Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X
This isn't a problem, just a curious question.
How do Intel make money on their Celeron chips?
If they're basically Core 2 chips with some of the features disabled, surely they lose money for selling them at such a low cost? And if the old Celeron's were based on Pentium's, had all the features of Pentium's, yet just had some disabled... I really can't see how that's good for business.
This question's always baffled me.
Intel want products in all segments of the market - high cost fast processors down to low cost budget processors.
Clearly it's not in their interest to design and build lots of different models - so they distinguish between them by customising them at production time.
It also gives them the possibility to, say, take a wafer with a 2GB cache, with a faulty section, to lock out the faulty section, and put it out as a lower model with a 1GB cache (just a hypothetical example). So it can actually save them money to put out cheaper processors with "disabled" features.
Also, since they have several wafer fabrication plants, and systems within the plants, it gives them the ability to keep plants running and producing lower spec chips, when others have been upgraded to produce higher spec chips.
Could be, to paraphrase Gerald Ratner, "because they're crap"!
Small article about it here click here
As DieSse pointed out if you make something and one third of the product isn't to standard then you don't throw it away you just sell it cheaper, that way you at least recoup some of the costs back.
It could just show just how much they make on their premium chips that they still make a profit on the Celeron!
Are I belive essentially correct.
Within a certain specification- a number of circuits on a wafer will be below par.
Don't bin them simply rework to lower spec and sell them.
This also true in the watch indusry the chip maker makes eessentially all funchion circuits - but not all work 100%
Those that do go into the the Posh watches
Those that dont are graded to go into lesser performing- cheaper brands.
Very little is 'binned'
"because they're crap"
For sure at any point in time they're lower performance than the current Pentium models - that's what they're meant to be, and that's why they're cheaper.
However that doesn't mean they're bad at all. About 9 months ago I bought a Celeron 900 processor Lenovo laptop for our computer club system. It cost only €294 (about £260) - not a netbook, a full size laptop, 2GB, 160GB camera, mic. It's an excellent machine - far faster than my own older P4 desktop.
The 900 spec is quite good (bear in mind it was launched in Q1 2009 - a year ago) at 2.2GHz, 45nm process, 1MB cache, 800 FSB.
By no possible stretch of the imagination can it be described as crap. It's extremely good at it's price point (in fact I think this laptop was a truly outstanding buy.)
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.