Monday, July 4th 2011

Intel Intros New Celeron M 857 ULV Processor

Intel updated its product offer to OEMs with a new low-cost ultra-low voltage (ULV) processor, the Intel Celeron M 857. The chip is designed for use in ultra-portable notebooks. Built on the 32 nm processor node, this dual-core chip is clocked at 1.20 GHz, lacks HyperThreading, has 2 MB of shared L3 cache, dual-channel DDR3 IMC, and embedded graphics. The chip has a TDP of just 17W. Celeron M 857 has the same channel price as Celeron M 847, $134, which it displaces.

Source: TechConnect Magazine
Add your own comment

21 Comments on Intel Intros New Celeron M 857 ULV Processor

#1
micropage7
celeron is still exist? its been a while we hear nutting bout
celeron
Posted on Reply
#2
seronx
but can it play Crysis I bet it can't!!!

But, I heard the Z-series can :D
Posted on Reply
#3
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: micropage7
celeron is still exist? its been a while we hear nutting bout
celeron
There was a socket 1156 Clarkdale based Celeron. There will also be socket 1155 Sandy Bridge based Celerons out towards the end of this year.
Posted on Reply
#4
micropage7
yeah although celeron still exist. its name aint heard recently since the booming of intel i series and atom processor
Posted on Reply
#5
Red_Machine
This is what the Pentium is for these days. Why continue the Celeron?
Posted on Reply
#6
DanTheBanjoman
SeƱor Moderator
How does it perform compared to the N550 which uses half the power and costs just over half?
Posted on Reply
#7
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
by: seronx
but can it play Crysis I bet it can't!!
better watch your mouth if i was you. I heard btarunr hands out custom infractions to people who ask that same question.
Posted on Reply
#8
Fourstaff
Performance plz thx. Want to know what this is based on too, I have a feeling that its a gimped i3 Sandy Bridge with no HT.
Posted on Reply
#9
a_ump
yea, i wonder how this'll fair against AMD's T-APU line. i mean 17watts compared to 4.5, plus a better GPU in the AMD chip. Personally thinking this'll suck...
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Red_Machine
This is what the Pentium is for these days. Why continue the Celeron?
Why care about the name? Does the name somehow effect performance some way that I'm not aware of?
Posted on Reply
#11
Fourstaff
by: newtekie1
Why care about the name? Does the name somehow effect performance some way that I'm not aware of?
Of course it does :nutkick: Have you seen a Processor with "Pentium" outgunning a processor with "Core i3" before? No? That is what I thought too. Obviously names matter. :roll:

I see Red_machine's point though, Intel just need the Core iX names rather than still cling on the Pentium and Celeron. Just call them i1 for simplicity.
Posted on Reply
#12
Red_Machine
by: Fourstaff
Of course it does :nutkick: Have you seen a Processor with "Pentium" outgunning a processor with "Core i3" before? No? That is what I thought too. Obviously names matter. :roll:

I see Red_machine's point though, Intel just need the Core iX names rather than still cling on the Pentium and Celeron. Just call them i1 for simplicity.
I agree. I think they should just drop all their past model names now.
Posted on Reply
#15
Fourstaff
by: Completely Bonkers
I would like to see a SOCKETED version of this for my ITX builds.
It should exist in mobo+chip package like Brazos

by: MikeMurphy
$137?!??
Laptop Processors are always a cut more expensive.
Posted on Reply
#16
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
personally looking at the better GPUs AMD offers and probably better CPUs in the APU too, also the price thingy, these will probably suck.

hell i forgot AMD consumes lesser power too :D

i hope angry birds works okay here, i was playing it on an i3 laptop, used alt+F4 and then had to restart it LOL.
Posted on Reply
#17
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Completely Bonkers
I would like to see a SOCKETED version of this for my ITX builds.
I wouldn't be surprised if you could take a G530 and underclock/undervolt it to pretty damn close to 17w.
Posted on Reply
#18
jpierce55
by: a_ump
yea, i wonder how this'll fair against AMD's T-APU line. i mean 17watts compared to 4.5, plus a better GPU in the AMD chip. Personally thinking this'll suck...
I can't help to agree. It would have to perform much better to be truly competitive at that wattage/price verses a processor at a similar price range that contains a reasonable gpu.
Posted on Reply
#19
mastrdrver
by: Fourstaff
Laptop Processors are always a cut more expensive.
Problem is this is Intel graphics we are talking about here. No competition for Bobcat.
Posted on Reply
#20
Fourstaff
by: mastrdrver
Problem is this is Intel graphics we are talking about here. No competition for Bobcat.
Intel graphics is fine for anything named "Farmville" and below. This processor is not aimed at your regular netbook with some multimedia (bobcat or ION), but rather people who wants something a step more powerful than Atom. Will not be surprised if this processor smashes Bobcat into a million pieces in anything other than graphics.
Posted on Reply
#21
mastrdrver
Intel can't even do graphics for Farmville let alone Youtube on this Celeron.

This one doesn't come with the run of the mill GPU like that of the HD2000/3000 order. This one only supports dual displays. Forget Quicksync, 3D, Clear Video, etc. The only thing it has going for it is the 1Ghz ceiling on the GPU clock. Though as Intel has yet to figure out that having a GPU clock all over the place is determinant to performance, I'm not expecting miracles.

You right this is not going in to netbooks, but it is aimed at the ultra portable market which is one that Bobcat still has reign over until you get to the actual i-series processors or some of the faster Pentium Sandy Bridge series processors. I'd even take the new AMD A-series (once the dual cores show up) over any Sandy Bridge based Celeron or Pentium.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment