Skip to main content

Intel's Two Atom, Celeron SKUs for Low-End 2013 Market

The publication pointed to the current Atom flagship processors, the 32 nm models D2550 and D2500, which sell for $47 and $42, respectively, as well as the 32 nm Celeron M ULV models 847 (dual-core, 1.1 GHz), and 807 (single core, 1.5 GHz).

There was no confirmation from Intel, but if Digitimes' information is correct, the choices Celeron M ULV 807 and 847 are rather interesting. They are certainly not the most attractive processors in any view the company would be able to offer next year for desktops. While the 807 is the cheapest mobile ULV Celeron processor on Intel's price sheet today ($70), there are faster and cheaper desktop versions available: The fastest Celeron processors today (G550, dual-core, 2.6 GHz) sell for a tray price of $52, while the bottom end (G440, single-core, 1.6 GHz) is available for $37. Sure, lower power consumption is always desirable, but this is a premium feature that usually does not count as much as a few more megahertz in the entry-level market.

There are certainly several decent processors to fill Intel's low-end processor market strategy, but Digitimes believes that the aforementioned Atoms and Celerons will be kept alive by Intel at least until Q3 2013. By that time, we would expect Haswell to make a strong showing that will allow Ivy Bridge to assume the dominant role in entry-level CPUs.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

  • nforce4max
    Why don't they dump the prices even lower and subsidize the manufacturing costs with the high end?
    $20 dollar Celerons with boxed coolers would sell very well especially for those on a budget or just basic needs.
    Reply
  • blazorthon
    nforce4maxWhy don't they dump the prices even lower and subsidize the manufacturing costs with the high end? $20 dollar Celerons with boxed coolers would sell very well especially for those on a budget or just basic needs.
    Why increase the costs of the high end where there are fewer sales, meaning prices could need to jump significantly just to drop prices on these Celerons slightly? That doesn't seem like a good business model.
    Reply
  • nforce4max
    blazorthonWhy increase the costs of the high end where there are fewer sales, meaning prices could need to jump significantly just to drop prices on these Celerons slightly? That doesn't seem like a good business model.
    I didn't say exactly which high end, I am willing to assume that some guessed 2011 but they could very easily spread the costs over multiple models so that no particular model becomes overpriced enough for consumers to notice. Each sample usually floats around $20-$60 to manufacture depending if it is the dual core or the quad core model and if it used Indium for improved thermals.
    Reply
  • tomfreak
    the die size for a dual core ivy is pretty small already. I personally think Intel should just forget about Atom architecture all together and make an even smaller die size with only single core Ivy bridge which easily eat Atom for breakfast even with just 1 core + low under-clock 1GHz ULV version.
    Reply
  • blazorthon
    nforce4maxI didn't say exactly which high end, I am willing to assume that some guessed 2011 but they could very easily spread the costs over multiple models so that no particular model becomes overpriced enough for consumers to notice. Each sample usually floats around $20-$60 to manufacture depending if it is the dual core or the quad core model and if it used Indium for improved thermals.
    Honestly, I thought that you were referring to LGA 1155's higher end models, but I wasn't sure. Either way, my point is that the Celerons and Pentiums are already very cheap, another $10-20 here and there won't make much of a difference, but trying to make it up in other models could be a huge difference.
    Reply
  • assasin32
    I didn't even realize that they were still making celerons, I haven't seen or heard about one in years. My lack of knowledge on the Atoms can be summed up as this too from experience, single core atom = painful slow, dual core atom = usable.

    Though I will admit I like the thought of what another posted mentioned as a single core ivy bridge CPU with low clock and voltage. Would be nice especially with AES-NI support so you can have a netbook with AES hardware encyption/decryption support so you can use the standard HD and not take a performance hit when you encrypt it.
    Reply
  • idroid
    current Atom flagship processors

    "Atom" and "Flagship" shouldn't be used on the same sentence.
    Reply
  • blazorthon
    assasin32I didn't even realize that they were still making celerons, I haven't seen or heard about one in years. My lack of knowledge on the Atoms can be summed up as this too from experience, single core atom = painful slow, dual core atom = usable.Though I will admit I like the thought of what another posted mentioned as a single core ivy bridge CPU with low clock and voltage. Would be nice especially with AES-NI support so you can have a netbook with AES hardware encyption/decryption support so you can use the standard HD and not take a performance hit when you encrypt it.
    Intel hasn't stopped making Celerons of any architecture since they came out like ten years ago as far as I'm aware, unless they missed Core 2 (I might re-check that).
    Reply
  • tpi2007
    Could Tom's ask Intel why it discontinued the Atom D2700 (you can look it up on Intel's ARK), which had a clockspeed of 2.13 Ghz and launched the D2550 at 1.86 Ghz instead (both feature the GPU at640 Mhz) ?
    Reply
  • tomfreak
    blazorthonHonestly, I thought that you were referring to LGA 1155's higher end models, but I wasn't sure. Either way, my point is that the Celerons and Pentiums are already very cheap, another $10-20 here and there won't make much of a difference, but trying to make it up in other models could be a huge difference.they are still dual core, 2 full x86 cores, which means they got room to cut the manufacturing cost further. Who need a dual core ivy to do word processing web surfing?

    Intel should go back to drawing board, cut out 1 x86 core, cut away some cache, cut away 1 memory controller make it single channel, make a single core die with simple HD2000 GPU + all add up together in an ultra small die still faster than any dual core Atom. half the die size half the cost = half the selling price = All Perfect!
    Reply