault:
The only thing that sucks is GMA graphics but that's Intel's fault...
3. It does use more resources than say XP but it also DOES a lot more... try doing instant searching in the search menu or 3d tabbing in xp and see how far you get... or transparent windows... how about background indexing of files.. if you are complaining that Vista sucks because it runs like ass on your computer then you have successfully proved that your computer sucks and apparently you are not smart enough to figure out how to buy one (cause you obviously aren't smart enough to build one) that doesn't run Vista like ass. I can show you laptops that have an AMD Sempron processor with 2 GB of memory that can run Vista fine.... all you proved is that you don't belong on an enthusiast website like TH.
4. Funny, the only thing I have disabled is UAC. Refer to above post about your lie of a comment that you can do everything Vista can in XP....
Now go cry... people who hate Vista are tech noobs.
joefriday, the Celeron brand has had REAL speedstep since Jan 08, started with the 1000 series.
No, not the same kind of speed step I'm talking about. The "new" speedstep limits your vcore to around 1.0-1.1 volts. At 1200MHz, a Core 2 architecture cpu shouldn't need anything more than around 0.8 to 0.9 volts, but these voltages cannot be accessed through Intel's speedstep on dual core Celeron (or Core 2 Duos/Quads). Also, I stated that the single core Celeron needed speed step, which they still do not have. They now at least have C1E (enhanced halt state), which make it function quite similar to a demand-based speed step, but unfortunately the end user has no control over the speed switching of C1E, so its more like a locked, non modifiable rudimentary speed step. Still, it allows my overclocked Celeron 420 to idle at 2.0GHz 1.1 vcore and clock up to 2.66GHz 1.3 vcore when necessary, which is very nice. If only it had HT, it would be the perfect chip for entry level needs.
Atom is good in the netbook world, but until they make a socketed Atom and other manufacturers start offering motherboards for it, the Celeron will be around for a while.
Let's all calm down... Vituperation is not productive.
When we have a chance to see nvidia's Ion running on the latest dual core with a screen of ... oh... let's humor the seasoned citizens, like me, and say 12 inches, we are all just blowing smoke.
intel is fine with this since the netbook market is indeed a new market, only eating a small percentage of celerons.
its only notebook makers that are quite wary.
I had an Acer Aspire One with Vista Ultimate and it had that crap GMA Intel garbage video card. It also had MS Office 2008 and VS 2008. I didn't think it was very slow at all. Unfortunately, i wasn't running AERO because it was disabled due to the limitations of the hardware which i'm sure there was most likely a hack...
That being said, yes it was slower than my Q6600 but not to the point where is unusable. I mean you guys seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill with regards to being emotionally upset and distraught just because windows takes 5 seconds to load instead of 2 seconds. Maybe you guys need to start therapy or something...
Just wondering why people that truly know almost nothing of computer technology even bother to post?
Vista IS a resource hog, but it runs fine on most recent hardware, except netbooks, where it really runs slow. Which is why nearly all netbooks ship with XP or Linux now. However, to get same features with a much lower load, Windows 7 is your answer and retail release will be available in a few weeks.
My PC is long in the tooth (QX6700 with 4GB of 1066 Ram and Raptor HDD's in a RAID set) and takes almost a full minute to boot Vista, Win & boots in 27 seconds, Ubuntu boots in 22 seconds and XP boots in 9 seconds.