Intel's new "Shelton" chip will have NO L2 CACHE.

[LTC8K6]

The cache could be back on the mobo again in these cheap systems.

 

[Yanagi]

then i would LMAO. That would create a lot of latency a "fast" cpu ant afford.. and probably the mobo would be more expensive aswell... so i guess no lvl 2 cache even on the mobo

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: magomago
Shelton Jackson Lee - United States filmmaker whose works explore the richness of Black culture in America (born in 1957)

Bzzzt.

The Inq article mentions someone from Via named Shelton Lu, I'm guessing that Intel's codename for this is intended to be more of a Via chip competetor in the marketplace.

Obviously, these chips are the bottom-scrapings from Intel's yield bin, at least I think that they will be initially. They are intended for third-world markets where price matters far more than performance. These potential customers will probably be happy to be able to afford *any* computer, even it it runs dog-slow.
If anyone remembers, the ATI Radeon 9550s were only intended for non-US markets as well.

I just find it wonderfully interesting and a tad bit ironic, that these big trans-national mega-conglomerate corporations, who rallied for years about unencumbered "global free trade", and then tried to sell their products into non-first-world markets, still at inflated first-world prices, and got laughed at by the natives, who thumbed their nose up at the corps and started their own backyard "piracy" operations instead, are being forced to *actually compete* in these markets, by doing something (at least in the case of Microsoft), that they *vowed that they would never do* - *lower their prices*.

What an amazing thought! I mean... it's not like they teach that concept in high-school economics or anything.

It also proves another thing - that monopolies can only flourish, among highly-regulated (first-world) markets. Why? Because if the prices of goods offered, is far above the range at which the purchase price is acceptable, then "piracy" will naturally develop and flourish, to fill the gap in demand for the product.

In a true unrestricted free-market economic system, "piracy" is a natural result of a "sick", unbalanced economy. The only way to effectively compete against it, is to reduce the prices such that it is no longer a factor. That is THE one thing that groups like the RIAA and MS don't want people to understand - that piracy is a symptom of a sick, over-regulated market, that allows illegal monopolies to flourish, and those companies and their pricing structure are *themselves* the cause of "piracy", not someone else.

Lower prices to reasonable free-market values and piracy will virtually eliminate itself. It's as simple as that.

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

um.. disable L2 cache in BIOS and watch WindowsXP take 10minutes to boot !!

 

[piasabird]

These look like competition with Via C3 Processors and the Mini-ITX SFF market.

 

[lsman]

there you have it:
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/intelobc-1.htm
if you can read chinese....

basically its going for the Embedded System.
mb D845GVSH
with i845GV NB, ICH4 SB and with a Pentium M Banias core

or just see how it cp to C3 1G
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/intelobc-4.htm
about 30% better.

 

[Penguinus]

Originally posted by: LeadFrog
Yuck. Is it just me or is Intel going downhill?

for the last how many years? heh...

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: formulav8
Why would Microsoft go through the trouble to redo parts of the XP code to sell it for a lower price? I am sure it cost them a bit of money to do that. Having the features that they erased wouldn't have cost microsoft any money if they left the XP OS as the regular XP Home or something. <BR><BR>I guess they didn't want to be to nice in lowering the price for the people over there then giving them the full XP features at the cheap price. I don't know but it won't effect me I guess.<BR><BR><BR><BR> Jason

/off topic
i live in malaysia, and let's say the piracy is so rampant here that it's hard to find original software because the stalls in the night markets(and they're really organized in this stuff, having walkie talkies to be warned about incoming police raids and such) outnumber the stores selling original software by 10-100:1

i rather a downgraded version selling for cheap then pay the extra for full features especially if the computer i'm building is for a computer newbie

heck till today i only know of one place to get original games in this suburb of the capital city, Kuala Lumpur

other then that Malaysia rocks

/back to topic

 

[htmlmasterdave]

Originally posted by: formulav8
Yeah I guess so. But I don't see why Intel has to be that stingy. Even if they only added 64KB of Cache like what the Duron has, it would make a world of a difference. I wouldn't think that adding 64KB of Cache would make the cost of the chip to rise much? Unless they only look at quanity number and see that if we can save $1.00 per cpu that will give us a extra: $1000 for every 1000 we sell. I guess that is the only reason they would do such a thing. But why not just charge a buck extra to offset the cost? Oh well, its not my company or anything, so I guess Intel knows what they are doing.<BR><BR><BR> Jason

Cache is one of the most expensive parts of a cpu, it's not just $1

 

[formulav8]

I am a bit surprised that it beats the Via C3 chip so easily. Although the C3 only has 64KB of L2 Cache itself. Would like to see how it does compared to a Athlon at 1ghz or even more so a Duron at 1ghz which only has 64KB of L2 Cache.


Jason