Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 19th Sep 2010 20:32 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Intel On a Windows Vista or Vindows 7 disk, all versions of the operating system are present, from Starter to Ultimate, and everything in between. So, if you want too upgrade to a more capable version of Windows down the road, all you need to do is pop the Windows disk in, let Windows Anytime Upgrade do its thing, and you're done. It seems like Intel is experimenting with a similar technology... For its processors.
Thread beginning with comment 441904
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Are they sure ?
by Laurence on Tue 21st Sep 2010 10:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Are they sure ?"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Where do you think Intel Celeron processors originated from? Crippling their Pentium II/III/IV equivalents by hardware techniques for QA purposes. Later on they became their own line; but it was pure profit at first.


Yes, but you've missed the point: Intels "Celery" processors weren't upgradable back to Pentiums where as AMDs x3's were upgradable back to quadcores.

Hence why I used my example and not yours.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Are they sure ?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 21st Sep 2010 13:00 in reply to "RE[3]: Are they sure ?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"Where do you think Intel Celeron processors originated from? Crippling their Pentium II/III/IV equivalents by hardware techniques for QA purposes. Later on they became their own line; but it was pure profit at first.


Yes, but you've missed the point: Intels "Celery" processors weren't upgradable back to Pentiums where as AMDs x3's were upgradable back to quadcores.
"

Celeron processors were Pentium processors, just as much as those x3's are really x4's. The only differences were primarily (i) clockspeed, and (ii) cache. While you couldn't do much of anything about the cache, you could up the clock on them - essentially the same as enabling that 4th core in the x3's, with the same kinds of issues. Their clockspeed was lower because they couldn't pass the QA at their full clock speed. So they were upgradeable just the same for the tech at the time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Are they sure ?
by Laurence on Tue 21st Sep 2010 16:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Are they sure ?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Celeron processors were Pentium processors, just as much as those x3's are really x4's. The only differences were primarily (i) clockspeed, and (ii) cache. While you couldn't do much of anything about the cache, you could up the clock on them - essentially the same as enabling that 4th core in the x3's, with the same kinds of issues. Their clockspeed was lower because they couldn't pass the QA at their full clock speed. So they were upgradeable just the same for the tech at the time.


Yes I know about the clock speed - I built a dual-celeron system (ABIT BP6) a ~10 years back and are well aware of their ability to over-clock (to this day, it's still one of the most fun builds I've had).

As for cache, well you're just proving my point as you can't upgrade a CPUs cache! So that alone was an unavoidable hardware difference between them and the pentiums. However IIRC celerons were also missing one or two extensions that their big brothers had.

So while an over-clocked celeron could compete with a pentium, it still completely false to claim that a celeron is just an unde-clocked a pentium. There were subtle yet very real differences between the two processors, and that is why I used the AMD example I gave rather than this one, and why this example of yours isn't the same as Intels new strategy.

Reply Parent Score: 2