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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
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.
 
[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.
 

assasin32

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2008
1,356
22
19,515
96
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.
 
[citation][nom]assasin32[/nom]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.[/citation]

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).
 

tpi2007

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2006
475
0
18,810
6
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) ?
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]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.[/citation]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!
 

army_ant7

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
629
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]tpi2007[/nom]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) ?[/citation]Interesting and thanks for sharing that... Based on the release dates, it looks like the D2550 replaced the D2700. It has the same GPU speed, like you said, plus HTT. In addition to those, having an embedded option seems to be its only differentiating factor from the D2550. It may have been a marketing decision (maybe not enough sales or something) or maybe there was a flaw with that model or not enough yields suited to produce that model or something? I'm just speculating...

[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]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.[/citation]+1
If it can truly perform better (i.e. destroy the N2800), I'd like to have that instead of this N570, which has served me well, but still tends to not perform well. Not to mention HD 4000 graphics. Also, maybe some Hyper-threading should be included. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY