News
 

Bookmark and Share

(10) 

Introduced in April, 1998, Intel Celeron central processing units (CPUs) have adopter every major micro-architecture Intel introduced: the P6, Netburst and Core 2, but not Nehalem. It looks like the Celeron may be living its final days.

The new 2010 family of microprocessors – based on Arrandale, Clarkdale, Clarksfield and Lynnfield designs – are available at various price-points and under different brands, including Core i as well as Pentium. But the Celeron microprocessors, which were meant to power affordable systems, are still based on the Core 2 micro-architecture. Based on the desktop roadmaps seen by X-bit labs, Celeron chips are not projected to receive Clarkdale/Nehalem or Sandy Bridge cores. Essentially, this means that once Core 2-micro-architecture chips are gone, the Celeron family is as well.

At present Celeron-branded desktop chips are based on Wolfdale 1M (45nm) and Conroe-L (65 nm) designs, which are two and four years old, respectively. The share of such microprocessors among all desktop chips that Intel ships was slightly higher than 6% in Q2 2010, will be around 5% this quarter and will shrink to about 4% in the fourth quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of next year, according to sources with knowledge of the matter. In general, Celeron microprocessors have even smaller unit share than Atom-branded chips even in their stronghold: the desktop CPU market.

In the mobile segment the situation seems to be very similar. The share of Atom microprocessors is growing and the share of Celeron-branded chips is declining. Back in June ’10 Intel introduced its first dual-core Atom microprocessors designed for netbooks. The chipmaker promised that dual-core Atom chips would enable more responsive computing environments for both desktops and netbooks. Meanwhile, pricing of dual-core Atom for desktops is higher compared to the original chips and is comparable to higher-performance Celeron products. Moreover, according to DigiTimes web-site, the rumour has it that Intel reportedly plans to phase out Celeron processors and let Atom CPUs taking over the entry-level notebook segment.

Intel’s product line these days is somewhat overcrowded in general. The nomenclature attributed to Core i7/i5/i3 microprocessors is hardly understood by those, who consider between them as well as Pentium, Celeron or Atom-based products. Eliminating Celeron brand will naturally make Atom chips a default option for low-cost low-power systems, but the gap in performance between Atom and Pentium will naturally be gigantic thanks to the fact that the latter utilizes state-of-the-art micro-architectures.

Intel said it does not comment on rumours or speculations.

Tags: Intel, Celeron, Pentium, Core, Wolfdale, Conroe, Arrandale, Clarkdale, Clarksfield, Lynnfield, Nehalem

Discussion

Comments currently: 10
Discussion started: 07/08/10 04:43:36 PM
Latest comment: 07/14/10 10:30:25 AM

[1-10]

1. 
You are wrong when you say that there are no Celeron branded Arrandale processors. In fact, the Intel Celeron P4500 and U3400 are just that. I suggest you look at the following URLs and correct your story.

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49157
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47552
0 0 [Posted by: flibbertigibbet  | Date: 07/08/10 04:43:36 PM]
Reply

2. 
You both seem to be right.

The products you posted on the intel site are both mobile platform sockets, and the article specifically mentions the desktop branding of celeron as well as the desktop roadmaps.

The correct course of action would be to specify the desktop platform more explicitly in the article.
0 0 [Posted by: BillionPa  | Date: 07/08/10 09:27:09 PM]
Reply

3. 
"Conroe-L (32nm)"?
0 0 [Posted by: Marburg U  | Date: 07/08/10 10:53:52 PM]
Reply

4. 
When you want to spread FUD, you do not point out the details. Even though less than 20 secs searching would tell you there are Celeron versions(like on Arrandale), they purposely chose not to reveal the detail. Of course most of the masses are too busy with their lives and will have to believe what a "reputable" site has to say.

Not singling out this article, but that has been the increasing trend for Xbitlabs, unfortunately.
0 0 [Posted by: DavidC1  | Date: 07/09/10 12:17:54 AM]
Reply

5. 
Yep there are already two desktop based Nehalem Celerons. probably will increase by time, as Intel usually sells better valued CPU`s first and only then introduces low end cpu`s. Doubtful that Intel would drop out of sub $100 desktop market. As G6950 sell for about 95-100$, next gen Atom`s will be too weak even for old celerons, and you can`t buy separate Atom cpu`s just embedded in motherboards.
0 0 [Posted by: Nameisis  | Date: 07/09/10 01:07:48 AM]
Reply

6. 
On second thought, this might be good for Intel. It makes segmentation far less complex.
0 0 [Posted by: DavidC1  | Date: 07/09/10 01:20:16 AM]
Reply

7. 
not that it will make the market segment less complex, it would also be good for Intel to reintroduce the usual brand name to their processors, such as PentiumII, III and 4 , I'd like to see a Pentium 5 as a new brand name for instance Core i8 Pentium 5, that would sound great and attractive and less complicated
0 0 [Posted by: mike1101  | Date: 07/09/10 05:35:57 PM]
Reply

8. 
Atom just simply has no match to Celeron, because Atom its self has difficult matching CPU 6~7 years ago, except power consumption.
0 0 [Posted by: grishnakh  | Date: 07/10/10 11:19:00 PM]
Reply

9. 
You may see again celeron CPUs on server roadmaps . Check out this CPU: Celeron G1101, on intel website: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43523
So, Celeron is still amoung us.
0 0 [Posted by: Xhibit  | Date: 07/12/10 05:24:06 AM]
Reply

10. 
Would it be so big deal if Celeron brand would disappear? Yep, cause in that case intel couldn't salvage all that chip byproduct crap and sell it to eager customers. Or simpler, while there's market for Celerons intel will produce it.

Someone mentioned that Atoms couldn't match 7yr obsolete CPUs. Well, that's true if you narrow your view to gaming and workstation market. But atoms are not designed for work, they're more like as that 80's cheap taiwanese pocket game gadgetry that every kid had in it's pocket to kill some spare time.

And to be honest that G1101 couldnt match some cheapest AthlonII X2 no matter all those virtual cores when it came down to price/performance ratio and price and availability are also discutable.
0 0 [Posted by: OmegaHuman  | Date: 07/14/10 10:30:25 AM]
Reply

[1-10]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Monday, July 28, 2014

6:02 pm | Microsoft’s Mobile Strategy Seem to Fail: Sales of Lumia and Surface Remain Low. Microsoft Still Cannot Make Windows a Popular Mobile Platform

12:11 pm | Intel Core i7-5960X “Haswell-E” De-Lidded: Twelve Cores and Alloy-Based Thermal Interface. Intel Core i7-5960X Uses “Haswell-EP” Die, Promises Good Overclocking Potential

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

10:40 pm | ARM Preps Second-Generation “Artemis” and “Maya” 64-Bit ARMv8-A Offerings. ARM Readies 64-Bit Cores for Non-Traditional Applications

7:38 pm | AMD Vows to Introduce 20nm Products Next Year. AMD’s 20nm APUs, GPUs and Embedded Chips to Arrive in 2015

4:08 am | Microsoft to Unify All Windows Operating Systems for Client PCs. One Windows OS will Power PCs, Tablets and Smartphones