Intel May Soon Abandon Celeron Microprocessors

[f-14]

never liked the celery from the day i first bought a 333mhz and watched my old 200mhz mmx pentium keep pace with it on total annhilation, replaced it with a P2 450 and things were much better. damn cache crippled celery's for most cpu intensive uses other then internet use. saw no use for investing in a P3 once i found out intel added tracking code into them and jumped into the AMD camp with a K7-850mhz. double the speed, double the cache, double the FSB from intels best for the same price as a mid range celery and no tracking ode build in. thank gawd cuz i had just started getting into mp3's with my friends in '97 (blade encoder 😉. curious to know if only the intel cpu people being busted by the MPPA are the ones being busted, or if some of the AMD cpu users are also?

 

[f-14]

[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]never liked the celery from the day i first bought a 333mhz and watched my old 200mhz mmx pentium keep pace with it on total annhilation, replaced it with a P2 450 and things were much better. damn cache crippled celery's for most cpu intensive uses other then internet use. saw no use for investing in a P3 once i found out intel added tracking code into them and jumped into the AMD camp with a K7-850mhz. double the speed, double the cache, double the FSB from intels best for the same price as a mid range celery and no tracking ode build in. thank gawd cuz i had just started getting into mp3's with my friends in '97 (blade encoder . curious to know if only people being busted by the MPPA are the ones using intel cpus, or if some of the AMD cpu users are also?[/citation]

 

[mavroxur]

[citation][nom]sstym[/nom]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).[/citation]

The "Pentium 3 based" celerons never went as low as 366MHz. They did come in socket 370, but were still in the Pentium II family.

 

[killerclick]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]If you had a Celeron 300a, the stock clock speed would be 300 MHz, not 333 MHz.[/citation]

Yeah, my bad, I thought they're all called 300A but the actual model is 333 (p/n SL2WN).

 

[JOSHSKORN]

There's no need for a Celeron anymore, anyway.

 

[drwho1]

i3 .... the new Celeron

 

[zaznet]

It is just a brand name. Celeron was the name stamped onto lower performing chips that were stripped of extra cache and locked the speeds lower. This is why so many earlier Celeron's were easily over clocked. They were built for the low end market to better compete with AMD.

Today with i7, i5 and i3 the i3 should be looked at like the Celeron of old. The Atom fits where the PentiumM was made to go.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]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.[/citation]

Yes it is just you. For people with over 50 IQ, I doubt it would sell too well, that's probably why Chevy didn't create the "block". They try to give their cars names that are actually appealing.

I'm surprised Intel didn't call their dual core Atom processors, "molecule". That would have been roughly as attractive as "Core".

Intel is fortunate to be making good processors, their naming has become so convoluted, most buyers can't keep track.

 

[Guest]

I don't know whats worse a Celeron or one of those Atoms They are both CR@P in my opinion

 

[Djhg2000]

What a big surprise, the names in their current line-up for regular consumers are Atom {N, Z}, Celeron E, Pentium E, Core {2 Duo, 2 Quad, i3, i5, i7} and Xeon.
If there's going to be a Core i9 then one has to go.

I think Celeron would come back when this whole "iName" thing is over though.

 

[TheDuke]

any reason for the celeron now?

 

[widcard]

How time flies. I also started out in 1999 with an Celeron Microprocessor Factory clocked a 466Mhz but i never overclocked it. Since those early days i have built a ton of high end AMD and Intel based gaming computers. I usually get better frame rates out of Intel because i can overclock the liven stew out of them.

 

[henrystrawn]

I have never owned a Celeron. I have always avoided them because they were budget CPU. If you were going to spend money on a system, you don't scrimp on the CPU or RAM. My first system build was a P III 800 Mhz, it was a long time before I could justify the cost of a computer. Now I run 4 systems just in my home office. My brother in law just dropped off 3 systems that I was able to get running again, and I can't for the life of me figure out anything to do with them. They sit in my closet until I can find someone that needs a free computer.

 

[Gin Fushicho]

Shoot to kill Intel, shoot to kill.

 

[dEAne]

Pentium or Celeron serves me well in my school days and even my early working days - Its my hero.

 

[eddieroolz]

The space is too crowded anyhow. Bloated lineup is no good. That's how I see it.

 

[damiano13mg]

A celeron with ddr2 ram is tolerable...but a slot1, ugh like popping in atari cartridges for your comp. lol.

 

[pug_s]

I dunno, I personally don't like to spend too much money for the latest processor and I ended up getting a celeron more than 1/2 of the time anyways.

 

[BulkZerker]

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


DUnno, you'd think it would... Toms needs to do a Semptron VS Atom shootout. With both single and dual cores.

 

[knight9413]

Just a name... not like we are going to miss anything from Intel.