My point is: I just don't see a future for anything lower than the Pentium
E2000 mentioned in the article - I guess we'll see if maybe some wafer-edge
chips come out at 512KB unified L2.
Now that I think of it, I haven't
seen a mention of a Core Solo desktop chip.
Now that I read aobut it, it actually makes perfectly good sense. The
Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad can hold up the high-end with quad core and
higher-end dual core systems, these "Pentium E2000" series chips can
take up the middle ground of dual-core chips and Celeron will replace
the "Core Solo" brand for single-core chips. Fairly neat market
segmentation actually.
I can't imagine that Intel is in anything other than phase-out mode
with the old Netburst core. Certainly they weren't about to switch
100% of production immediately to the new Core architecture, bu surely
they must be moving in that direction! Assuming they've got all the
bugs worked out of the process it gives them a faster processor with
lower power consumption and a smaller die to boot.
Two separate dice? I thought that went away with even later 90nm Pentium
Ds.
The 90nm Pentium D (the 800 series) were a single die, the 65nm
Pentium D (the 900 series) were two dies.
Yeah well the article said Pentium E2000 when previous indications were
that the name might go away. Celeron?... like I said I don't see a slot
for anything below the Pentium E2000.
All I see indicate that the E2000 will still be a dual-core chip. That
leaves lots of room for a single-core Celeron. The trick will be in
pricing. The E2000 series will have a small price/performance niche
to fill between the Core 2 Duo (which are already under $200 for the
lowest cost E6300 model) and the Celeron.
Keep in mind thought that the Celeron brand is mostly selling for
$50-$75. The most expensive Celeron carried at Newegg is the Celeron
356 (3.33GHz, 533MT/s bus, 512KB cache) that they list at $65. There
is definitely room for pricing between the $75 Celeron and the $150+
Core 2 Duo, but it's not huge.
As mentioned elsewhere, even Centrino has lost some of its shine - diluted
by more confusing terms for umm, "T"s, "Families" & "Platforms". I can't
imagine how your average CompUSA/BestBuy store clerk is going to handle the
kinds of questions such a multi-faceted array of choices presents to the
non-expert buyer. Too many line items confuses the channel... top to
bottom!
Definitely. With products changing as fast as they do in computers it
is tough for Intel to offer a competitive range of processors for all
price points without making things too complicated. In some ways the
Celeron line is probably where they are doing the best for this.
People pretty much all recognize the Celeron line as being the
low-cost value line where bigger numbers just mean a faster chip.
Intel should have little trouble going from a Celeron D 375 up to a
"Celeron E" 1015 or some such thing. Most people should recognize
this as a better chip and therefore worth more than the previous
Celeron, but still not as good as a Pentium. Simple, easy, fits the
price/performance model nicely.
It's everything else that gets complicated. I'm not really sure what
the answer is. Intel tried clock speed but that became an absolute
mess (especially from an OEM perspective, having 6 different chips
that were marked mostly the same was terrible!). Then they tried
model numbers, but there were just too many versions and therefore too
many numbers. Simplifying the product line, offering fewer
incremental choices, seems like an obvious solution. But then they
run the risk that AMD will outmaneuver them and offer a better
price/performance product until the next product refresh. Probably
the solution will be a combination of the both.
