Alex said:
How could you possibly assume that?
Well, because they mentioned that it was based on the "_older_ Celeron core
using 90nm". The older 90nm Celerons are P4-based, I believe.
At 1GHZ it would be running at
1/3 of the Celeron speed. This would not compete at all with
Sempron, which is not so crippled. 1GHz Celeron with no cache would
under-perform my PIII/500.
No argument there about the performance, but I assume that Intel really
doesn't care too much about performance since it's meant for "emerging"
markets, and that it's going to rely solely on brand-name here. It seems to
be remarkably similar to the approach Microsoft is taking with its
third-world-busting Windows XP Starter Edition (XP lite); it's taking out a
lot of functionality with it, such as file and printer sharing, multiple
user logins, etc. Features that you or I would assume is just basic to any
computer system, being sacrificed completely for economy. I also think these
sacrificed basic features will also result in no one in the developed world
wanting to touch these products, thus leaving the developed world markets
available only for Intel's higher-margin existing products. I think Intel's
strategy is actually quite clever: when AMD marketed third-world Durons
starting a couple of years ago, they were desirable enough that the
developed world wanted them to a certain extent too -- they simply weren't
crippled enough.
Microsoft will market a crippled Windows XP in the third world to combat
lost revenue due to piracy. Intel will market a crippled Celeron to combat
any possible inroads that AMD and VIA might have in these markets. In both
cases, you get two very well known brand names, i.e. Intel and/or Microsoft.
Branding is often very important in the third-world where incomes are low,
but the desire to have famous western gear for bragging purposes are very
high.
Not to mention all the press about
end-of-lifing Pentium 4's Netburst architecture. On the other hand,
a 1GHz Celeron-M would run at 2/3 of the Pentium-M frequency, which
keeps it almost competitive (except for the lack of cache). And
remember intel keeps saying that Pentium-M is the wave of the future.
My money is on a cacheless Dothan chip. Imagine all those dead dies
revived by cutting the faulty 2M cache. It's a yield dream!
A Pentium-M-based Celeron would be much more competitive than a Pentium
4-based Celeron, true. But if we assume that the Pentium-M is the latest
evolution of the P6 architecture, which started with the Pentium Pro and
went upto the Pentium 3 previously, then looking back at the first Celerons
which were P6-derived (cacheless Pentium 2's running at around 300Mhz), then
they weren't very competive in that form either. P6 might be less
cache-dependent than P4, but it still needs some cache. I don't think a
cacheless P6 is going to be any more or less competitive than cacheless P4.
Now put a small amount of cache (let's say 64K) on a P6, and it will
immediately come to life, which you can't say about a P4-based system. But
at zero K cache, neither P6 nor P4 will have any life in them.
Yousuf Khan