New 45nm Pentium could be Celeron replacement

Intel secured the performance crown with its Core i7 processors last November, and it’s readying more affordable quad-core derivatives later this year. But what about the bottom end of the market? While perusing Intel’s online processor finder, the folks at Alien Babel Tech have uncovered a listing for an unreleased Pentium E3200 processor.

This 45nm CPU apparently runs at 2.6GHz (although the listed L2 cache speed and bus-to-core ratio suggest 2.4GHz), and it features 1MB of L2 cache, an 800MHz front-side bus, and a 65W power envelope. Core 2-derived Pentium E5000 processors all have 2MB of cache, so this is evidently an even cheaper derivative—and since the 2.5GHz Pentium E5200 costs $73 at Newegg right now, the E3200 should fall squarely in dual-core Celeron territory.

In case you’re wondering, the fastest dual-core Celeron available today costs $60 and runs at 2.2GHz with 512KB of cache. Alien Babel Tech speculates that the E3200 and potential future members of the E3000 series will come to replace dual-core Celerons altogether.

Comments closed
    • pogsnet
    • 11 years ago
    • mczak
    • 11 years ago

    bet it’s 2.4Ghz and not 2.6Ghz. So multiplier and L2 cache indicate 2.4Ghz, whereas only the frequency listed indicated 2.6Ghz – far more likely that there’s only one typo instead of 2…
    Also, from the cpu name and number, it should be clearly slotted below the E5xx series (but above fastest celeron). Since current E5xx cpus range from 2.5Ghz to 2.7Ghz, a 2.6Ghz E3200 would overlap (sure it has less cache but still I doubt intel wants to do that). A 2.4Ghz one would fill the (quite small) gap between the fastest celeron (2.2Ghz E1500, 512kB) and slowest Petnium E5xx (2.5Ghz E5200, 2MB) very well.

      • coldpower27
      • 11 years ago

      This makes the most sense.

    • pluscard
    • 11 years ago

    I recently bought a single core notebook. But since it has 3gb of ram, I can’t really tell the difference between that and the dual core it replaced. I’m sure if I ran a benchmark it might be measurable, but just running windows and surfing, I can’t tell.

      • alsoRun
      • 11 years ago

      You apparently do not run CPU intensive applications.

        • poulpy
        • 11 years ago

        Which you will find is the case of most the population.

        Checking emails, creating spreadsheets, writing text documents, browsing the web, listening to MP3, storing holiday pictures are what a crushing majority of computer users do.

        Although some might be able to notice the “creamy smoothness” of a dual core none would really need it.

    • OneArmedScissor
    • 11 years ago

    Oops……………………..

    • Farting Bob
    • 11 years ago

    65w TDP? Im sure that they could get it down to well within 45 or 35w envelopes if they wanted. 6w for this is incredibly overestimated.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 11 years ago

      Unfortunately, it’s not really supposed to mean much of anything but what type of heatsink/fan to use.

      While it’s overrated with many CPUs, the TDP is typically underrated with graphics cards, despite the fact that they’re rated individually, instead of by product line. It’s pretty confusing and pointless.

      God forbid anyone just put on the box what you’re actually buying…I love all the smoke and mirrors with this stuff.

        • ybf
        • 11 years ago

        Why spend money reengineering an old design to backfill a low-ASP niche?

        If the Pentium does the job with a no-change shrink, it doesn’t require new testing protocols, so it’s almost free to release.

        Start messing with the power envelope and you’re redeveloping Core 2. They already have one of those.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 11 years ago

      I suppose by saying 65W they make it less appealing to purchasers looking for low wattage CPUs, which Intel can then charge more for.

    • dermutti
    • 11 years ago

    How long do you think it is going to take for Intel and AMD to cease making single-core processors?

      • packfan_dave
      • 11 years ago

      Completely? Quite a while. As far as desktops, servers, laptops, and even nettops are concerned? Pretty nearly there now (especially AMD, though the only single-core Intel out there is Celerons and Atom — both of which also have dual-core variants), and even Atom’s always at least dual-core at 32nm, I think.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 11 years ago

      As long as it takes for them to stop making dual-cores, because so long as those exist, there will be defective ones relabeled as single cores.

      But soon enough, their CPUs will end up in something along the lines of smart phones, cementing their presence far beyond their last days with what we know computers as now. I’m sure you were referring specifically to computers, but by that time, a smart phone will practically be a computer, so the line blurs.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 11 years ago

      I think single core SMT processors will make a lot of sense for a very long time, for certain uses. Probably in a few years they will only be available integrated into larger chips, though.

      • stmok
      • 11 years ago

      By end of 2011. It’ll all be dual-core from that point onwards.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 11 years ago

    Would the E3200 be a dual-core?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This