SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Petz who wrote (109331)5/4/2000 3:44:00 PM
From: Scot  Read Replies (3) of 1579206
 
Petz,

Is it possible that Intel is delaying the Celeron II at higher clock speeds to make core improvements?

Right after benchmarks came out showing that the 600 MHz Celeron was a real loser, Intel said it would be a couple months (June?) before they were available.

Chuck is best at guessing on these issues, but I would suggest there are two possibilities for the delay:

1. Core Improvements
2. Demand Constraints (as stated)

We know/believe that core problems have resulted in poorer yields. Among many sources, this has been confirmed in the celeron via discussion on overclocker boards where poor overclocking results may suggest tolerances are tight. We saw the same thing with K6-2.

As you mentioned celeron is on the "slow bus" without a lot of "cache". They've used these features, however, to distinguish the Celeron from the Pii or iii. So if they change this, they are risking the segmentation strategy.

But what about this as a hypo...realizing that even a new core or more cache won't fix the yield problem they've thrown in the towel. Instead, Intel will attempt to keep the value market focused as possible on lower mhz...working toward Willie when the Piii will essentially become the Celeron?

They may also be getting good enough asps at the low end for it not to matter...especially with AMD also capacity constrained.

One argument against this scenario is that Duron is going to kick a$$ on the Piii. This may be a scramble to try and deal with this issue. But there is still a capacity/infrastructure issue for AMD. So why not just wait for Willie instead of reinventing the wheel?

Could they be adding more cache so that AMD's "more total cache than Celeron" claim for the Duron becomes false?

I have no idea. Does anyone really pay attention to the "more cache" argument? We know no cache (Celery 1) was a mistake, but does cache sell (tm ?)?

-Scot
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News