- Status
BulkZerker
Distinguished
- Apr 19, 2010
- 846
- 8
- 18,995
Didn't I hear this news on here like a year ago? Intel has been trying to kill Celeron for years now but it just isn't going to happen.
Actually he's right. Because it does NOT matter if you have a GPU that can play TF2 on a netbook because netbooks aren't meant for that. They are made to be low cost ultra portable computers. Atom alone consumes less power than Fusion and Tegra is aimed at a completely different sector and using it in the comparison is like comparing an OLD G3 mac to a P3 Windows computer. Or a rally car to a trophy truck.
That said the Atom is the new Celeron. They are turds. (Own one, really don't care for it)
sonofliberty08 :
sounds like an apple fanboi said that "BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, i buy apple...because i'm creative" 
the AMD Fusion & Nvidia Tegra mop the floor of Atom from top to bottom
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...570932_154988184566530_553057_687245677_n.jpg
the AMD Fusion & Nvidia Tegra mop the floor of Atom from top to bottom
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...570932_154988184566530_553057_687245677_n.jpg
Actually he's right. Because it does NOT matter if you have a GPU that can play TF2 on a netbook because netbooks aren't meant for that. They are made to be low cost ultra portable computers. Atom alone consumes less power than Fusion and Tegra is aimed at a completely different sector and using it in the comparison is like comparing an OLD G3 mac to a P3 Windows computer. Or a rally car to a trophy truck.
That said the Atom is the new Celeron. They are turds. (Own one, really don't care for it)
kawininjazx
Distinguished
- May 22, 2008
- 1,372
- 0
- 19,460
[citation][nom]sonofliberty08[/nom]at the day when Athlon64 shine, the Sempron can out performance the Pentium4, let alone the celeron[/citation]
Yea right, if you are comparing a socket 754 or 939 Sempron vs. a late 478 or 775 pentium 4, there is no comparison. Semprons are slow, I work on PCs all day long, I know.
Yea right, if you are comparing a socket 754 or 939 Sempron vs. a late 478 or 775 pentium 4, there is no comparison. Semprons are slow, I work on PCs all day long, I know.
captaincharisma
Glorious
- Oct 13, 2004
- 10,963
- 76
- 45,290
The ATOM was a great processor for it's purpose. It was a great netbook and nettop processor. AMD and VIA's offerings are newer and fresher, but still consume more power as CPUs (dual core ATOM uses just 8W). ATOM is a whole different species than Pentium and Celeron. It's home was for ultra low powered small form factor devices. With Intel completely redesigning the ATOM, it will no doubt move to the tablet and phone land leaving AMD's and VIA's offerings in the dust while doing so. Let's face it, the netbook is a dying form factor and nettops never took off. VIA and AMD are extremely late to a party that will soon be over and have no place to put their low end processors soon. It is AMD and VIA that will either have to kill off their low end processor line or reinvent them for the tablet and mobile phone world. Let's face it, a 17W CPU is NOT going into a tablet or phone.
As for getting rid of Celeron, it is about time. The Ivy Bridge performs so well at such low power that Celeron no longer has a place. If Ultra Mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs run at 17W, then ultra mobile Ivy Bridge CPUs will be around 12W. That means you'll be able to build a Pentium based Ivy Bridge that could take over the very low end and fit in the netbook form factor and/or ultra cheap laptop and NAS form factor. Very low power devices that still perform well enough to do any task you want. Celeron really has no place as it would be too cheap and not offer anything compelling. Ivy Bridge basically raises the bottom up pretty substantially while maintaining a low cost.
As for getting rid of Celeron, it is about time. The Ivy Bridge performs so well at such low power that Celeron no longer has a place. If Ultra Mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs run at 17W, then ultra mobile Ivy Bridge CPUs will be around 12W. That means you'll be able to build a Pentium based Ivy Bridge that could take over the very low end and fit in the netbook form factor and/or ultra cheap laptop and NAS form factor. Very low power devices that still perform well enough to do any task you want. Celeron really has no place as it would be too cheap and not offer anything compelling. Ivy Bridge basically raises the bottom up pretty substantially while maintaining a low cost.
kawininjazx
Distinguished
- May 22, 2008
- 1,372
- 0
- 19,460
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]LOL yea but you needed to upgrade to the latest version of windows to get the full performance[/citation]
What are you talking about? Those are windows XP CPUs. Any one of those will run like crap on Windows 7. I don't understand what you mean?
What are you talking about? Those are windows XP CPUs. Any one of those will run like crap on Windows 7. I don't understand what you mean?
dalauder
Splendid
- Aug 30, 2010
- 4,361
- 187
- 23,490
[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]I think you're missing the point. Low cost CPUs won't be phased out. They'll just be named "Pentium" since Intel doesn't need two low-end brand names.
sonofliberty08
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2009
- 658
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]KawiNinjaZX[/nom]Yea right, if you are comparing a socket 754 or 939 Sempron vs. a late 478 or 775 pentium 4, there is no comparison. Semprons are slow, I work on PCs all day long, I know.[/citation]
Sempron are slow, but Celeron are slower
Sempron are slow, but Celeron are slower
sonofliberty08
Distinguished
- Mar 17, 2009
- 658
- 0
- 18,980
[citation][nom]BulkZerker[/nom]Actually he's right. Because it does NOT matter if you have a GPU that can play TF2 on a netbook because netbooks aren't meant for that. They are made to be low cost ultra portable computers. Atom alone consumes less power than Fusion and Tegra is aimed at a completely different sector and using it in the comparison is like comparing an OLD G3 mac to a P3 Windows computer. Or a rally car to a trophy truck.
That said the Atom is the new Celeron. They are turds. (Own one, really don't care for it)[/citation]
the slow atom cpu use less power, but the chipset are power hog, the complete atom platform draw power not less than the fusion platform, and is slower than the fusion alot, thats why the atom base netbook are junk, and they ruin the netbook market since the day they release, even the nano work better than the atom, and they try to bribe the benchmarker to make atom looks better......
but it doesn't matter, fanboi will like it anyway
That said the Atom is the new Celeron. They are turds. (Own one, really don't care for it)[/citation]
the slow atom cpu use less power, but the chipset are power hog, the complete atom platform draw power not less than the fusion platform, and is slower than the fusion alot, thats why the atom base netbook are junk, and they ruin the netbook market since the day they release, even the nano work better than the atom, and they try to bribe the benchmarker to make atom looks better......
but it doesn't matter, fanboi will like it anyway
eddieroolz
Splendid
- Sep 6, 2008
- 7,057
- 0
- 25,860
I simply don't see a market in our developed economies for a Celeron. Pentiums are quite damn cheap and very good for the regular users.
spat55
Distinguished
- Jun 4, 2012
- 2,175
- 0
- 20,160
Oh forgot to say, maybe intel should just go to mid to high end and only have one low end kind. AMD seem to be much cheaper in the low to mid end of things but can't compete in the high end, but maybe this is Intel's plans, to kill off AMD then they can charge whatever they like
- Status
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram