Intel May Axe Atom Brand, Pentium and Celeron Names Live On



+ Add a Comment


Gordon: Atom, your Maximum PC name is Pinto.

Atom: Why "Pinto"?

Gordon: Why not?






For those suggesting it, I doubt it would be a good idea to rebrand Pentium & Celeron CPUs under the "Core" line: their low-end performance will tarnish the other Core-line CPUs. The names of these low-end chips doesn't really matter anyways because the only people that buy PCs with Pentium or Celeron CPUs inside either (1)don't know what a CPU is/does (or barely know how to check their email), (2)don't have the money, so they don't really care what they end up with, or (3)combination of both 1 and 2.



Rebranding crappy chips will just tarnish a new brand. It's a stop-gap measure.

Each time I use my old Atom powered netbook I wonder how the fools at Intel who green-lit this POS chip sleep at night. I guess I should know, since the employees in Brave New World who dumped alcohol on fetuses (to retard them) didn't have insomnia as a result of their gruesome act.



This is exactly why they are re-branding, comparing the incoming atom chips with the Atoms of old is like comparing a geo-metro and a corvette.

But hopefully you will be smart enough to read up on the benchmarks when they come out.



The new Atom chips will continue to suck, no matter what they are rebranded as. They might be superior to the Atom chips of old but that isn't saying very much; when you aim at the ground, it is hard to miss.



They probably sleep quite well knowing they did their job by selling you a POS product.



Pentium, Atom and Celeron exist to fill a low end market that Intel wants. They want to dominate every market. They don't care that these chips mostly suck, they just want to be able to make the maximum amount of money.

I get a lot of customers that purchase Celeron and Pentium based laptops. They don't care that it isn't that fastest. They care that they can use it and that it costs $350 at Costco or Best Buy.

Intel won't stop making budget chips as long as it is profitable. I was under the impression the Atom line is undergoing a major rehaul. I am excited to see what these new Bay Trail Atoms can do. Yes, they aren't the most powerful, but I want PCs that can do specific tasks effectively with as little electrify as possible.



Which is why AMD needs to keep pushing its APU line as even the crappiest of APU-based laptops beats the tar out of any Celeron/Pentium/Atom one.

Any computer with one of those 3 intel chips inside of it is a lemon.



Have you looked at the Pentium line? Last I looked, it seemed like a rebranding of the i3 line. Something like the original celeries were almost exactly pentiums (well not the first gen that didn't have any L2).

The celeries I've seen I'll admit are a joke: one core? Who sells one core anymore (besides Intel and AMD). I'm not sure AMD really wants to compete on [CPU] price/performance with the pentiums (no comment on how much it costs to match an AMD APU with pentium+discrete GPU).



Atom = Suckage.

I've been looking around trying to decide whether to build a custom NAS or buy a prefab. I found a few that I was considering but they were all crippled with an Atom processor. I don't care if it is a dual-core chip. Twice nothing is still nothing.



I think Digitimes is misinterpreting some details that have already previously leaked. The Atom "Bay Trail T" from earlier in the year was missing from a report of actual Bay Trail chips. Instead, there were Bay Trail I, M, and D chips. The I chips were for tablets and phones. The M and D chips were given Celeron and Pentium names. (Bay Trail itself is the chipset, not the Atom code name, I think?)

So the old Atom chips, by name we were expecting them, they were gone: or at least not on the list. Many others were being called Pentium and Celeron, even though they don't share the design of a Intel Core chip. Only a few were remaining, for smartphones and tablets.

The alternative is that they additionally have stumbled into some leak that Intel is axing the remaining Bay Trail I's as well as actually axing the Bay Trail T's, or that they are really referring to *after* Bay Trail. While that fits with the article (I read it this morning), I don't really think it is likely: especially given the already sour news from Intel's stock, and their cut back estimates for the rest of the year... now would just be a really bad time to let that information go.



Maybe they should find the people who gave them the idea for the x86SX chips and the original Celeron. The old SX chips originally were DX chips with bad(and shorted out) math coprocessors. The first Celerons with P2 chips with bad cache(that was again shorted out).

Intel needs one of those people to help them repackage the Atom so cheapskates will fall in love with them (again).

Here's an Idea, relabel them Core x1 chips. or maybe Core x1.5.


Paper Jam

Why cling to the Celeron brand? It has always been the crappy under powered line that you really would rather have upgraded. If the Core iX naming scheme is going to be around for awhile longer they should just use that. The i3's for the entry level chips, etc., etc... Pentiums and Celerons and Atoms and Core iX, and whatever else they come up with is just muddying the waters and diluting their brand.



Yeah, I think Gordon's been saying that they should try something like "Core i2" since that series has always been popular.



Based on that logic they should have axed Pentium and Celeron long before there even was an Atom processor.



the pentium and the celeron are hardly "safe". They're the crap chips that old people buy because they don't know the newer flagship line names.



The Pentium and Celeron brands are "safe" in the sense that there's no rumored name change.