Core Duo Reaches the Desktop 299
rtt writes "AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market due to Intel's offerings struggling to keep up in terms of performance and power consumption.
Yonah is the predecessor to the Core architecture and is predominantly a mobile chip, and is used at the heart of Intel's Viiv technology. Bit-tech has an article about Yonah beating the top of the range desktop AMD chip, the FX60, clock for clock. From the article" 'When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation.'"
Lies! Lies and slander! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Lies! Lies and slander! (Score:3, Interesting)
In any case, I don't know how much this new intel is better or not, but I wo
PRICE:PERFORMANCE, THE RATIO & YOU (Score:2, Interesting)
For instance when I bought my car, I spent about 10 hours researching. I saved over $4000 off of sticker, and 70000 miles later I am still a happy camper! that was between 12-18% off the price. My time was worth $400
How to buy anything.
1. Set a realistic budget for the item you wish to purchase & save money for it
2. Do research on the best Price:Performance
Re:Lies! Lies and slander! (Score:2)
Re:Lies! Lies and slander! (Score:4, Informative)
Already on the desktop (Score:5, Informative)
Based on these and other benchmarks it would appear that Merom ("Core 2 Duo", the next generation portable processor, Conroe (the next generation desktop/workstation processor), and Woodcrest (the next generation workstation/server processor) will have quite a bit to offer.
Re:Already on the desktop (Score:2)
Your understanding is incorrect. The only Core processor currently available is Yonah - Intel Core Duo and Intel Core Solo. (There's also a Yonah derivative, Sossaman, called the Dual-Core Xeon LV, but that's not used in any Apple machines.) Conroe is to be the "desktop-oriented" processor, but it's not out yet, a
Re:Already on the desktop (Score:2)
Anyway they all are standard Core processors and standard Intel chip sets.
Re:Already on the desktop (Score:2)
every situation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:every situation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:2, Informative)
That would be the Conroe (Score:4, Informative)
Re:That would be the Conroe (Score:2)
Confusingly, Intel's using "Core" in products using both the Pentium M microarchitecture (Yonah, a/k/a Intel Core Duo/Solo) and using the new Intel Core Microarchitecture (Conroe and Merom, a/k/a Intel Core 2 Duo and perhaps Solo).
I.e., Conroe's and Merom's microarchitecture is significantly different from Yonah's, even though they both have "Core" in their names.
Re:That would be the Conroe (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's who cares: (Score:2)
You might think that the low end isn't all that important, but remember, it's how AMD got it's foot in the door.
Re:Here's who cares: (Score:2)
Re:Here's who cares: (Score:2)
Re:Here's who cares: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here's who cares: (Score:2)
Re:Here's who cares: (Score:2)
Generally the power of dual-core parts is actually not higher than single core parts. A 65W chip is a 65W chip.
Tom
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:2)
I really, really hope that Microsoft intends to allow XP32 to be upgraded to Vista64.
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:5, Funny)
32 bits should be enough for anyone.
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:4, Funny)
Two important improvements... (Score:2)
...introduced in x86-64 are a) an additional 8 registers, and b) default 32-bit pointers (no need to lug around 64-bits all the time).
While I don't know x86 asm, doubling the register file while keeping the pointers the same size will certainly impact performance. Metrics would be interesting.
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:2)
Because they're faster.
Several parallelizeable operations can be done faster using a 64-bit architecture than a 32-bit architecture. While it is a bit silly to run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit architecture or to buy a 64-bit architecture and forever run it on a 32-bit OS, 64-bit programs on a 64-bit OS will outperform their counterparts in several important instances. On [pcstats.com]
Yeah. (Score:2)
Re:Yeah. (Score:4, Funny)
I see you used the official Gentoo benchmark suite.
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:2)
This is in a 2P workstation in my house [and yes I use it fairly well]. I run windows in a QEMU environment [that's 1GB of memory] and do a lot of parallel builds (e.g. make -j5) which can suck back the memory.
On top of that there are architectural benefits to 64-bit mode. You basically do away with segments [it's all done through paging]. You get 8 more GPRs an
Re:Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, if you want proper end-to-end AMD64 software you'll need Linux.
AMD64's performance improvements are a reality on Linux, today.
Some benchmarks:
http://enterprise.linux.com/enterprise/05/06/09/14 13209.shtml?tid=121 [linux.com]
Some more benchmarks, on XP!:
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1 665&page=6 [pcstats.com]
There are many, many, many more out there. If you're doing math-intensive thing
Re:Wake me up when software supports 64-bit (Score:2)
Did I mention I run Gentoo?
So yes, all my software can use the extra registers and is in a proper flat memory model.
Tom
It's a play on words. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's a play on words. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a play on words. (Score:2)
In the article I linked to, quake 4 at 1024x768 high quality, base FX60=162 and when overclocked, 173.6. In other words, overclocking the FX60 gives 106.8% the performace over factory settings on this test.
Going back to the arti
Re:It's a play on words. (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I already knew that, but I still looked at the benchmarks.
Re:It's a play on words. (Score:2)
Ergo, it beat the tar out of the Athlon, clock-for-clock.
Re:It's a play on words. (Score:2)
Re:It's a play on words. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you dont need the 64 bit stuff, this looks like a pretty good deal.
Re:It's a play on words. (Score:3, Funny)
Clearly you never got to play with a K6.
Uh (Score:4, Informative)
Over the top (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Over the top (Score:2, Insightful)
The Core Duo is expensive, but have you looked at what AMD is charging for the FX series? Intel wins on price/performance by a mile. On the other hand, they're overclocking the Intel CPU a hell of a lot and running the AMD CPU at stock speed, so it's not exactly a fair comparison. Still says a lot about what we can expect from Core 2, though.
What? We are talking about the Co
Re:Over the top (Score:2, Insightful)
Match on Desktop perhaps but not as a workstation (Score:4, Interesting)
Core Duo solves a lot of the short comings, but there is one major feature omission from Yonah's architecture: it doesn't support Intel's EM64T 64-bit extensions
and later:
The lack of 64-bit extensions may be a worry for some, as will the poor FPU performance - the latter showed up in our MP3 encoding test.
So if you are doing anything with a 64-bit, high memory, or FPU requirement, AMD still wins.
Until Conroe (Score:3, Insightful)
Until then the consumer space really doesn't need 64-bit processors for most work people do.
Re:Until Conroe (Score:2)
Re:Until Conroe (Score:2)
Why did they overclock the Core Duo? (Score:2, Interesting)
Athlon X2 4800+ stock > Core Duo at stock clocks, in 32-bit mode.
Athlon X2 4800+ stock Core Duo at stock, in 32-bit mode.
Athlon FX-60 stock http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1 845&page=2 , it is possible to run the Athlon X2 4800+ at 3.14 ghz , which is a 30% overclock, albeit with a very serious cooling solution. I'm wagering that at that speed it would flatten the overclock Core Duo, especially if you permit 64-bit optimizations, which DO
Re:Why did they overclock the Core Duo? (Score:2)
AMD X2 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock.
AMD X2 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked.
AMD FX-60 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock.
AMD FX-60 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked.
Because they could do so easily. (Score:3, Interesting)
Note the "very serious cooling solution". In the case of the OCed Core Duo, they used the stock cooler and it didn't even get hot when clocked WAY beyond the speed they tested it at. If you read the article they were able to run it as high as 3.1 GHz or so and the stock heatsink was still cold to the touch at that speed.
I've been a big AMD fan for a long time, but now that I own
Dubious Test (Score:4, Insightful)
As near as I can determine from reading the article, it proves that a Core Duo *slightly* outperforms an Athlon 64 XP2 when doing heavy number crunching with a 32-bit Windows application.
Comparing the same application build for 64-bit on Linux vs. 32-bit on Linux (or BSD) would have been a far more meaningful comparison.
Re:Dubious Test (Score:2)
Re:Dubious Test (Score:2)
Re:Dubious Test (Score:2)
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
The other thing we need to remember is pricing. I was checking prices the other day for 4200+ processors and D950 processors. While almost exactly the same price, right now the AMD would still be much cheaper because of RAM price differences (especially if you get large RAM sticks, I am looking for 2x 1GB) and motherboards. Find motherboards for AMD and Intel that I believe were equal in features had the Intel motherboard almost $20 more then the AMD one.
Now, while I cannot attest for the power consumption on Intel right off, AMD is releasing more energy efficient processors with the AM2 release, due in just a few weeks. There should also be a slight (5-10%) performance increase based off of information from reviews of the processors and boards while still in development (improvements may be better in production models), so I would not call this a win for Intel yet.
I am glad that Intel finally seems to be catching up with AMD, which hopefully will only lead to better competition between the two over time. I really do not like these speculative reviews (remember those Opteron 64-bit reviews before the first Athlon64s hit), so someone wake me up when Socket AM2 and its processor are out and the new line of Intel chips is actually available and not just a ramped up Yonah. Especially since the cost of the motherboard they used makes you want to cringe. (I have yet to have to break $100 on my motherboards.)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Unless AMD moves to 65nm and keeps investing in their processor design and moving it forward they will lose this edge fast though as Intel is demonstrating. It's good to see Intel dropping their bad design decisions that lead to the P4 and Itanic and getting back on track with classic good
Just shows how selective statistics can lie (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice how they only included ONE FPU intensive task and AMD (and several of the Intel products) schooled this mobile offering? Most reviews include a lot more balanced set of tests, this one obviously had their storyline written for them and was tailoring the tests to fit the plot.
And also, let us not forget that the STOCK benchmark numbers for this chip were anything but impressive, so they played up the overclocked numbers. However, while this chip does have some seriously intersting overclock potential it isn't the first chip to be massively overclocked. Just last week we were salivating over a budgie Intel chip that somebody overclocked into the world's fastest CPU. So why not include THAT firebreathing monster's numbers on the chart along with some seriously overclocked AMD parts? Perhaps that would't have had such a dramatic narrative? Ah.
Meanwhile, I'll keep comparing parts running at factory spec and waiting to see what AMD drops next week to compare current gen parts to current gen parts.
Re:Just shows how selective statistics can lie (Score:2)
I thought the real issue with overclocking the Intel chip is that overclocking it was very easy given a stock heatsink and fan - that means that intel can sell the chips at a higher speed w
What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:5, Funny)
It's a secret miracle ingredient about which all that is clear is that you're supposed to think it's good without needing to know what it is, exactly, or what it does, or why it's good.
Intel says: With Intel Viiv technology, you control a highly integrated Intel platform designed for digital entertainment. That means you can: Take charge of your media. Share experiences with movies, photos, and music with your friends and family. Simplify your digital life.
It's sort of like saying "Texaco gasoline has CleanSystem3, which will help you score with hot chicks."
Will somebody please explain to me what technical characteristics of a processor allow you to "share experiences with movies, photos, and music with your friends and family?"
Unless that means it doesn't support DRM?
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
Think of Viiv as a loose certification standard. If the system meets certain specs (Fast HD, fast ram, certain processor speed) then the system gets the Viiv designation, and you can be fairly certain that you can take advantage of your digicam toys you've spent a small fortune on.
So, Viiv is not a CPU name, it's like a standards desig
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:5, Insightful)
That marketing blurb should read: It's 1984-style DoubleSpeak.
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
DRM does not affect the sharing of any of YOUR media - what it affects is the media that you don't own full rights to. So if you take pictures, create music or movies - you can share them fully without any effort.
Now unfortunately - there are a bunch of dorks out there that wouldn't allow this kind of sharing (think RIAA/MPAA) so want restrictions put in place. If you create the file - you can control the DRM, if you get the file from "THEM" - they control what features get shared.
U
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
Tolerating it is one thing, but Intel is actively encouraging DRM by advertizing their DRM platform as some kind of misbegotten "feature!" I sure as hell will blame Intel for that!
You don't see Apple advertising their DRM, now do you?
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
Don't like DRM, just don't buy the media files - create them yourself. If you do want the premium content, buy the files and they work as advertised.
Yes, they follow the restrictions on the file, as I said - work as
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
Look at the first reply to the original post -- Tibor the Hun got suckered in by the doublespeak:
He thinks exactly what Intel wants him to think: that ViiV makes a PC more usable, when the reality is
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
That said - it is the media files that tell the computer what to do. If you create a media file that has no DRM restrictions - guess what, nothing happens. What it sounds like you resent is the owner of media content that you want creating a solution that you can't easily bypass by running a cracking tool. I am sorry, the owner of the content didn't want you to do that, or they wouldn't have put a res
Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:2)
I once saw a Macrovision-"Protected" DVD, and it showed the following before the menu:
MACROVISION
QUALITY PROTECTION
The average consumer reading this assumes that Macrovision does something to the DVD that makes it look better or not degrade or something. They take the word "Quality" as a noun. This person might even decide that this is a feature to look for on future DVD purchases.
Someone in the industry who reads it takes "Quality" as an adjective modifying "Protection". They get t
hrm (Score:2, Insightful)
Sham (Score:5, Interesting)
As others have pointed out, the Core Duo only beat out the Athlon64 FX-60 when overclocked. If the chip, when overclocked, was safe for production environments, then the chip would have shipped at a higher default clock speed.
The whole tone of the article is wrong...it seems more interested in Intel than in technology. Notice that the "most impressive thing" is that the Core Duo chip does better than a high-end Intel chip. The only negative thing they mention in the article is a reminder that AMD's AM2 architecture is supposed to come out next week.
They're misrepresenting the product. I have to wonder if they were paid for this review.
Re:Sham (Score:2)
Re:Sham (Score:3, Insightful)
Both were clocked to 2.6ghz so that a clock for clock comparison could be made...
Re:Sham (Score:2)
This article was just bad. They justify over-clocking the Intel chip so they can compare it clock for clock with and AMD chip but that AMD chip is a single core?
I would love to see a good article comparing the two but this isn't it.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Core Duo and the rest of the new Intel line look interesting. I hope AMD steps up and raises the bar again.
here you go... (Score:3, Interesting)
This review is weeks old.
Core Duo beats Opteron 175 clock-for-clock in nearly every test (including all that measure primarily CPU performance and bandwidth). Yes, the Core Duo was massively overclocked, it wins clock-for-clock, but if you want the highest performance right now with no overclocking, it's still AMD. But you'll pay a big power/heat price for it.
Re:Sham (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they were.... If not outright in cash, by getting early access to hot new stuff.
It's also not unknown for a manufacturer to 'accidentally' forget to ask for their stuff back if you write a really glowing review of it.
NVidia appears to have shills working the forums, hired via some marketing agency. This is a hard thing to prove conclusively, but there was at least one documented case a couple months back, so a
Not completely... (Score:2)
no, it's not mobile... (Score:2)
Bottom line: it outperforms AMD clock for clock (of course, it cannot be clocked as high as the fastest AMDs) and uses much less power, partly due to great design, partly due to 65nm process (which AMD won't have until December).
Core Duo Speeds (Score:4, Funny)
In other words, the Athlon 64 ran fine - it just needed a bit more time to cache up to it.
Re:Core Duo Speeds (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Core Duo Speeds (Score:2)
However, your spelling of the word 'absurd' was really quite funny!
AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market due (Score:2)
If you are comparing it to the history of the desktop CPU, then no it ahs not been long. Looking at some market factors, I would guess temporary might even be a better word.
Don't get me wrong, I like the competition in the market. This mean AMD helps keep the price of the good chips^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Intel chips down.
Re:AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market due (Score:2)
AMD has been producing cheaper/superior cpu's since the K7 in 1999. Seven years counts as more than a few in my book.
About the only thing AMD screwed on in recent history was not having an integrated heatspreader for a while there.
"This mean AMD helps keep the price of the good chips^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Intel chips down"
I don't know many people would agree with that but to each his own.
Enter obligatory comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I'm sick of the overly zealous statements when it comes to "OS vs. OS" "Company vs. Company" etc. debates. Why is it so threatening when another companies/organizations happen to produce something better than your favorite company/organization?
Sometimes intel will get it right and sometimes AMD will. Deal with it.
Ya, I know. This is probably eligible for flaimbait and/or troll mod points. Oh well, I just needed to get this off my chest.
Re:Enter obligatory comment (Score:2)
Intel may be catching up and beating AMD in certain areas today but to then extrapolate and say Conroe will beat AMD assumes that AMD is not going to release any new product.
Tom
Re:Enter obligatory comment (Score:2)
Me? I like stuff that works, doesn't cost too much, and is likely to keep doing what I bought it for long into the future. Right now I have Apple machines, an XBox 360, a PS2 and a Nintendo 64. Obviously consoles have always switched around for me - I don't play "teams" with them. Desktops are similar, but Apple has held my intere
Two Words (Score:4, Funny)
You're sick of techie holy wars. But you're reading
Let's Get A Few Things Straight about Yonah (Score:5, Informative)
Yonah = "Core Duo/Solo"
Conroe, Merom = "Core 2 Duo/Solo"
The Woodcrest, who knows?
Conroe, Merom, Woodcrest = "Next Generation Architecture" = "Core Architecture"
Although Yonah is the "Core Duo/Solo," it is not actually part of the "Core Architecture."
Capisci?
When's Core 2 Duo come out anyway? (Score:2)
Naming Convention Ideas - Intel/Lucasfilm (Score:2, Funny)
How about the 3800+ X2??? Motherboard prices? (Score:3, Informative)
Can't compare same clock (Score:2)
Re:Can't compare same clock (Score:2)
The whole (meaningful) point of this article is that that isn't true with this particular set of processors. Actually, the Pentium M has had better performance / clock for a while now.
skewed benchmark (Score:3, Interesting)
Reign on Your Parade (Score:3, Insightful)
AMD has never (or infrequently and briefly) ruled the market. Their often superior tech might sometimes "lead the pack", or even "lead the market" in the sense of directing development. But more people buy Intel desktop CPUs, which is what rules the market.
Re:When is it enough? (Score:2)
PC games are anti-social and lame. I'd rather play with friends at a TV then over the net sheltered in my office.
If you do development at all you'd appreciate the AMD64 benefits plus it's a nice boost to be with the rest of us
Tom
Re:Idiots of the world unite! (Score:2)
Oh, because "64" is more than "32"?
Yes, 64-bit has some advantages, primarily in the area of memory management. It's a bit much to say that it's always faster, across the board. In fact, for some tasks 32-bit is significantly quicker, all else being equal.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
m-
Re:Idiots of the world unite! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiots of the world unite! (Score:4, Funny)
No, when Vista comes out all 32-bit processors will have been obsolete for years.