Intel Prepares Dual-Core Celeron Microprocessors

[Polaris573]

The first Intel Celeron E1200 dual-core processor will work at 1.60GHz, utilize 800MHz processor system bus and feature 512KB of unified secondary-level cache. It is set for release in the first quarter of 2008 to target cost-effective desktops. Later during the year Intel plans to add more chips into the Intel Celeron E1000 dual-core lineup, creating a comprehensive family of affordable chips with two processing engines. Intel's Celeron E1000 dual-core processors are set to be made using 65nm process technology and are projected to fit into 65W thermal design power envelope. The new CPUs will be drop-in compatible with all platforms that support code-named Conroe processors. Given relatively low clock-speed and not a large cache, it is unlikely that Intel Celeron E1000 dual-core microprocessors will show incredible performance. Nevertheless, the forthcoming emergence of the new chips is proof that multi-core technology is rushing into the value segment of the market.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[jocksteeluk]

i would expect these would over clock nicely but i cant see these costing much less than the current E2xxx series chips.

 

[hat]

So this is basically a very low powered Core processor...
I don't know anyone who would buy this and then a high-end overclocking motherboard... the low multi... most people stop around 400FSB... 400*8=3200

This would be a good solution for OEM companies like Dell, HP...

 

[TheGuruStud]

I'm sure they'll clock well, but the performance will be laughable even at speed (I know, I know, they're el cheapos hehe). 512 cache on these things will be like an Athlon64 with 256 (I suspect the performance to be similar between the two). Time will tell I guess, but w/o that 2+ megs of cache they just don't perform.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

bout time ...

 

[breakfromyou]

Intel has the mid range, high end, and very high end segments of the market, now the low end...

Poor AMD. They better have a few tricks up their sleeves.

 

[NamesDontMatter]

I'm sure they'll clock well, but the performance will be laughable even at speed (I know, I know, they're el cheapos hehe). 512 cache on these things will be like an Athlon64 with 256 (I suspect the performance to be similar between the two). Time will tell I guess, but w/o that 2+ megs of cache they just don't perform.

I actually disagree, I think a lot of L2 cache still goes unused. My reasoning behind this is you see hardly a minor difference going from 1MB combined L2 Cache, to 2MB combined L2 cache, and even less from 2MB to 4MB. Maybe this will change, but I dunno . . .

 

[WarEagleAU]

AMD will be fine. You know, I find it funny that when Intel releases some news info, some person from the bandwagon falls off and posts a little propaganda saying POOR AMD, or AMD is dead, this that and the other. That is not the case and Intel doesnt have every segment. In fact, Im thinking AMD is doing fine in the midrange of the pack, its the high end where they arent winning and to be honest, they shouldnt be. Intel is doing fine with the C2Ds.

 

[Wile E]

I actually disagree, I think a lot of L2 cache still goes unused. My reasoning behind this is you see hardly a minor difference going from 1MB combined L2 Cache, to 2MB combined L2 cache, and even less from 2MB to 4MB. Maybe this will change, but I dunno . . .

It doesn't make a difference in everything, but a higher cache can make big differences, given the right application. For me, video encoding benefits from higher L2 cache.

 

[hat]

Wile E... go for 333x9