[citation][nom]KawiNinjaZX[/nom]That is a poor decision. You can build a celeron dual-core, 2gb ram windows 7 PC very very cheap and it would be great for at least 50% of the people out there, who only do facebook and email. Also, since celerons went dual-core, I think they run very well for every day computing.[/citation]
Well they should get rid of something. Intel has way too many brands out right now... Atom, Celeron, Pentium, Core i3, Core i5, Core i7. I say get rid of the Atom and Pentium because the Atom is too weak for a netbook CPU and Intel could castrate one of their ULV Sandy Bridge parts and sell it for as cheap as the Atom (and even with that, they will still perform better), and because the Pentium doesn't really target a specific market. Both brands are fluff.
If only they thought it out, they could have made their product line this way: Atom is Core i1, Celeron and Pentium could have been merged into Core i3, the current i3 could be i5, the i5 could be i7, and the i7 could be the Core i9. Boom, all the previous bad connotations are gone and people have a better idea how each performs relative to each other.
I got out of retail years ago, but I never recommended celeron systems to anybody. I pushed for Athlon 64 systems. It's been years since I've been behind the wheel of one so I have no grasp on the current user experience value of them. It's just a name. Maybe they'll make a Norelec that's 99% similar.
The new sandy bridge celerons have integrated graphics and performance that will blow an Atom away. Example: Current fastest Atom vs. newest, cheapest Celeron g530:
Passmark CPU Rank (lower better)
Intel Atom D525 @ 1.80GHz 710 814
Intel Celeron G530 @ 2.40GHz 2321 336
For comparison, a core duo I bought a few years back for over $200:
Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz 2421 324
I bought the SB Celeron for a HTPC and it is an exceptional value for $40, and can use very little power depending upon application. The low price SB Celeron is able to keep up with this Core2 Duo, uses a fraction of the power, plus has decent integrated graphics for watching videos.
Long Live the Celeron!
yea i agree the celeron and pentium CPU's should have been killed off once the first cores started coming out. it with those brands still around its hard ti figure out which segment they are supposed to be for. at first i thought the i3 CPU's were the replacement for the celeron. besides if the Celerons go away just get any AMD CPU they offer the same kind of performance for the same price anyway
lol, And here I thought celeron disappeared when they brought back the Pentium brand, as a way to bring more demand for their low end processors.
There is a big difference between the Celeron and the Atom procs though, they are very different products. Celeron/Pentium are just striped down i3's, Atom is a whole different architecture not based upon the Sandy Bridge or Core architecture.
You guys don't get it with the Atoms. Yes they are slow procesors BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. The whole point of the Atom is that it is low power and can be passively cooled. It's perfect for netbooks. Every time I see people put down the Atoms I get frustrated because they are meant to run cool- not win speed races. And they don't have to win speed races because they're on netbooks which are meant for internet browsing and have extremely small screens. I agree that the Pentium and Celeron lines should go, but putting an i3 that needs to be fan cooled in a netbook is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
[citation][nom]LuckyDucky7[/nom]Well, I guess it's about time. That name has been dragged through the mud quite thoroughly- every Celeron I've seen has been flakier than any other processor I've seen.[/citation]
Then you must never have heard of the Mendocino. That was one of the sweetest Intel Celerons ever.