"Celeron processors are the second-highest selling PC processors in the world "

[bluemax]

SMELLERON!

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Soviet
I totally didnt think that was true. O well good job to intel for selling so much of a pretty bad processor they must be doing somthing right.

When the difference between the Intel market share and AMD&the rest market share is so big, you should assume that the first and second seeling processors are Intel.
However I assumed the Celerons will outsell the P4. Well, maybe only by number and not by value...

Calin

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Megatomic
Many more WOULD game if they had a computer with more power than their OEM shltbox. Or their kids would...

You need to keep in mind that us enthusiasts/gamers are a TINY piece of the big picture.

Exactly. eg. Out of all of my close colleagues at work (30?) only 1 person actually does any 3D gaming. And that person does it rarely nowadays.

Well, I hope you weren't calling me a UT jockey because I actually suck at the game. Nor am I a teenager. So you made an assumption and you generalized which signals that you're speaking out of emotion. I understand. But sometimes I enjoy playing games just for the soul sake of stressing out the hardware. I agree 3D gaming is only a tiny part of the picture; computers weren't made for games in the first place. But still I find it hard to contemplate the reasoning of justifying a Celeron CPU when we all know the Durons dominated that market. I used to own a Celeron myself , actually, before I learned I could get a XP1800 for 80 dollars. And a year ago I didn't know a damn thing about AMD or what they made. Let me tell you the improvement going from a 700 dollar dell Celeron PC with Extreme Graphics compared to a 300-400 dollar set up with a 1800 AMD and MX4 GF4 was a lot better in many more ways than just 3D gaming.

I know I trailed off from your thesis saying Celerons are good enough for the every day user. Which is true. The everyday user does not build their own computer and they tend to buy computers from companies they know they can trust. Like Dell for instance. It's a shame. But their is no argument comparing a Celeron to a Duron, or the fact that the Celeron is just a poor performer for the asking price compared to the competition.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Regs
"--I don't 3D game on it though, but then again, neither does 90% of the population.--"
That own a computer?

Yes. Not everyone is a teenage male UT jockey.

...or middle-aged male UT jockey? Or old male UT jockey? Or the rare beast woman UT jockey? Let's not forget the WC3 emperors here...
There are tons and tons oif gamers. If there weren't, ATi and NVidia wouldn't be so fueled in their R&D.
90% of people buying new $500 computers just wonder why they can't game.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Regs

I know I trailed off from your thesis saying Celerons are good enough for the every day user. Which is true. The everyday user does not build their own computer and they tend to buy computers from companies they know they can trust. Like Dell for instance. It's a shame. But their is no argument comparing a Celeron to a Duron, or the fact that the Celeron is just a poor performer for the asking price compared to the competition.

How is wanting a pre-built home desktop with good warranty (for the whole machine, and not just individual parts) and phone-help for a reasonable price a shame?

Indeed, for the n00bs I usually recommend they buy something an IBM or something. If they just want a basic machine, I recommend one, within their budget. If they want a faster gaming machine, then I recommend one, within their budget.

In truth, I just about never recommend P4 Celerons, but if there is a good deal on a Celeron and the rest of the machine is reasonable well-built, I don't argue with it.

As for AMD, sure the Durons are faster, but when was the last time you saw a Dell Duron desktop for sale? Going to a mom&pop store to save $100 on a Duron machine is often more trouble than its worth, esp. for a n00b who has little interest in 3D gaming. Are you prepared to help them out in terms of troubleshooting when that mom&pop store refuses to give tech support after 6 pm? I'm not.

Originally posted by: Cerb
There are tons and tons oif gamers. If there weren't, ATi and NVidia wouldn't be so fueled in their R&D.
90% of people buying new $500 computers just wonder why they can't game.

There are gamers and then there are gamers. Did you know that women actually outnumber men for gaming? The reason for this is that there are ton of women who play stuff like card games online, etc. and that definitely does not require a P4 3.4 and Radeon 9800 Pro.

My point is that those who need hardcore speed at home (ie. the 3D gamers) represent a tiny segment of the population. Even recent games like the VERY popular The Sims runs great on a P4 Celeron.

BTW, AFAIK ATI and nVidia make the majority of their profits from lower end video cards and chipsets. And right now the best selling video chipset AFAIK is Intel Extreme.

 

[xts3]

People are cost conscious and don't care about a performance if they can't notice a measurable difference, and has no effect on their real use satisfaction, only gamers or people that do machine taxing work care about performance. Its perfectly reasonable to expect that you sell stuff in mass quantity only when the price is right. Nvidia and ATI target the mainstream to make $$$, they sell more 5200's and 5700's, 9600's, etc, then they will 5900/9800+ easily!

Look at wholesaler and OEM inventory listings and you'll see the 100's if not 1000's of cheap vid cards and AGP integrated motherboards they keep in stock compared to the high performance stuff, the ratio is easily over 10:1 for a lot of stuff.

Not to mention: The average "gaming" lifetime of a computer is 2 years, its expensive to be a PC gamer because every year or 2 you have to fork out $300+ in upgrades (or more if you upgrade a lot), if not more when they change form factors and power supplies, ram and chipsets. Over the past 7 years I've been through over 7 computers, no regular person price concscious person would have the time or money to spend on something that doesn't do anything for them psychologically or benefit them somehow in terms of return on investment.

Todays P4 3.0 GHZ systems only about twice as fast as A pentium 1.2Ghz P3 for gaming and thats if you have a good graphics card, we've only seen a 2x increase in performance over the last 2 years, you get 50% less performance for per MHZ out of the P4 architecture currently, if you take everything into consideration, what would older cpu's performance be on new chipsets with the latest ram? how close would that "old stuff" be to the latest and greatest in performance?