Intel May Soon Abandon Celeron Microprocessors

[Marcus Yam]

Those Celerons aren't going to be kept up in the technology line up.

Intel May Soon Abandon Celeron Microprocessors : Read more

 

[Guest]

Good by celery, never really liked your peppery crunchy taste anyways!

 

[stridervm]

Well, it is getting crowded. There's Core i7, i5, i3 then Pentium. Unlike on Celeron's release, there's just two of them.

 

[Reynod]

The "Pentium" core2duo "Wolfdale reduced cache" units first effectively sealed the Celeron's fate a couple of years ago when it become the 'Value" end of the line.

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 ...

 

[dtemple]

They said this about the Pentium line when the Core 2 series hit the desktop market... and then Intel re-introduced the brand with Pentium Dual-Core later on. I think if Intel stops making chips marked as Celeron, it will only be temporary.

 

[K-zon]

Im still on my P4 but instead of riding along with the industry tech limitations was kinda thrown to the side it seems and then i7 hit the market. Have no clue where the Celeron stopped at.

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]k-zon[/nom]Im still on my P4 but instead of riding along with the industry tech limitations was kinda thrown to the side it seems and then i7 hit the market. Have no clue where the Celeron stopped at.[/citation]

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.

 

[sstym]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]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.[/citation]

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).

 

[jhansonxi]

I had a Celeron 300A SL2W8, overclocked to 450MHz. It really was a Pentium II as high demand caused Intel to substitute them. You had to crack them open and put some heat-transferring material between the cache RAM and the case to keep it happy.

EDIT: Google turned up a TH article about it here.

 

[jsc]

I also had one - teamed with the marvelous 440BX chipset in an Abit motherboard.

 

[poorya_user]

You dont know how much I will miss them and how many of these processors I assembled. Goodbye Celeron ...

 

[tokenz]

I had one too. It was in my very first computer. OCed it to 550mhz and it ran great until I replaced it with a 1.8ghz pentium 4. The pentium 4 was the first computer I built. Couldnt believe I could almost double the speed.

 

[lauxenburg]

[citation][nom]greghome[/nom]So that would leave AMD's sempron on top in the low end segment?[/citation]

Well it is already....but yes it would give more room for AMD to rape.

 

[Pei-chen]

So many great game from 1999 that went the way of Celeron. 2005 and later RTS SUX.

 

[belardo]

Its all just name branding.

P4s were bad and the P4-netburst version of Celerons were just plain horrible.

 

[Computerrock1]

Hurray, less competition and less sales people taking advantage of the avg. computer consumer!

 

[bildo123]

Every computer I've come across that had a celery processor was slower than anything I've seen before.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]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.[/citation]

If you had a Celeron 300a, the stock clock speed would be 300 MHz, not 333 MHz.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]I had a Celeron 300A SL2W8, overclocked to 450MHz. It really was a Pentium II as high demand caused Intel to substitute them. You had to crack them open and put some heat-transferring material between the cache RAM and the case to keep it happy.EDIT: Google turned up a TH article about it here.[/citation]

The cache was part of the processor die, unlike the Pentium II. So, you're wrong on both counts.

 

[ta152h]

Tis but thy name that is my enemy.
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.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

My first custom built PC was a Celeron too, a 566MHz chip that ran 24x7 at 850MHz. Back in the days when I was a poor school student it was the perfect chip for a cheap but powerful build. Unfortunately, I didn't keep it for that long because although it was pretty fast I often felt like it lacked 'oomph'. I could tell it was being held back at times with it's small cache and so I replaced it with a Thunderbird Athlon 850@1GHz. Those were the days with AMD and Intel striking blow after blow against each other, it was far more exciting that what is now basically just a one horse race!

 

[misry]

Pentiums for business and Celery's for end users, ahh them was some good times.

 

[Shin-san]

The P2 and P3 Celerons were pretty good. It's a shame to see them go, but with the Core i3 line for the lower end, I'm not surprised.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Tis but thy name that is my enemy.Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,Nor arm, nor face, nor any other partBelonging to a man. O, be some other name!What’s in a name? That which we call a roseBy any other word would smell as sweet.So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called,Retain that dear perfection which he owesWithout that title. Romeo, doff thy name,And for that name, which is no part of theeTake 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.[/citation]What was boring and uninteresting was your Shakespearean rant! The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad, to me, were pretty cool names. I personally think "Chevy Block" would sound pretty bad ass... but that's just me.

 

[kdashjl]

i have used celeron almost all my life
from celeron p3 600mhz to celeron 420
from main computer to htpc or even gaming pc
i will miss them