Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]Halcyon[/nom]I would never allow myself to purchase a system with a Celeron (spelled Celery) processor...whether it would meet my needs or not...just too many negative connotations (including "cheap" crippled). It's like when the US tried to sell some poor sucker mid-eastern country F-16's with signicantly less powerful GE J79 turbojets instead of using the normal Pratt&Whitney F100 turbofans of US F-15 and F-16s. Customers don't generally like diluted wares.[/citation]
...
 
If the SB generation is any indicator, Celeron graphics won't be anywhere near the level of Trinity. For the person that does want to do a little casual gaming, the choice is pretty clear. For people who don't care about that at all, it probably won't matter which one they get.
 
I wouldn't settle for anything less than i3, and I would probably get a rebranded clevo. wish clevo would get into the ultra book market with kepler graphics for low price point
 
[citation][nom]SuperVeloce[/nom]Celerons were usually one or two arhitecture generations behind. If this Celeron really is Sandy bridge, as rumors suggests, it will be something new for intel business tactics. I'm not so sure about its core being an Ivy though.At best Celeron gets HD2500, heavily crippled.[/citation]

We have had Sandy Bridge Celerons for months now and Ivy isn't out, so Intel has had Celerons based on a modern architecture since at least early or mid 2011. Go to Newegg and look at the earliest reviews for the Sandy Bridge Celerons there to see it for yourself. Other than that, yes, Ivy Bridge Celerons probably won't have HD 4000. I'd be surprised if they even have HD 2500 because so far, only i3s and up have even had HD 2000/3000 graphics. The Celerons and Pentiums (Sandy Bridge) have crap GPUs that aren't even good enough for a decent HTPC and we should all know that HTPCs do not need much graphics performance.

For everyone complaining about all of this, I'll set some things strait right now. trinity has far greater CPU performance than Llano. In fact, the difference of CPU performance between Llano and Trinity is a lot greater than the difference between their GPU performance. Trinity has very good CPU performance.

Celerons, ever since at least Sandy Bridge, have had good CPU performance. They are just i3s, except without Hyper-Threading and they have a little less cache and lower clock frequencies. Regardless, they are actually decent CPUs, especially for budget machines.

All of the CPUs and APUs going into ultrabooks are ULV, aka Ultra Low Voltage, so they will all have low TDPs. Intel's problem is that with the Celerons, AMD might be able to not only beat them in CPU performance, but beat them greatly and Trinity already wins in graphics performance. Beyond that, Trinity would use no more power than the Celerons because the Celerons and Pentiums of Sandy are generally some of Intel's least power efficient processors due to them having the worst binning (i3 dies that don't make it to i3s go to Pentiums and if they don't make it to Pentiums, then they go to Celerons, so they're usually poorly binned) of Intel's lineup.

Maybe Intel will do something different for the Ivy Bridge Celerons, but probably not. So, they won't suck like some people think they will, but they probably won't be great.
 
[citation][nom]southernshark[/nom]Celeron.... ? I didn't even realize it was still made. Who would buy this?[/citation]I'm still surprised they still have Pentiums. You think they would replace the Pentium and the celery with an I0 & I1, Its kinda of pointless to have to have a dual core celeron and a dual core Pentium when their is about a $20 difference in price and the difference in performance is barely noticeable. Why not just make a single core I0 with hyper-threading and a dual core I1 with out hyper-threading problem solved.
 
So lets see here we have the Core i7, i5, i3, Pentium, Celeron and Atom. and you wonder why you avg consumors ask what is the diff between all 6 cpu's and when you tell them they still are like huh? I mean seriously why does intel need so many cpu's after you get below the Core i3 the Pentium, Celeron and Atom all start running together as one giant cluster fudge. i mean there is no need for the Pentium, Celeron and Atom. All they have to do is make budget Core i3's to fill in the Pentium, Celeron and Atom lineup.
 
trying to explain computer terms and cpus to the illiterate is difficult so I just tell them to bring me with them when they buy a computer. I would not even recommend anything less than SB i3
 
*face-palm*
When will Intel learn? It would be much simpler if Intel drops the atom, celeron and Pentium series and drop the I3-I5-I7 series price tag. With less standalone CPU to manufacture intel could focus on mixing the I-series specs for specific uses instead of dumping very high end features on every I-series CPUs. It's a fact that Celeron and Atom series CPUs sucks ass and pentium belongs to the last decade, The Core2 series still have what it takes despite its old arch so intel should upgrade the Core2 series and dump the atom, celeron and Pentium cpus to oblivion. If intel wants a cheap UB, drop the price on its I-series cpu or upgrade the Core2 series with IB specs and put it on its UB. Right now its cheaper to make an multi-core processor than a single one.
 
Looks like the 877 is 1.4GHZ 256KB L2 cache, 2MB L3 cache
807 is 1.5GHZ 256KB L2 cache, 1.5MB L3 cache
They are non turboboosted Sandybridge 32nm chips, TDP=17w

I don't know if it has HD 3000 or not.

I'd rather have these than Atom any day!
 
[citation][nom]neoverdugo[/nom]*face-palm*When will Intel learn? It would be much simpler if Intel drops the atom, celeron and Pentium series and drop the I3-I5-I7 series price tag. With less standalone CPU to manufacture intel could focus on mixing the I-series specs for specific uses instead of dumping very high end features on every I-series CPUs. It's a fact that Celeron and Atom series CPUs sucks ass and pentium belongs to the last decade, The Core2 series still have what it takes despite its old arch so intel should upgrade the Core2 series and dump the atom, celeron and Pentium cpus to oblivion. If intel wants a cheap UB, drop the price on its I-series cpu or upgrade the Core2 series with IB specs and put it on its UB. Right now its cheaper to make an multi-core processor than a single one.[/citation]
Modern day Pentiums and Celerons have nothing in common with processors of old. It's only a marketing name for lower segment. Pentiums are all Sandy (and now Ivy) bridge arhitecture. Core 2 is old and hugely outdated to be sold today. lol

oh and one more thing. There is only one die design out there for home users. And it spans from i7 and all the way to celerons. After testing of the die it's determined if it will be fully fledged i7, maybe without HT, maybe downclocked, maybe both, maybe it has problems with L3 cache or there is a problem with GPU. There you have it, i7 or celeron, it all comes to stability of the specific specimen from the same wafer. Opposed to those pieces of silicon being in the recycle bin (because not all functions are working), they are sold at lower segments like i5, i3, pentium, celeron, ... depending on the working parts of the chip
 


Actually, Intel's Sandy Bridge dual core CPUs are native dual cores (I don't know if the dual core Sandy CPUs were always on a native dual core die, but I do know that they are now) and are not based off of the quad core die that is used by both the i7s and i5s. Otherwise, you're correct.
 
i own a laptop with the dual core celeron and runs really nice! just like my other laptop with the athlon p320.
i know celerons were terrible slow, but with CPU surpassing the OS needs, really, it doesnt matter how fast can run a benchmark anymore, real life usage for most users with ANY CPU no more than 2 years old is more than enough.
 
[citation][nom]roger everet[/nom]i own a laptop with the dual core celeron and runs really nice! just like my other laptop with the athlon p320.i know celerons were terrible slow, but with CPU surpassing the OS needs, really, it doesnt matter how fast can run a benchmark anymore, real life usage for most users with ANY CPU no more than 2 years old is more than enough.[/citation]
Of course you're right but let us just have our prejudiced-against-Celeron moment. Okay?
 
[citation][nom]Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer[/nom]If the SB generation is any indicator, Celeron graphics won't be anywhere near the level of Trinity. For the person that does want to do a little casual gaming, the choice is pretty clear. For people who don't care about that at all, it probably won't matter which one they get.[/citation]

Wow, for a supposedly hardware savvy bunch, many of you are pretty uninformed. Take a look at Passmarks CPU charts... The Celeron g540 (Sandy Bridge) comes with the same GPU as the SB Pentiums, 2 MB L3 cache at 2.5 GHz and it outperforms EVERY SINGLE A4 on CPU benchmarks. It also outperforms the i3-390m (2.67 GHz Westmere), Athlon II x3 425, Phenom II x3 700e, and even the A8 3500m (4 core with turbo boost up to 2.4 GHz). Some of you guys need to think before the type.
 
[citation][nom]SuperVeloce[/nom]he is talking about GPU part, not CPU.[/citation]

Yep he is, I quoted the wrong person, I meant to quote the guy above him. My bad!

[citation][nom]LaHawzel[/nom]Ultra-slow.[/citation]

 
Sadly many consumers have no clue what`s a Trinity or AMD and will probably end up buying a piece of crap Celeron ultra book just for the Intel name.
 
[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]people that don't really care about quality[/citation]

There's no problem with Celeron quality that I'm aware of. Speed, sure, but quality?
 
Be carful of the laptop brand you buy with any Intel HD graphics. Some laptop OEM's customize the Intel HD graphics drivers, and then the Laptop OEMs never provide updates to the OEM customized Intel HD graphics drivers. The Intel HD graphics driver update website will not allow updates to OEM customized Intel HD graphics drivers, as the intel website will only update Intel genaric HD graphics drivers. If you game or use some 3D graphics programs, You will need to be able to update your graphics drivers, and if you can not update your graphics drivers your software will not work properly.
 
I took a stroll over to intels' website, because I knew that most of you AMD iFanboys didn't know what you were talking about....

Depending on which celeron you want: 20-49 watts.... directly on par with Trinity... and the one watt difference on the lowest powered ones is hardly worth writing about....

The battle of the Low Power processor is definitely on...
 
I agree that Atom processors are pretty bad, but Celeron Dual Core CPUs are pretty decent. I have used them in many desktops and laptops and I am impressed with the performace. A Celeron is 10x the CPU a Sempron or "V-Series" is, at least it can stream video smoothly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom