Intel making cacheless CPU?

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-08-14 12:55am

http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040811-4091.html

Can phong translate/summarize the source article? I have a hard time reading Vietnamese (and am probably not familiar with the Vietnamese terms for computer technology)

. How embarrassing.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-14 02:29pm

I do not understand Vietnamese.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-08-14 04:54pm

phongn wrote:I do not understand Vietnamese.

But you must do! You descended from that part of the world!

I just hope no one asks me to translate any Gaelic computer articles...

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-14 07:39pm

Ironic.
Intel sells the Celerons, which suck really, really bad (2.5 GHz Celeron is outperformed by 1.8 GHz Pentium 4). People buy it because they see, "Cheap powerhouse, only $399!" on Dell's web site.
AMD releases a chip that sucks almost as much.
So Intel tries to make an even SUCKIER chip.

Are they TRYING to see who can make the worst processor?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-14 11:20pm

Praxis wrote:Ironic.
Intel sells the Celerons, which suck really, really bad (2.5 GHz Celeron is outperformed by 1.8 GHz Pentium 4). People buy it because they see, "Cheap powerhouse, only $399!" on Dell's web site.
AMD releases a chip that sucks almost as much.
So Intel tries to make an even SUCKIER chip.

Are they TRYING to see who can make the worst processor?

They're cheap. That's the point. For most home or business use they are, frankly, massive overkill.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-08-14 11:45pm

Precisely. I sell a lot at work for office or home computers for the techno-irrelevant who just check email and surf the web. Hell, all they need is a P3 800 or something, and even that's a padded set of specs to make my job fixing them easier, but we can't get that gear anymore, so we sell them Celerons as a replacement. Given how dirt-cheap Celery procs are, though (like 75 bucks to start) I don't see the point of going cheaper, the system price isn't going to change much.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2004-08-15 01:58am

White Haven wrote:Precisely. I sell a lot at work for office or home computers for the techno-irrelevant who just check email and surf the web. Hell, all they need is a P3 800 or something, and even that's a padded set of specs to make my job fixing them easier, but we can't get that gear anymore, so we sell them Celerons as a replacement. Given how dirt-cheap Celery procs are, though (like 75 bucks to start) I don't see the point of going cheaper, the system price isn't going to change much.

When I was in Chile last year, I learned that your average working professional makes about $170 a month, and Chile is much more advanced than Vietnam. To break into the market, they need chips they can sell for more like $10, but they need them to be so crappy that people won't buy them there and then sell them here in the States for a profit. At least, that's my guess.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-15 02:41am

White Haven wrote:Precisely. I sell a lot at work for office or home computers for the techno-irrelevant who just check email and surf the web. Hell, all they need is a P3 800 or something, and even that's a padded set of specs to make my job fixing them easier, but we can't get that gear anymore, so we sell them Celerons as a replacement. Given how dirt-cheap Celery procs are, though (like 75 bucks to start) I don't see the point of going cheaper, the system price isn't going to change much.

Ironically, that's about the same price as an Athlon 2500+.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2004-08-15 02:48am

The sad thing is that this may still be faster than my current computer... faster system bus may offset lack of cache when compared to a PII-450.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-15 10:18am

Praxis wrote:Ironically, that's about the same price as an Athlon 2500+.

Retail price is irrelevant. How much they cost in lots of hundreds or thousands is.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-08-15 02:05pm

And in terms of real-world retail price, it's closer to a 2000+ or 2200+. Web prices are highly warped. And yes, I do see our original invoices

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2004-08-15 04:37pm

"Intel's stupid, they make crappy processor on purpose!"

Don't be self-centered. These things aren't meant for anything even resembling a first-world country, nor are they meant to compete with any chips that we get in the states. These are meant to compete with, oh, VIA C3 chips, or the impressively still-popular Duron.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-16 02:52am

SPOOFE wrote:"Intel's stupid, they make crappy processor on purpose!"

Don't be self-centered. These things aren't meant for anything even resembling a first-world country, nor are they meant to compete with any chips that we get in the states. These are meant to compete with, oh, VIA C3 chips, or the impressively still-popular Duron.

Dude...
A) I was joking
B) I never said that Intel was stupid, I said it was funny that Intel and AMD were competing to make the crappiest processor

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-08-16 03:04am

White Haven wrote:Precisely. I sell a lot at work for office or home computers for the techno-irrelevant who just check email and surf the web. Hell, all they need is a P3 800 or something, and even that's a padded set of specs to make my job fixing them easier, but we can't get that gear anymore, so we sell them Celerons as a replacement. Given how dirt-cheap Celery procs are, though (like 75 bucks to start) I don't see the point of going cheaper, the system price isn't going to change much.

A P1 233 MHZ with 64 MB could be enough. I have such a system at home to surf the internet sometimes. While it is slower than my P4 (takes 15 minutes just to boot up Windows 2000) it works fine for internet browing needs.

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2004-08-16 01:33pm

When running 98SE, my old P2-300 was perfectly fine.....

If it wheren't for windows bloat, I'd probably never need p3-1ghz that I have now......well that and video games.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-16 07:17pm

SWPIGWANG wrote:When running 98SE, my old P2-300 was perfectly fine.....

If it wheren't for windows bloat, I'd probably never need p3-1ghz that I have now......well that and video games.

Heck, my high school had scores of P2/350MHz machines running Windows NT. If not for their lack of RAM they'd be perfect for their usual task of running Microsoft Office.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2004-08-17 02:15am

Is this your classroom?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-08-17 02:23am

Oh look, SPAM.