What is the point of even saying that in a news post about non-enthusiast hardware? Go away, troll.

AssimilatorWe shouldn't be comparing SB to Phenom anyway; it's like comparing gold to shit. Yeah, shit may be cheaper, but that don't change the fact that it's shit.

Hey, one many's shit is another man's treasure. Around here (Midwest USA), shit is valuable--literally. XD


On topic, I wonder if the quad-core cheapo/broken processors will appear under the Pentium brand. Overall though, this is silly. Why have two (maybe three) craptastic labels? We don't need Core i3 and Celeron. Why can't just Core i3 be used? Is Celeron so craptastic that they don't dare tarnish the Core i# with it? Silly Intel.

newtekie1Yep, and a price tag of $135...:shadedshu

Perhaps if you consider that the difference between the 2100T and the 2100 is only $10, and note that the power savings will quickly cover the difference. Also, if you consider that the Celerons have 65w TDP, that is at least $30 (usually a bit more than $1/w/year) worth of electricity per year saved, or in the 5 year lifespan $150, enough to buy a new 2100T again. Sure, higher upfront costs, but noticeably lower electricity bill, and more powerful processor to boot.

Contrary to popular belief, office computers actually need to be a bit faster than "the cheapest money can buy", I noticed that productivity increased when I upgraded my dad's old Pentium III to a Pentium D, and again when I got him an i3 laptop.

How is the clock efficiency compared to c2d?
I throw my 1.6 coreduo out of the window because of browser performance, any flash contained website hogs it completely

FourstaffContrary to popular belief, office computers actually need to be a bit faster than "the cheapest money can buy", I noticed that productivity increased when I upgraded my dad's old Pentium III to a Pentium D, and again when I got him an i3 laptop.

That curve does not scale as quickly with modern hardware.

Most of that speed difference is simply accounted for with a hard drive speed difference. Anything past a core2duo I doubt you would see any difference for basic office use, simply because CPU power is no longer the limit. 99% of the waiting is slow hard drive loading.

DippyskoodlezThat curve does not scale as quickly with modern hardware.

Most of that speed difference is simply accounted for with a hard drive speed difference. Anything past a core2duo I doubt you would see any difference for basic office use, simply because CPU power is no longer the limit. 99% of the waiting is slow hard drive loading.

Perhaps you are right. But on the other hand, I think time is ripe for people to increase the lifespan of the computers. 7 years instead of 5 will allow you to get 40% more expensive hardware :)

FourstaffPerhaps if you consider that the difference between the 2100T and the 2100 is only $10, and note that the power savings will quickly cover the difference. Also, if you consider that the Celerons have 65w TDP, that is at least $30 (usually a bit more than $1/w/year) worth of electricity per year saved, or in the 5 year lifespan $150, enough to buy a new 2100T again. Sure, higher upfront costs, but noticeably lower electricity bill, and more powerful processor to boot.

Contrary to popular belief, office computers actually need to be a bit faster than "the cheapest money can buy", I noticed that productivity increased when I upgraded my dad's old Pentium III to a Pentium D, and again when I got him an i3 laptop.

Ok, you say the cost will quickly cover the difference. Lets examine that. So the 2100T is a 35w part. We'll ignore the single core G440, because it also is 35w, so your argument obviously doesn't work in any way here.

Lets look at the G530 and G530. Ok, so they both lack the HT that the 2100T has, big deal, it doesn't help over work at all. Also the G530 is clocked the same as the 2100T and the G530 is 100MHz slower, again in an office setting that isn't going to make a difference. The 2100T lacks turbo boost just like these Celerons, but it does have an extra 1MB of cache, meh probably not going to make all that much difference.

Ok, so they are 65w parts, but how much of a cost difference does that really make in power usage? Lets start with the G450, we know it will be under $100, but we don't know how far under $100, so we'll assume $99 just to give you the benefit of the doubt here. So the price difference is $35 between the 2100T and the G450. Now, a 30w difference in power usage between the two, means 405 days of 24/7 use before the price difference is made up, that is over a year(assuming $0.12/KwH, which is what I pay). If you assume the price on ghe G530 is $75 that gives it almost 2 years before the cost difference is made up.

That also assume that the processor is fully loaded the entire time, the fact of the matter is that the processor will be idle or near idle 99% of the time. And when the processors are idle, the power usage difference is next to nothing anyway so really if you want to make up the difference in power consumption, it will likely take longer than the computer is in service, even if it managed to stay in service for a decade.

FourstaffPerhaps you are right. But on the other hand, I think time is ripe for people to increase the lifespan of the computers. 7 years instead of 5 will allow you to get 40% more expensive hardware :)

With the 2100T you are only talking a 100MHz speed difference and 1MB of extra cache, do you really think that will increase the lifespan of the computer in an office environment? I don't.

newtekie1With the 2100T you are only talking a 100MHz speed difference and 1MB of extra cache, do you really think that will increase the lifespan of the computer in an office environment? I don't.

You have successfully shot down my argument :(. The 2100T has 4 threads, and for future multithreaded envrironment (say, in 5 years time?), the 2100T will have more "staying power". But that said, I wonder what is the performance difference between 1 core SB against Atom or Zecate. Imo if 1 sandybridge core can do the job fine the Atom and the Zecate should be better in office work due to cheaper chipsets, lower power consumption etc., but that is just me. Speculation from our side will not change the fact that Dell, HP and all other large manufacturers to abandon the 775 unfortunately.