Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: accountclosed who wrote (46135)	2/8/1999 6:27:00 PM
From: Michael Bakunin	Respond to of 132070

Yes, no, and maybe. Cf: developer.intel.com tomshardware.com epsilon.silicon.net.my An instructive quote from the last: "By stripping off the expensive L2 cache, thermal plate and casing of the Pentium II, Intel was able to build a cheap processor using the Pentium II core. Now Intel has a low-end processor that was sufficiently slower and cheaper than the Pentium II to compete in the low-cost market...By integrating the L2 cache with the Pentium II core, the Mendocino was born. Though Intel only integrated 128KB of L2 cache on-die, the cache was running at full processor speed. That means it is twice as fast as the L2 cache of the Pentium II which only runs at half the processor speed." mb

To: accountclosed who wrote (46135)	2/8/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Earlie	Respond to of 132070

A.R.: I don't know. I'm simply asking an innocent question. (g) Probably due to having worked at Proctor and Gamble as a kid. Worked in a soap-pouring tower,...Tide in the morning and Dreft in the afternoons. Same soap, different boxes, different perfumes and really different prices. (g) Best, Earlie

To: accountclosed who wrote (46135)	2/8/1999 10:40:00 PM
From: gbh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Any engineering insight into the Celeron as far as it truly being a PII? Do they come off the same lines? Is it just a "white box" version of the same processor? Celeron is a PII core + 128K cache integrated on to a single chip. This is a different die than the PII. Therefore, the chip itself s actually larger and therefore more expensive to produce than a PII. However, the PII Single Edge Contact (SEC) cartridge adds additional cost that brings the PII to a slightly higher cost than a Celeron. To bring the Celeron cost down more, INTC has eliminated the cartridge completely for the low end offering. Celeron is now available in a 370 pin socket version (not pin compatible with socket 7; ie, Pentium and AMD K6), as well as the SEC cartridge version minus the external cache. The low priced Celerons announced today are the socket version I would imagine. I realize that the benchmarks are virtually identical and Intc has seemingly gone to some lengths to obscure just how similar these chips are...But are they literally the same chip? As discussed above they are not the same chip. However, canned benchmarks show the performance of Celeron to roughly equal to PII. Real world performance depends on the app. Gaming apps have shown Celeron to be equal or better than PII. Certain business apps that make heavy use of cache perform better on the PII, hence INTCs positioning it to businesses. INTC will continue to offer Celeron at slightly lesser clock speeds, and with only a 66Mhz bus, so as not to cannibalize PII. They will move the Celeron to a 100Mhz bus when the PIII is ready with a 133MHZ bus (very soon). And contrary to Earlie's opinion, businesses will continue to buy mid to end PCs (with these latest PIII processors) just in case that next killer app does appear. The purchasing guys really have nothing at risk buying INTC, so they do it. Its really that simple. Gary