
|
With the low prices on some of the core i3 and i5 processors I really don't see a need for Celeron anymore. |
|
I sorta do, basically I think the Celeron brand will live on as long as there's a section for $50-75 processors. |
|
Yea I think it's time to put them to bed. The Celeron was always a 2nd rate chip anyway, I would move the Core 2 lineup in the budget mobile space. I do not see a need for Intel to keep these around they served their purpose but they are now loooooooooog in the tooth!!!!!! |
|
There's also poor and developing countries that buy up these things and dont' have the luxury we have. The price difference between a $75 and a $100 processor is huge for them. |
|
Didn't you get the memo, crow? That's what the OLPC is for! |
The OLPC is available only for students and children. There is still a market for basic home computing use (think spreadsheets, home offices, basic internet surfingetc) and also theres modular state/upgradeability of a PC vs a laptop. There is a huge market for recycled and used hardware in developing countries however, but if AMD and Intel can offer processors that fit in pricepoints that are affordable for them for just a little more than older hardware, people will always gravitate toward the newer, better gear.
|
|
I think they should phase out the celeron name and bring in something new and fresh. Celeron, to me, has a stigma around it of being really slow, unreliable, poor quality chips. It's intels bottom of the barrel chip. They need a new name. Yea it'll still be bottom of the barrel, but with a new name, people will feel better about buying one because it feels new just by the name. |
|
The cheaper Core i3/5 chips may be cheaper but there not cheap enough in certain markets. |