Shelton??

[darko21]

It appears to be a cut down Celeron from the past, clocking at 1GHz, using 90 nanometre process technology and with no, that's right no, level two cache.

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17790" target="_new"> link </A>

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.

 

[P4Man]

ouch.. ! are they trying to beat Covington's record of being the worst performing cpu of all times ? Seriously, that chip ought to be slower than a 500 MHz VIA C3 and feel even a lot slower for most things !

Now, I can understand there is a market even for ultralow performing cpu's, but I have a hard time understanding how the removal of even a tiny cache would help anyone, including intel.. its not like a 128 Kb cache 1 Ghz netburst celeron would threaten the P4 or any other cpu for that matter, nor can i see how it would matter a damn thing on diesize/cost. Such a beast would make a Geode or Crusoe look like a low power ultra high performance chip !

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Crashman]

Probably about the speed of a C3 1000! Think about it, the C3 1000 is a bit weaker than the K6-3 450. The Celeron 300 without cache was about as powerful as a Pentium 166MMX. So we're talking maybe Celeron 500 performance...not C3 500 performance.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[P4Man]

> the C3 1000 is a bit weaker than the K6-3 450

Hmm. yeah, I just looked up some benches, and though performance jumps up (well, rarely) and down (quite often), it seems I had forgotten the C3 was SUCH a terrible performer.

Still, the cacheless celeron won't be any better, and I expect it to feel even consirably more sluggish (cache starved cpu's like Celerons often feel even slower/less responsive than benchmarks would indicate).

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

 

[Spitfire_x86]

If it's based on P6 rather than NetBurst, then it may not be that bad.

Who knows, Intel maybe planning to make this CPU for PDA or Tablet PC

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>

 

[darko21]

Yes if based of the p2 - p3 or p-pro core 1000mhz no cache would be a dog but might find some use in developing countries. If it's using netburst 1000mhz with zero cache would preform horrible. I'd imagine you would need an OS like win98 or win ce. think how bad a p4 @ 1.3 giz was now remove all the cache that design so loves or needs and knock of 300mhz that would have to be a slug.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.