Intel Corporation introduced Tuesday new Intel Celeron M processors with boosted performance aimed at the market of thin-and-light notebooks. The chips are made using 90nm process technology and may substitute the company’s older-generation Pentium M products that offer the same specifications.
The Intel Celeron M processors 350 and 360 are the first standard-voltage Intel Celeron M processors built on Intel’s 90nm process technology. They run at frequencies of 1.30GHz and 1.40GHz, respectively, and feature 400MHz Quad Pumped Bus, 1MB of L2 cache – almost double the cache of the previous-generation Intel Celeron M processors.
Previously Intel offered Celeron M 340, 330, 320 and 310 processors clocked at 1.50GHz, 1.40GHz, 1.30GHz and 1.20GHz processors with 512KB of L2 cache. All these chips have been made using 130nm process technology.
Earlier this year sources close to Intel Corp. indicated that the Santa Clara, California-based chipmaker would only start to transit the Celeron M lineup to the 90nm process technology in the fourth quarter of the year. While the firm decided to speed up the transition, it now ships lower-speed SKUs compared to what was indicated to ship in the Q4 2004.
Previously it was expected that the Celeron M products made using 90nm technology process will be available at 1.40GHz, 1.50GHz and 1.60GHz in Q4 2004.
In 1000 unit quantities, the Intel Celeron M 350 and 360 products are priced at $107 and $134, respectively.
Comments currently:
6
Discussion started: 08/31/04 03:18:35 PM
Latest comment: 11/30/06 02:32:19 AM
Expand all threads |
Collapse all threads
[1-4]
1.
I wonder if intel have anything up their sleve more innovative that just throwing cache (cash?) at the problem?
srg
[
Posted by: srg86
|
Date: 08/31/04 03:18:35 PM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
Yeah, I agree.
I seams that today’s processors are build based on cache and not their architecture.
And also doesn’t this processor compete against their .13 counter parts (1MB cache) despite the lower clock speed?
[
Posted by: I
|
Date: 09/01/04 02:26:50 AM]
2.
What's wrong with more cache? What? You want less? Because it really costs next to nothing to add more cache.
Celeron-Ms are just Pentium-Ms without power saving features and an added latency in the cache to make them "budget".
The Pentium-M/Celeron-M are based on the old P6 core (PII/PIII/Celeron), why waste money on making a new design, when the old one is good and able! (do things with less power consumption).
They do have something in their sleeves...Just because you don't hear about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You'll see Intel's 2nd generation dual-core being the "next new thing". It'll likely to be based on the Pentium-M, but with major redesign for proper dual-core capability.
Their first generation is gonna be a joke. Only made to respond to AMD's dual-core. Two mid-end P4 cores slapped together...Its no better than current Xeon setups...Well, maybe you only need 1 heatsink. :)
[
Posted by: 22
|
Date: 09/01/04 03:31:28 AM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)
- collapse thread
I don’t know but more cache is only a way to make some, underperformance processors look better. It's a way to fool a problem, the problem of being unable to bring anything new (or faster).
I am not saying I want less cache, or less cache is bad, look at amd processors for example regarding to cache, and don’t tell me it's because of the integrated memory controller because AMD XP doesn’t have it and barton cores aren’t that faster over tbred ones.
I don’t see graphic cards saying they have 16KB cache or something like that. Constant innovation is what you seen in order to ACHIVE MORE PERFORMANCE without disclosing FEATURES.
[
Posted by: I
|
Date: 09/01/04 07:18:09 AM]
3.
Thank you for your information on the celeron M processors, I was wondering how they perform though, since the clock speed is low, how does the celeron M processor compare to intel pentium 3.0 GHz or AMD 3000+
[
Posted by: stevo
|
Date: 05/28/05 08:34:09 AM]
4.
pls differentiate between a P4 & a celeron and a celeron & centrino in terms of versatility & functionality
[
Posted by: Ovy
|
Date: 11/30/06 02:32:19 AM]
[1-4]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
Print article
Send link to friend
Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
Post to Slashdot
