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 441956
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Are they sure ?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 21st Sep 2010 17:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Are they sure ?"
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

"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.


<snip>

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.
"

Never said you could upgrade the cache; and the initial Celerons had zero difference in instructions or features; it wasn't until later (P4 era) that they started making them drastically different. And you don't get more cache in an x4 than an x3, since the x3+extra could would still be sharing the same amount of shared cache as it would have had with only 3 cores.

So while an over-clocked celeron could compete with a pentium, it still completely false to claim that a celeron is just an under-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.


The Celerons differed in: (i) they were under-clocked, (ii) they had part of their cache physically disabled, and (iii) they had further things disabled based on what passed or did not pass QA (which is where the subtle differences came from).

AMD did the same thing for the x3's - make an x4, sell it as an x4 if it passes muster, otherwise, disable a core and sell it as an x3. Saves some money by selling what would have otherwise been tossed.

And if you note - I said it was the equivalent for the tech of that era.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Are they sure ?
by Laurence on Tue 21st Sep 2010 20:42 in reply to "RE[6]: Are they sure ?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Seriously, why are you arguing with me?

You keep telling me these points as if it should be new information to me yet I made the very same arguments right from the start.

The crux of the matter is there are hardware differences between the celeron and the pentium (something you've since agreed with) - thus why I cited AMD when describing a processor you could upgrade without buying new hardware.

That should have been the end of discussion, but here we still are....

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Are they sure ?
by segedunum on Thu 23rd Sep 2010 00:54 in reply to "RE[7]: Are they sure ?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The crux of the matter is there are hardware differences between the celeron and the pentium (something you've since agreed with) - thus why I cited AMD when describing a processor you could upgrade without buying new hardware.

That should have been the end of discussion, but here we still are....

As far as I can tell you are trying to argue that AMD are already doing this, Intel aren't (by trying to reverse the Celeron/Pentium example into a weak one to try and 'prove they're not the same hardware) and then trying to paint over and avoid talking about what Intel are trying to do now.

What's your point, because you'll find a comment from you at the root of this thread that kicked it off?

Edited 2010-09-23 00:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2