Waiting for that first quad core Celeron D!

4x's crappier than a single Celeron for twice the price! Oh joy.

Paris, cuz she knows Celerons blow, too.

I remember the arguments against using cpu speed in the model number, but since it's all gone Ennnn and Qnnnn (where nnnn is a pseudo random number), I've completely lost the plot!

All I know is my two desktops are E6600 and Q6600, so the same core2, running at 2.4Ghz, just one machine has 2 cores, the other 4... Where all these new weird and wonderful models fit in around these old chips is a complete mystery to me!

It used to be that the bigger the number, the better the chip, but that doesn't seem to hold true anymore, especially with the seemingly random L2 cache amounts.

If you're not building machines 24/7, and look away from the CPU models for a month, I challenge anyone to know what the hell is going on!

As for AMD, I lost the plot on those just after the X2 range appeared!

If anyone has a simple way (i.e. fits on one page) of explaining these model numbers I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Paris, cos it makes her head hurt too.

"Four times the cores, four times the cache misses!"

/mine is the one with the pockets sewn shut

....thank God someone else doesn't understand it. I thought I was the only one unable to comprehend processor numbers. Since 1998 I have build a dozen computers for myself and friends. 6 months ago I was so confused I just bought one from Dell to save my head from spinning.

What I can't understand with this article is 2 things:

1. How Intel can still call a chip "Celeron". I don't see Ford calling a car the Model T in it's present manufactoring.

2. How many chips does it produce for an ordinary Computer? The list is endless.

KISS - keep it simple stupid

Paris - because we'll all like her KISS.