I agree with David, I think the Celeron is an attempt to gain back the
market lost to AMD and Cyrix.

When Intel introduced the Slot 1 configuration, I believe the main reason
was to develop a proprietary interface between the CPU and Motherboard which
would effectively kill off all competition.  Since the P-II had no
competition, Intel could (and has) price it at whatever level they wanted.

The competition didn't die..... so now (in my opinion) instead of reducing
their profit level on the P-II, Intel is "introducing" a stripped down
version.  Does this remind anyone of the DX/SX days?  And more
importantly --- do you remember how short the "stripped down" SX market
lasted?

Think about it for a minute.  An AMD K6-300 is comparable with a PII-300,
(yes there are MINOR differences but overall they are equals) so why does
the K6 cost ~~$150 less?  Has AMD found some "magic formula" to reduce
production costs... or is Intel just greedy?

And I got a BIG chuckle out of David's Cadillac analogy!

Jim Meagher
=====
Micro Solutions Consulting     Member of The HTML Writers Guild
http://www.ezy.net/~microsol   International Webmasters Association
=====

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PCBUILD - Personal Computer Hardware discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of David Gillett
>
> On 25 Aug 98 at 9:34, Michael Gerke wrote:
>
> > Would some of you please help me out by explaining just what the Intel
> > Celeron Processor is all about?
> >
> > How does it compare with the standard  Pentium and the Pentium II ?
>
>   Celeron is, put bluntly, an attempt to eliminate the price
> advantage that has allowed Socket 7 CPUs (AMD, Cyrix, IDT) to
> continue to compete in the marketplace, by delivering low-cost Slot 1
> ("Pentium II") systems.  [I have, in the past, compared this to GM,
> having decided to build only Cadillacs, introducing a 4-cylinder
> engine that only fits a Cadillac chassis, in order to compete with
> BMW and Toyota....]
>
>   The first generation of Celerons achieved low cost by
> eliminating L2 cache, yielding a chip that clocks faster than a
> regular PII, but actually performs a bit worse.  [Apparently, many
> 266 MHz Celerons can be overclocked reliably to about 400 MHz or so,
> which may more than offset the no-caching penalty.]
>   The second generation of Celerons is just being released, with
> 128KB of L2 cache.  Recall that a PII has 512KB of L2 -- but the
> Celeron with L2 packs two advantages:
>
> 1.  Its L2 runs at CPU speed; PII runs it at half speed.
>
> 2.  Its L2 is integrated on the same single chip as the CPU -- PII's
>     is on a second chip inside the CPU "package".  This offers a cost
>     saving on assembly of the CPU package -- as well as better
>     reliability and reduced power consumption.
>
>   Note that while you can use a Celeron in any Slot 1 motherboard,
> Intel is encouraging system builders to pair it with a new 440EX
> chipset (440BX, minus some features that Intel considers "high end")
> to build inexpensive systems with high integration and minimal
> upgrade/expansion options.
>
>   I believe some of the early Celeron models were expected to drop
> below $100 this month, so you'll be seeing them in $899 PCs....
>
> David G
>