Feeds

Celeron stuck in a 66MHz timewarp

Chipzilla marketing heads firmly in the sand

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Those readers who have been paying attention will remember that today's the day for the latest batch of flip-chip Celerons to be released. Incoming! Intel goes launch crazy.

Here are the fascinating facts:

Celeron 700 MHz = $192 (1Ku), 667 MHz = $170 (1Ku), 633 MHz = $136 (1Ku). All FCPGA built on 0.18 micron.

The only surprise is that the 700MHz variant (brought forward from September to combat that pesky Duron) is released at the same old slug-like 66MHz FSB when the clever money was on it being the first 100MHz FSB Celeron part.

It's not easy to see why Intel hasn't taken the opportunity to up Celeron's FSB. It's a marketing, not a technical, issue and the cash cow high-end Pentium IIIs now run in 133MHz systems, so moving Celeron to 100MHz would still leave a perceived performance gap for the marketers to get their pearly whites into.

With Timna, Chipzilla's next generation entry level chip, slipping ever further into the future, Celeron will have to make the leap to a faster system bus if Intel isn't to be left behind by Duron at the low end.

So why not now? ®

Whitepapers

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup
IT departments are embracing cloud backup, but there’s a lot you need to know before choosing a service provider. Learn all the critical things you need to know.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Build a business case: developing custom apps
Learn how to maximize the value of custom applications by accelerating and simplifying their development.
Rethinking backup and recovery in the modern data center
Combining intelligence, operational analytics, and automation to enable efficient, data-driven IT organizations using the HP ABR approach.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.