• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Intel Plans Dual Core Celerons.

"Intel Readies Dual-Core Microprocessors for $35 - $50"

:eek:

What's nice about this is AMD will probably have to match on the low end. $35 X2 AM2 CPUs would be good too. :D
 
Sounds like further neutered Allendales. If that's really the case, they're still going to be (comparatively) screamers when o/ced :eek:
 
Trombe said:
Sounds like further neutered Allendales. If that's really the case, they're still going to be (comparatively) screamers when o/ced :eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah 1/4 the cache processors aren't out of the ordinary for Intel, Northwood, Prescott and Cedar Mill based Celerons were all 1/4 of their native die in cache amounts.
 
Well the problem I see is that the C2D seems to be somewhat cache dependent. And as you go to the lower values of cache performance losses will be rather significant. But for 35-50$ I guess you can't complain. It would be great if they made boards with more sockets now. Imagine having 10 of those in one machine. $350 for 20 cores, not a bad deal.
 
Yeah, ever since Netburst, Intel has relied on deeper pipelines, which require more cache. The Pentium M decendents are much better than Netburst in "cache-thirstiness", but the reduced cache still badly cripples modern day Celerons.
Just the same, if we can get a 1.8 GHz dual core celeron for $50, and crank it up to 3.0+GHz, I would not cry.
 
The core/core2 series pipelines really aren't that much longer than the A64s. A64 and core1 are both 12 stage, and the core2's is 14 stage. The reason they're still more cache dependent than AMD is that AMDs on die memory controller gives lower latency and the easiest way for intel to fix it in the short term was to add a larger cache. Since intel is leading AMD in die shrinks this approach also plays to thier strength although the do have designs with ondie controllers in the pipeline that will be out eventually.
 
DanNeely said:
The reason they're still more cache dependent than AMD is that AMDs on die memory controller gives lower latency and the easiest way for intel to fix it in the short term was to add a larger cache.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. link

So now the celerons are going to have 256kb per core? That's too low, even for $35. Don't think of it as "It's got half the price of the 1MB counterparts...not bad at all". It's more like, "Would you pay an extra $30 on your $400 build and get an e21x0 that does 1.3x performance per clock?"
Here's a review that shows how already crippled the single core 512kb celeron is. link

The E21x0's will remain the best price/performance providers, as they aren't significantly slower than their 2MB counterparts, yet $50 cheaper.
 
Looks like sciencemark was giving misleading results. my bad, as i was only looking at the chart.
This also explains why AMD benefits more from higher frequency RAM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top