New IB Celerons, Pentiums, i3 etc.

[ShintaiDK]

I wonder at what point we begin to see Intel's Wind River Android x86 matched to those the cheap ULV celerons? Maybe as a Tablet?

Just look how much more expensive A $199 Acer C7 chromebook becomes when it is built with a Windows License--> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...K?tag=at055-20

Granted the RAM is increased from 2Gb to 4Gb on the windows model, but that is not enough to account for the $120 price difference.

Yep, Microsoft wanting its share ruins the party. Just look at the Surface RT and its "Microsoft Premium".

I have a feeling the future spells Google+Intel.

 

[USER8000]

I have a feeling the future spells Google+Intel.

More a case of Google+whoever can provide cheap good enough performing device for them. I get the impression Google does not care if it is ARM based or X86 based. They first worked with Samsung with the Nexus devices and now LG.

 

[Piroko]

My bet, CPU-wise, 20W tops.

Agreed. When your fully featured quadcores with higher clocks take no more than 77W you can reasonably expect sub-25W lower clocked and lower featured Dualcores.

But honestly, they should phase out the Celerons and enable AVX and Quicksync on the Pentium. With their current practice they only slow down the software adoption rate which in turn hurts their own processor value. Upgrading from a Nehalem i7 to an IB i7 gives a decent performance uplift, upgrading from a Nehalem Pentium to an IB one is money waste.

 

[slayernine]

Uhh, what?

Sites hardly, if ever, review lowend parts. Simply because there is no or only very interest in it from the readers. Same reason you might have problems finding A4 5300 reviews.

Also hint of the day, twice, nobody pays listprices when buying directly from Intel. Those 86$ chips are most likely sold for around 40-50.

They would all need a new platform to incorporate the PCH.

I like building high end gaming machines and those parts are cool. However, 90% of the time I'm just putting together a basic workstation that doesn't need incredible speed. I'm usually looking for a sub $100 processor with relatively low power usage.

Most people are probably not that interested in these parts but I am.

 

[slayernine]

Would be interested in seeing the actual wattage of those desktop Celerons. 55W TDP seems a conservative rating. Back in the Core2 days, Celerons like the E1200 etc. performed fairly well (this is of course a relative thing: I mean for a £40 CPU) while sipping power even when overclocked quite a bit (no longer possible with SB and IB but maybe coming back for Haswell? We can but hope).

For instance the Celeron G530/G540 are rated 65W but xbitlabs measured max 70W for the whole system with a G540, while a poster at TPU measured the G530 at 55W for full system. So those 65W were possibly more like 40W.

So if these new Celerons are 'good enough' they'd make good HTPC rigs.

This is very true, at work I compared a couple of the i3's with the low power T designation to the G530 and there wasn't much difference overall. Power usage and relative speed were very similar. The i3's were a bit better but cost more than double.

 

[KompuKare]

Agreed. When your fully featured quadcores with higher clocks take no more than 77W you can reasonably expect sub-25W lower clocked and lower featured Dualcores.

But honestly, they should phase out the Celerons and enable AVX and Quicksync on the Pentium. With their current practice they only slow down the software adoption rate which in turn hurts their own processor value. Upgrading from a Nehalem i7 to an IB i7 gives a decent performance uplift, upgrading from a Nehalem Pentium to an IB one is money waste.

Really hard to understand Intel here. AVX is meant to be such a strategic element especially post Haswell.

I guess I could understand them not wanting full speed AVX on their lower end chips but there must be some way - with their huge R&D budget - to bring, say, half speed AVX and AVX2 to all their lines. Yes it takes up some die space (always assuming they actually make different dies for Celerons and Pentium and those parts of the chip aren't just fussed off), but Intel have shown a recent willingness to use a fair bit of die-space for graphics so I can't see why they can't do the same for AVX/AVX2.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Most people are probably not that interested in these parts but I am.

I've observed that my budget buyer's guides get more views than my other guides. Just because people don't talk it up, doesn't mean the interest isn't there.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Really hard to understand Intel here. AVX is meant to be such a strategic element especially post Haswell.

I guess I could understand them not wanting full speed AVX on their lower end chips but there must be some way - with their huge R&D budget - to bring, say, half speed AVX and AVX2 to all their lines. Yes it takes up some die space (always assuming they actually make different dies for Celerons and Pentium and those parts of the chip aren't just fussed off), but Intel have shown a recent willingness to use a fair bit of die-space for graphics so I can't see why they can't do the same for AVX/AVX2.

Intel only makes a couple of different dies. The dual-core, and the quad-core. Every other chip variation is from downbinning and fusing off chips.

The dies for the Celeron/Pentium chips HAVE AVX, it's just fused off / microcoded out.

It wouldn't cost Intel much of anything to enable them.

I agree, Intel's agressive product differentiation, by fusing off otherwise usable features, doesn't make a lot of sense, in the bigger picture. If they want to see widespread adoption of AVX/AVX2 in software, in order to further cement their ISA monopoly in x86/x64 chips, then they should enable it on all of their chips, IMHO.