intel releases new ulv celerons

[R0H1T]

agree and that they now supposedly disappeared from he list again is pretty telling. maybe this is some viral marketing trick to check if they can sell an atom for such a price or everyone is just laughing at that price, which I am. I'm pretty sure Kabini performs better (of course with higher power usage) and hence they can hardly charge like double the price.

Not to mention there'll be no takers for them in the ultramobile(tablet) segment at these astronomical prices !

 

[Exophase]

It has to be atom. Same NXXXX naming scheme.

Pure marketing, doesn't mean anything.

Same core vs clockspeed ratios (1.6 quad, 2.0 dual).

Specific Silvermont model details, including clock speeds vs core count, haven't even been revealed. And there's no quad core Atom until Silvermont.

Silvermont will also have turbo boost, I don't think Silvermont models resembling these specs and price would omit it.

Same cache as the new atom.

There are existing ULV Celerons with 1MB and 2MB of L3 cache.

It makes no sense at all for it to be ivb. 4 ivb cores @ 1.6GHz and a gpu will not fit into that power envelope without some outrageously costly binning. There is no way. Not even 4 haswell cores would fit into that TDP.

TDP hasn't even been revealed. The only thing we know is they're ULV, that alone doesn't set a limit on power consumption.

But they could probably fit 4x1.6GHz IB cores in 25W.

Not to mention they would have to all have HT disabled which is also stupid.

That's consistent with every other SB and IB based Celeron and a bunch of other processor models.

There's no chance that Intel would silently release Silvermont several months ahead of schedule. They wouldn't reveal prices several months ahead of release either. It's possible these were leaked far in advance.. but then it'd also be possible that they're completely fake to begin with.

I'm pretty sure Kabini performs better (of course with higher power usage) and hence they can hardly charge like double the price.

I'm pretty confident that a quad-core 1.6GHz, 2MB L3 IB-based Celeron would thrash 1.5GHz Kabini in CPU tasks and probably still beat the 2GHz one most of the time.

 

[beginner99]

I'm pretty confident that a quad-core 1.6GHz, 2MB L3 IB-based Celeron would thrash 1.5GHz Kabini in CPU tasks and probably still beat the 2GHz one most of the time.

I agree if they are IB-based.

 

[Exophase]

I agree if they are IB-based.

Well your theory that they leaked them to see how people would react to Atom pricing like this is kind of hard to believe when the leaks don't say anything about being Atom..

 

[aigomorla]

i really dont recommend u guys thinking about the 1.6ghz quadcore unless u needed a cpu which was going to do a lot of Virtual low processes required enviorments.

While having a quad is nice... not cap'd at 1.6ghz..

I have an intel NUC... if i was thinking of anything ulv on that line it would most likely be the 2.0ghz as i feel you need a Xghz of raw cpu performance over more cores in some applications.

I'm pretty confident that a quad-core 1.6GHz, 2MB L3 IB-based Celeron would thrash 1.5GHz Kabini in CPU tasks and probably still beat the 2GHz one most of the time.

im also pretty confident that 1.6ghz quadcore will also run into problems with 1080p 10-bit mkv's.

If u guys are interested in ulv's.... my advice is the fastest core over more cores in this area since the ghz are so pitifully low, and every last ghz does count when this low.

 

[VirtualLarry]

i really dont recommend u guys thinking about the 1.6ghz quadcore unless u needed a cpu which was going to do a lot of Virtual low processes required enviorments.

While having a quad is nice... not cap'd at 1.6ghz..

I have an intel NUC... if i was thinking of anything ulv on that line it would most likely be the 2.0ghz as i feel you need a Xghz of raw cpu performance over more cores in some applications.


im also pretty confident that 1.6ghz quadcore will also run into problems with 1080p 10-bit mkv's.

If u guys are interested in ulv's.... my advice is the fastest core over more cores in this area since the ghz are so pitifully low, and every last ghz does count when this low.

Comparing my AMD Sempron 1.8Ghz single-core laptop (now sold), with my E-350 1.6Ghz dual-cores - I agree completely.

 

[SiliconWars]

Not one review of Kabini agrees with you, Jarred and Anand clearly state that the chip feels snappy and is capable of running dual 1080p video with ease.

 

[Exophase]

Not one review of Kabini agrees with you, Jarred and Anand clearly state that the chip feels snappy and is capable of running dual 1080p video with ease.

It has hardware acceleration for it. But so would a 1.6GHz quad core IB-based (or Silvermont-based for that matter) Celeron, even though it only supports "HD Graphics." So I don't think aigomorla's claim is right unless 10-bit completely breaks acceleration.

 

[wlee15]

Not one review of Kabini agrees with you, Jarred and Anand clearly state that the chip feels snappy and is capable of running dual 1080p video with ease.

Note that there's no current support for hardware acceleration of 10-bit h.264 video files (in practice 10-bit x264 files) so it will have to fall back onto software decoding. It'll be an interesting test to see how well Kabini and Silvermont as well as low power Ivy Bridge and Haswell handle 10-bit x264.

 

[Remobz]

i really dont recommend u guys thinking about the 1.6ghz quadcore unless u needed a cpu which was going to do a lot of Virtual low processes required enviorments.

While having a quad is nice... not cap'd at 1.6ghz..

I have an intel NUC... if i was thinking of anything ulv on that line it would most likely be the 2.0ghz as i feel you need a Xghz of raw cpu performance over more cores in some applications.


im also pretty confident that 1.6ghz quadcore will also run into problems with 1080p 10-bit mkv's.

If u guys are interested in ulv's.... my advice is the fastest core over more cores in this area since the ghz are so pitifully low, and every last ghz does count when this low.

http://ark.intel.com/products/42772/...Hz-800-MHz-FSB

I have an Intel Celeron Processor E3400 and I wonder how much better these chips would be?

 

[Sheep221]

i really dont recommend u guys thinking about the 1.6ghz quadcore unless u needed a cpu which was going to do a lot of Virtual low processes required enviorments.

While having a quad is nice... not cap'd at 1.6ghz..

I have an intel NUC... if i was thinking of anything ulv on that line it would most likely be the 2.0ghz as i feel you need a Xghz of raw cpu performance over more cores in some applications.


im also pretty confident that 1.6ghz quadcore will also run into problems with 1080p 10-bit mkv's.

If u guys are interested in ulv's.... my advice is the fastest core over more cores in this area since the ghz are so pitifully low, and every last ghz does count when this low.

I downclocked my i5 to the 1.6GHz to find just how it would work on this frequency, to my surprise and for all the tasks you are possibly going to do on ULV system it worked very well and ultra responsive, no problems with 1080p or multitasking either, it started to be noticeably slower in demanding benchmarks and such, but not with general using. If these CPUs are going to replace the dual cores in laptops, nettops and HTPCs, I'm all for it. It's even decent for office computers. The Celeron might be more slower as well because of having cache decreased to 2MB but still would work well I guess.

The 4k playback was sluggish on 1.6 but still way smoother compared to viewing it on the G530, G465 celerons and old penryn based laptop with T4300 Pentium I have around right now.