Intel Slips Out Apollo Lake Celeron And Pentium Chips

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
The Pentium J4205 is a $161 chip?!? DAMN we need some competition!
 

Larry Litmanen

Reputable
Jan 22, 2015
616
0
5,010
17
I got myself one of those cheap blue HP laptops with Intel Celeron N chips. Worst $200 ever. That PC was so week it had issues opening Google Chrome.

I would not buy anything lower than i3.
 

1991ATServerTower

Honorable
May 6, 2013
138
0
10,710
8
Wow, four Pentium III class CPUs on a single die. Sounds perfect for 2008!

Wait... Isn't this 2016?

You're better off to get laptop with an AMD APU. At least the APU won't have garbage video performance...

Yeah, we consumers NEED Zen to shake things up. i5 performance for i3 / Pentium prices would do it. Why pay more!
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
Pentium N4200: 4x Atom cores / 4 threads; 1.1 / 2.5 GHz base / burst; $161
Core i3-6300: 2x Skylake cores / 4 threads; 3.8 GHz base; $138

The i3 also has 33% more GPU shaders and a higher GPU clock, not to mention 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes vs. 6 PCIe 2.0 lanes, on the Pentium.

So, yeah, I'd say they're a bit overpriced. The only thing the N4200 has going for it is lower TDP, but at a much lower performance level. Probably better performance per Watt than desktop Skylake, but certainly worse than the new Kaby Lake mobile SKUs. I realize the Pentium N4200 is a full SoC, but it still feels like buyers are getting ripped off, compared to what the i3 has to offer.

True, I did pick on the high-end SKU, but the cheapest is still $107. These Apollo Lake chips should cost no more than about half their current prices.
 


its was made by HP so no surprise there

 

adamboy64

Distinguished
Aug 9, 2010
335
0
18,780
0

I've got a HP Stream Mini with a Celeron 2957U.. and that's a great little performer.
Mind you, that's a 15w chip. Probably a great deal of difference between that and the N2840.

 

wifiburger

Respectable
Feb 21, 2016
413
0
1,810
9
wait if those take after Atom chips then they are garbage, Atom chips are most worthless chip you can run on PC those things don't even stream 1080p !
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
You'd do yourself a favor by reading about Atom's evolution.

True, the first generation of Atoms were far behind the Core2 architecture. But Atom has been moving steadily closer, with each new architecture. These chips are the first to use the Goldmont core, which is a much bigger jump over its predecessor (Silvermont/Airmont) than their high-end cores have seen in a long time (think P4 -> Core2).

I probably wouldn't willingly buy a laptop with one of these, however. I'd say they're fine for tablets or microservers (I'm actually about to buy an Airmont-based UpBoard or Udoo), but I keep my laptops for a long time and would prefer something much faster.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
For one thing, these aren't socketed CPUs. You don't buy them, directly. And relatively few people purchasing devices with these chips (especially lower-end chips, like these) will bother even looking up the model number of the CPU it contains.

That said, Intel's naming schemes can hardly be praised for their transparency. I think their marketing department lacks discipline and has crumbled under the pressure of moving product and protecting profits, amidst falling demand and increasing competition.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Ambassador
Definitely. Check out the UpBoard. One of the fastest Pi-class machines available, and lower power than most. Starts at only $99. I will probably buy one, but the cancellation means any successor will have to use a higher-power, more expensive laptop SoC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS