First Sandy Bridge-based Celeron Chip Now Shipping

More like this
9

Comments

Comments are closed on this article

avatar

ShyLinuxGuy

March 27, 2011 at 10:22pm

I thought Intel was doing away with the Celeron name soon...Isn't the i3 supposed to be the new Celeron?

$86 per CPU @ 1.6 GHz--right now, only for OEMs

*facial expression like after you've just taken some Robitussin*

It has 2MB L3 cache, that's the only thing going for it that  I see personally. A Phenom II at this price point will definitely beat this, sooooo... it comes down to a 35W TDP as really the only reason to use this thing, as I can't think of many CPUs OTTOMH that has ~35W TDP and similar specs.

@PastorBob: I don't know how many times I've seen Athlons, even Phenoms, beat Celerons in price. Quite often. I really wonder about Intel's logic when it offers a slower CPU at the same price of a faster AMD.

avatar

Redworm

March 27, 2011 at 9:01am

And the Pentium Duel core fits snuggly in between the celeron and the I3, what is the point of this chip? When I can buy a full blown multimedia laptop with a Pentium Duel core and 16 inch screen on sale for $350.00, what is the point of this crippled celeron?

 

 

 

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

March 27, 2011 at 11:10am

The point may be the power savings you would get

Although 35 watts may seem a bit high for power savings, you should remember that this number is the maximum power draw where the average and idle power draw is much lower on average than the dual core pentiums

What I am really waiting for is the 35 watt desktop part (i3 2100T)

This will be an awesome chip for mobile ITX machines that run on batteries or inverters + batteries

 

avatar

Redworm

March 28, 2011 at 6:49am

I think you just made my point, what is this celeron for?

Only people stupid enough to buy one?, . . .  Oh.

 

avatar

Dexter243

March 27, 2011 at 8:17am

this is how they sell failed chips and cut there loss on bad chips and in a system that is not a gaming rig or ripping allot of media it will run very good

avatar

Dexter243

March 27, 2011 at 8:17am

this is how they sell failed chips and cut there loss on bad chips and in a system that is not a gaming rig or ripping allot of media it will run very good

avatar

pastorbob

March 26, 2011 at 8:18am

Celerons have always been a waste of money as far as I am concerned. The ratio of dollars saved to performance sacrificed just doesn't make them a good investment. I can't see where this particular chip does anything to change my opinion.

avatar

AETAaAS

March 26, 2011 at 4:10am

Perhaps I'm looking at this too simplistically... but no Turbo Boost, no HT and its a 1.6GHz dual core. Does it justify a 35W TDP? Even older Intel chips did better didn't they?

In my mind now, is the AMD E-350 Zacate, another 1.6GHz dual core chip and that also brings an integrated 6310 and that supposedly has a TDP of 18W. I don't understand this new Intel chip.

avatar

SilverSurferNHS

March 25, 2011 at 10:52pm

as if i3s and atoms arent't slow enough...

i suppose they must be more capable than atoms right?

i'd be interested in a benchmark article of the Celeron "comeback" 

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.
Don't have an account? Join Now.