backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by Anonymous Frea.. on Sep 26 at 4:34 PM

Single-core for the value minded

DailyTech has received Intel roadmaps that outline Intel’s value desktop products. New to Intel’s value desktop lineup will be Conroe-L based processors. Unlike Intel’s Core 2 Duo Conroe products, the new Conroe-L processors will not carry the Core nomenclature. Instead Intel is resuscitating the Pentium and Celeron brands for Conroe-L based products.

Intel Conroe-L Pentium
Processor
Number
Core
Frequency
Bus
Frequency
L2
Cache
E1060 1.80GHz 800MHz 1MB
E1040 1.60GHz 800MHz 1MB
E1020 1.40GHz 800MHz 1MB

The Pentium Conroe-L lineup will carry the E1000 series processor number. Three Pentium E1000 models will be available initially. These models include the Pentium E1060, E1040 and E1020 clocked at 1.80, 1.60 and 1.40 GHz respectively. All Pentium E1000 series processors will have an 800 MHz front-side bus with 1MB of L2 cache. Intel Enhanced Memory 64 Technology and Execute Disable Bit are the only technologies featured on Pentium E1000 processors. Intel Virtualization, HyperThreading and Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology are not supported.

Not much is known about the Conroe-L Celeron aside from it having a 400 number sequence. Expect the Celeron 400 series to be slightly crippled when compared to the Pentium E1000 series. DailyTech speculates Conroe-L Celeron 400 series processors will have 512KB of L2 cache and operate on a 533 MHz front-side bus to not overlap with the Pentium E1000 series.

Pricing and availability of Pentium E1000 and Celeron 400 series processors is unknown at the moment.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/2006 12:02:06 PM , Rating: -1
quote:
Please provide us the data you used to make this decision. Got the benches?


Dear Phynaz,

STFU.

Basically, he's saying "probably" due to the fact (yes, FACT) that Intel has always overpriced their Celerons compared to the AMD budget chips, and had much worse performance. It's a matter of predicting the future based off the past. There is no benchmark data, dumbass.

Unless you'd like to show how Intel's Celeron 2.53 beats a Duron 800, as you'd likely bring up. I hate people like you with your stupidity so proudly waved.

Now, let's look at this, shall we? Currently, AMD chips need about 20% more speed in dual core to match the Conroe chips. This means that AMD will have to have single core chips rated at 2.0-2.4Ghz to match these Conroe-L chips at 1.4-1.8Ghz. With Intel's past pricing schemes, they'll likely price these at $100-150, leaving the equal priced AMD chips to be dual core at 2.0-2.4Ghz, and the AMD single core chips at 2.0-2.4Ghz at a mere $60-90. So, yeah, if Intel prices their chips based on their past pricing schemes, the AMD processors at the equal price point will be better.

Can you figure that out now, dumbass? Stop waving your stupidity as a flag to everyone around. I despise stupidity.


RE: What for?
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 12:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Intel's past pricing schemes


While I will not stoop to calling you names, I will point out where you have made a false assumption.

You cannot use Intel's PAST pricing schemes, you must use their CURRENT pricing scheme. Intel's current pricing provides a better value than AMD.


RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/2006 1:49:21 PM , Rating: 1
people are habitual. they only go beyond their normal habits when forced, like Intel has done with the Core2 pricing scheme they are currently using. They have no reason to change their current low end pricing scheme, as they have bottomed out the Pentium D and Pentium 4 chips at $130 and their Celerons have bottomed out at $65, since they haven't lost market share in that arena. Likely, they will continue this until they lose major market share.

The reason they won't lose market share in this arena for about 10 years is the current Thinkpad commercials, and those like them. In a recent Thinkpad commercial, a woman goes over the features of this thinkpad she's holding and she says "It's got titanium hinges, Intel,..." as if Intel is a feature. The stupid people believe it's a feature and they have to have it for a good computer, without even knowing what it means.

Those stupid people happen to be those of average intelligence and below that just follow along with what they are told by the TV or Internet and the very reason why I get yelled at for using my cell phone while filling my gas tank, and I see people smoking cigarettes while filling their gas tanks all the time. Intel just uses this to their advantage, while AMD is taking the honorable way and trying to actually educate people on what they actually need.


RE: What for?
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 1:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
I have missed something.

How are AMD's actions in the consumer space any different than Intel's?


RE: What for?
By Spivonious on 9/21/2006 3:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
AMD is taking the honorable way


Since when has AMD educated the general public about what they actually need? I go to the store and see horribly overpriced AMD POS laptops right next to the horribly overpriced Intel POS laptops. There is no sign next to the AMD one saying "This is all you need for email."

The truth is that there is a huge market for budget machines, and Intel is simply being creative about getting old product out the door.


RE: What for?
By Spivonious on 9/21/2006 3:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Crap I should have read the linked article. It's the core 2 but with stuff disabled. Still, it makes sense. Faulty Core 2 Duo = $50 Pentium E.


RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/2006 6:05:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, there is a huge market for budget machines. If you have watched AMD's methods in the past, they have been educating people that it is not the clock frequency that matters, but how much a chip can do per second. So many people simply pick computers simply for it's clock rate, and AMD had better chips that used less power. They don't now, so the model numbers are really meaningless now, but they have to keep going with what they started or it causes even more confusion.

Intel has further muddled things up lately by squeezing lower clock rate chips between other chip simply because that chip is a ULV chip. Intel's model number scheme confuses people worse, leading to confused people just picking whatever is in their price range.

It would be nice if sales people were actually knowledgable and honest, but I guess that is like asking for the moon. Budget machines are the worst for having sales people sell people on what they don't need and not giving them what they do need.


RE: What for?
By ZmaxDP on 9/21/2006 1:30:22 PM , Rating: 5
Dear dgingeri,

Though I agree that one line comments like "Got the benches?" Aren't particularly useful and waste space on the forums, I also think that rabid responses are equally (if not more) wasteful.

Consider this, our friend Phynaz may have been trying to get across (albeit poorly done) that there are no benchies and that any attempts to pre-determine the likely performance of the parts or their price is merely speculation.

Also consider that there have been many reversals of long true "facts" in the industry these last few months. Between MAC going Intel, Dell selling AMD, AMD buying ATI, and Intel outperforming AMD on performance per clock AND per watt, one might realize that a little caution might be waranted in making speculations about how something that no one has ever seen will perform and cost. Want another topsy-turvy? Xeon processors clocked faster than Conroe processors costing less.

Don't get me wrong, the past is a useful tool for predicting the future, but to imply that because you know the past you KNOW the future is far more foolish than asking for benches of an un-released product.

Last, these are likely to be slated for Laptops and HTPC's, not your gaming desktop. As such the HIGHLY superior thermal and power performance of the Core 2 architecture is going to make your comparison a but invalid. You'd have to get a much slower AMD chip to meet the same power envelope. So, even if the 1.4 is priced like a 2.0 AMD chip, you could get the 2.0 and 3 hours of battery life, or a 1.4 Intel and get 5. Which would you chose? Depends on your needs. My guess is that the person that needs performance won't even be considering these processors and so Intel will win this sector most of the time once they release these, at least until AMD comes out with their answer for it.

Oh, one more thing, if you're going to accuse someone of waving their stupidity as a flag, you might try to make sure yours isn't fluttering about somewhere as well.


RE: What for?
By Phynaz on 9/21/2006 1:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
albeit poorly done


Yes, this is true. In the future I will explain my position better.

I appreciate your response.

Hopefully people will realize a response such as yours will cause people to think and consider what is written. A response such as the one from dgingeri results in immediate dismissal.

Thanks again,
P


RE: What for?
By dgingeri on 9/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: What for?
By Eris23007 on 9/21/2006 10:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In my experience, it takes smacking someone upside the head to get them to see sense about 80% of the time, so I usually start there.


Whereas in my experience "smacking someone upside the head to get them to see sense" inevitably has an outcome diametrically opposed to the desired one.

Fascinating how our experiences could be so wildly out of sync.

/resists urge to throw in smarmy comments or name-calling


"I f***ing cannot play Halo 2 multiplayer. I cannot do it." -- Bungie Technical Lead Chris Butcher

Related Articles
Here Comes "Conroe"
July 13, 2006, 12:47 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki