August 31, 1998
The fall and rise of the Celeron
By Bob O'Donnell
The microprocessor business is a fascinating industry to follow these days, not only
because the products it produces directly impact the tools we use, but also because there
is a lot of great, intense competition going on. The most exciting area is in the booming,
low-cost processor and computer segment, where Intel, AMD, Cyrix, and IDT are battling it
out.
The most recent volley was tossed by Intel with the introduction of their
second-generation Celeron (previously code-named Mendocino) processors last week. Unlike
the initial Celerons -- which had no Level 2 cache onboard and couldn't work with any
external Level 2 cache -- the new Celerons include 128KB of Level 2 cache built directly
into the processor itself. As a result, the performance of the Celeron A processors -- as
they are officially called -- is dramatically better than the first generation.
In fact, most benchmarks that I've seen run on the new Celeron A processors show that
it runs almost identically to Pentium II-based systems of similar processor speed. The
reason for this excellent performance is that although the Celeron's Level 2 cache is only
the size of the 512KB found in Pentium IIs, the Celeron's cache is actually part of the
processor die itself and runs at full speed, versus half the speed of the processor in the
Pentium II. According to Intel officials -- with all other things being equal -- a Celeron
300A and Celeron 333A should run 10 percent slower than identically clocked Pentium IIs,
but it appears that in real-world tests the difference is much smaller. Given that the new
Celerons currently cost less than half the cost of Pentium IIs at the same speed, that is
pretty impressive.
In fact, it may be a bit too impressive for Intel's tastes. I noticed that the
marketing materials for the new Celerons still emphasize the mundane uses for Basic PCs
that Celeron-based PCs are supposed to do, as compared to the high-performance benefits of
the Pentium II. While that may have been true of the initial Celerons, it appears to be
decidedly untrue of the new Celerons. Unless you opt for a much more expensive 400-MHz or
450-MHz Pentium II, you really won't get much better performance than from a much cheaper
333-MHz Celeron A. (According to Tom's Hardware
Guide, if you are willing to tape
over one of your Celeron's connector pins and try overclocking, in fact, you can
apparently get a 300-MHz Celeron A to outperform a
450-MHz Pentium II. Of course, you'll completely void any warranty in the process.)
Ironically, the enormous difference in performance between the two generations of
Celeron have put Intel in an awkward situation. On the one hand, the company is trying to
battle back from all the negative press the original Celerons received and the poor brand
image that the press created. On the other hand, if they flout the performance of the
improved Celerons too much, they'll take a serious chunk out of their more profitable
Pentium II business.
While I don't claim to have any real insights into the situation, it looks very much
like the original Celeron was a forced product that the company felt that it had to
release. This second-generation Celeron, on the other hand, seems to have been designed as
a "real" product (and it shows). Intel has previously acknowledged being caught
off guard by the growth of the low-cost PC segment and seemingly did little more than take
the Level 2 cache and plastic casing off a Pentium II to create the original Celeron.
Unfortunately, this knee-jerk reaction to the low-cost market may prove costly if
customers have difficulty getting past the Celeron name and decide to continue avoiding
Celeron-based PCs, as they apparently have with first-generation machines. Intel
dramatically moved up the release date of these new Celerons to help with this problem,
but only time will tell how much damage has already been done.
Another big problem caused by the company's original moves is the confusing A moniker
they've had to add on to the name to distinguish between the two generations. Who's really
going to remember if they want a Celeron or a Celeron A? Just think how much easier it
would have been if the company could have simply introduced the Mendocino line as the
first Celerons. I'm no marketing professor (and I realize it's easy to play Monday morning
quarterback) but I have to believe this strategy would have served the company a lot
better in the long run.
As confused as the market may be by these new Celerons, however, there are some real
positives brought about by their introduction. In addition to faster machines at lower
prices -- which is always good -- the new Celerons are going to increase the focus on and
viability of the sub-$1,000 market for businesses as well as consumers. Now that Intel has
a viable low-cost challenger to current and future AMD, Cyrix, and IDT chips, even
conservative IT shops are bound to give these low-end machines a serious look.
©
Copyright 1998, by InfoWorld Publishing Corp., a
subsidiary of IDG Communications, Inc. Reprinted from InfoWorld,
155 Bovet Road, San Mateo, CA 94402. Further reproduction is prohibited.
