Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Core Duo Reaches the Desktop

Comments Filter:
  • I'm sure AMD would beg to differ. []
    • I was hoping that your link would lead to some statement of AMD on this comparison on the slashdot venders site, but there doesn't seem to be one. Or at least, none that I can find. Can you give the exact link, I would be happy to read an other side of the story. Or where you just trying to make some vague statement on how AMD supports slashdot and we should be pro-AMD even when they are not in front of intel concerning CPU power.

      In any case, I don't know how much this new intel is better or not, but I wo

      • It's how I have obtained everything I have on a meager income. (1> meager 100000)
        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 /hr. 5x what I bill my clients, and 17x what I make hourly.

        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
      • I think he was joking, and that you were just itching for an excuse to post that.
  • by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:44PM (#15367074)
    Apple is aready using the Intel Core Duo T2500 in the iMac [], and the Core Duo and Core Solo in the Mac mini [].

    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.
  • every situation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:47PM (#15367123)
    mp3 encoding and other floating point workloads are quite common. AMD wins hands down there.
    • Since most MP3's are downloaded, this is not an issue :) AMD lost the consumer (ie., non geek brand fanbois) market to Intel. I always used AMD now after my AMD laptop is a hairdryer , opening a browser turns the AMD fan on non stop. They are a joke in the power consumption efficiency market. Merom beats AMD into a pulp. Im going Core 2 Duo on my laptops in the near future, not AMD.
  • by RelliK ( 4466 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:48PM (#15367125)
    When it supports AMD64 instruction set, it will be worth a look. Until then who cares?
    • Not only is this chip 32bit only, it's also dual core as opposed to the FX60's single core, its been built on a 65nm process unlike the FX60's 90nm, and the FX60 is actually starting to show it's age a little bit. I big giant "Duh" springs to mind at this point.
    • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:58PM (#15367230)
      AKA Core 2 Duo. Not sure on offical launch date, November I think. At any rate it's their high performance chip based on the Core design, targeted at desktops. Faster and has EMT64 (Intel's name for the x86 64-bit extensions). Limited testing on it at this point, since it's still engineering samples only, but AnandTech found it to be about 10-30% faster than a 2.8GHz Athlon X2 ( .
      • At any rate it's their high performance chip based on the Core design

        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.

      • by reldruH ( 956292 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @03:07PM (#15367860) Journal
        A couple of weeks ago Intel announced they were moving up their launch dates. Here's the quote from the article []: "Three new chips, one for each of the Core market segments, will be part of the rollout: Woodcrest for servers in June, Conroe for desktops in July, and Merom for notebooks in August." Hopefully by November prices will have already started dropping.
    • Vendors that are tired of AMD's focus on the high end of everything. Go ahead, look for a low end AMD processor. You won't find one anymore. AMD is all about Opterons and X2's now. My local and loyal AMD computer shop here just went to Intel for their low end machines. The prices Intel is offering low end chips for is a real bargain and hard to pass up no matter how big a fan you are of AMD.

      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.
    • Until Linux rules the world or Microsoft produce a 64-bit version of Windows that actually works seamlessly, I think 64-bit instruction sets are overrated. I say this as someone posting this message on an Athlon 64 X2 3800+.

      I really, really hope that Microsoft intends to allow XP32 to be upgraded to Vista64.

  • by insomniac8400 ( 590226 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:48PM (#15367129)
    "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." If this is true, it would be the first time intel made anything better than amd. But in the end, all that matters is that AMD's $200 chip outperforms intel's $200 chip.
    • by anagama ( 611277 ) <> on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:53PM (#15367181) Homepage
      It's worth noting that the comparison is between the FX-60 running at factory speed, and a Core Duo running overclocked.
      • Here is an article with an overclocked FX-60 []. It's hard to make direct comparisons between the articles but look at the quake results. In the Bit-Tech Core Duo article linked in the summary, Quake 4 1280x1024 high quality: FX60 gets 119.5 fps and overclocked T2600 gets 124.4.

        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
      • It's worth nothing that the comparison is between the FX-60 running at 2.6 GHz, and a Core Duo running at 2.6 GHz. Hence the clock-for-clock comparison. I think they were trying to compare architectures, for which I thought the article did a good job. I learned that the Yonah is nice, but can't do 64-bit or FPU operations well.

        Actually, I already knew that, but I still looked at the benchmarks.
      • It's also worth noting that the Core Duo, over-clocked, was still running at a slower frequency than the FX-60 at stock speeds.

        Ergo, it beat the tar out of the Athlon, clock-for-clock.
        • Get back to me when it can beat the tar out of the Athlon dollar-for-dollar and I'll be impressed. As we know, clock speeds mean precisely jack shit. All I care about is performance per dollar, and performance per watt.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Thats the thing, the FX60 is AMD's highest FX chip, and it starts at $990 on pricewatch and over $1000 on froogle. Pricewatch isnt listing core duos yet, but froogle has this model (duo T2600) startng at $640.

      If you dont need the 64 bit stuff, this looks like a pretty good deal.
    • " If this is true, it would be the first time intel made anything better than amd. "

      Clearly you never got to play with a K6.
  • Uh (Score:4, Informative)

    by Moby Cock ( 771358 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:50PM (#15367147) Homepage
    Core Duo has been available in a desktop machine for months. They are standard in every iMac.
  • Over the top (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rorian ( 88503 ) <james.fysh@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:50PM (#15367152) Homepage Journal
    I think they go just a bit overboard in saying that Yonah beats the FX-60 "into a corner".. Most benchmarks had it either infront or behind by around 2-3%. Is it really worth forking out a few hundred dollars for such a dismal gain in performance? Does it have better performance-per-watt? That's what really seems to count these days anyway.
    • Re:Over the top (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jsoderba ( 105512 )

      Is it really worth forking out a few hundred dollars for such a dismal gain in performance?

      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.

      Does it have better performance-per-watt?

      What? We are talking about the Co

      • Re:Over the top (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Aadain2001 ( 684036 )
        The overclocked the Core chip to MATCH the clock frequency of the FX60 chip. It's not an unfair comparison at all. They eliminated the clock as a difference and instead are only comparing the performance of the architectures, clock-per-clock. Viewed like that, the Core chip is better (not by a huge amount, but still better). Through in the lower power & heat and lower price, and the Core chip beats the FX60 by a very wide margin.
  • by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) * on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:53PM (#15367187)
    From TFA:

    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.
  • I don't understand the articles' conclusions.

    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 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
    • Wow slashdot kills brackets.

      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.
    • "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."

      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)

    by cait56 ( 677299 ) * on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:57PM (#15367224) Homepage

    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.

    • Whether or not the test is dubious is debatable, but the test you suggest doesn't have much application to the average user. How many FPS Far Cry turns out on a Core Duo on Windows XP is much more meaningful to Joe Six Pack when he wants to see which gives him more bang for his buck.
    • Right... because linux holds far more relevance to the every-day user. Or not.
  • Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)

    by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:59PM (#15367236) Journal
    First, I would hardly say it is beating it. The numbers are all close, but most the processes they are running are almost running into other limits beyond processing speed at this point. The differences are not that great and the chip still loses (and much more then it whens other tests) in anything that is single threaded.

    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.)
    • I'll also point out that AMD is doing all this at 90nm while these Intel chips are 65nm. Intel is ahead in rolling out new manufacturing processes and it's giving them a huge boost but AMD has a better processor design.

      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
  • by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris@beau . o rg> on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:02PM (#15367267)
    Ok, Intel is getting some game, 'bout freaking time. But this isn't an "AMD killer" by any means.

    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.
    • It is relatively easy to improve FP performance with a small investment of die space and power. The reason it isn't so good is that this is a mobile computer, so it doesn't really need high peformace FPU's. A desktop version would probably have comparable performance, but probably not significantly better than AMD's.

      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
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:04PM (#15367285) Homepage
    It seems to be one of those mysterious things like IBM's "SAA" or Microsoft's ".NET" or Vitalis' "V7..." .

    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?
    • 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?"

      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
    • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:53PM (#15367724)
      Unless that means it doesn't support DRM?
      On the contrary, it means that it does support DRM. And not just DRM, but Treacherous Computing. In hardware.

      That marketing blurb should read:
      Intel says: With Intel Viiv technology, we control a highly locked-down Intel platform designed for protecting publishers' "Intellectual Property". That means you can: Let us take charge of "your" media. Share experiences with movies, photos, and music with your friends and family if we let you. Complicate your digital life.
      It's 1984-style DoubleSpeak.
      • That is just silly.

        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.


        • Unfortunately, companies like Apple (iPOD) and Intel (ViiV) have partially caved to the media companies so they can share their media.

          Life sucks - but don't blame Intel or Apple for this silliness

          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?

          • Yes, I prefer when companies hide the sneaky things like they do and don't make me aware of the DRM'd content that THEY sell. At least with Intel you know that their premium content is DRM'd vs. Apple sneaking it into THEIR formats rather than just using the formats that the owners required.

            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

            • We're not talking about DRM'd files here, we're talking about hardware. Intel is trying to convince people that having hardware enforce DRM against them is somehow a good thing, which is what makes them evil.

              Look at the first reply to the original post -- Tibor the Hun got suckered in by the doublespeak:

              I think it's a good effort. Takes the focus off the MHz war, and steers it on the useability of the PC.

              He thinks exactly what Intel wants him to think: that ViiV makes a PC more usable, when the reality is

              • Yes, there are hardware components to a DRM solution. You have to have them to make a usable solution.

                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

          • It's like Macrovision.

            I once saw a Macrovision-"Protected" DVD, and it showed the following before the menu:


            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)

    So.. What they are saying is Intel's latest and greatest CPU is finally gonna beat something AMD released, what, 5 or 6 months ago? Intel is STILL playing catch-up.
  • Sham (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Short Circuit ( 52384 ) * <> on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:11PM (#15367336) Homepage Journal
    You know, I like the Core Duo, and would love to have one in a laptop or on a desktop. (If Debian isn't ready for x86-64, then x86-64 isn't ready for me.)

    Probably the most impressive thing is that the T2600 out-guns Intel's flagship Pentium Extreme Edition 965 processor, even with the massive clock speed deficit. After effortlessly overclocking our Core Duo to 2.6GHz, it beats AMD's flagship Athlon 64 FX-60 into a pulp.

    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 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.
    • I would generally agree (if it could go higher, they would let it to). However, as long as Yonah is a mobile chip, they have no reason to test specs that would mean raising the voltage and frequency too much, as that simply won't work in a laptop (Pentium 4 M wasn't too popular). It should be obvious that we can nearly promise reliability at higher frequencies if we allow a higher Vcore, and appropriate cooling. Part of the big win with Conroe will of course be that they change that tradeoff, and optimize a
    • Re:Sham (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Clockwurk ( 577966 ) *
      As others have pointed out, the Core Duo only beat out the Athlon64 FX-60 when overclocked.

      Both were clocked to 2.6ghz so that a clock for clock comparison could be made...
      • So a duel core CoreDuo was faster tick for tick than a single core Athlon 64?
        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)

      by Malor ( 3658 )
      They're misrepresenting the product. I have to wonder if they were paid for this review.

      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
    • Don't forget that the Intel chip is a laptop chip that is designed to run in nice small enclosures. These enclosures have poor ventilation and the rated clock speed must take this into account. Put the same laptop chip into a desktop with a real heat sink/fan and proper ventilation and it should overclock just fine. In fact, when real desktop chips are released they will probably just relabel the portable chips with a higher power consumption, voltage and clock frequency.
  • by digitaldc ( 879047 ) * on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:12PM (#15367349)
    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.

    In other words, the Athlon 64 ran fine - it just needed a bit more time to cache up to it.
  • if by 'long' you mean 'the past few years' then yeah.
    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.
    • "if by 'long' you mean 'the past few years' then yeah."

      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.
  • by Temujin_12 ( 832986 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:25PM (#15367479)
    Entry obligatory AMD zealot, "intel can't possibly make something better then AMD" comments here _______.

    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.
    • The only problem I have with these stories is that they assume the competition is asleep at the wheel.

      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.

    • It's probably because most geeks aren't really into sports. You'll see these same discussion with football fans - sometimes to an absurd degree. It's just a "team" or "side" thing.

      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)

      by Guysmiley777 ( 880063 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @03:02PM (#15367810)
      Geek Religion

      You're sick of techie holy wars. But you're reading /. comments? If you can't stand baseless bickering over meaningless arguments, it's best to probably stay away from the Comments section of this site.
  • by Shuh ( 13578 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:31PM (#15367541) Journal

    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."

    • I keep hearing all about Conroe but when is it supposed to hit the market in a buyable form for us regular folks?
    • Hmm...looking over these names, I think Intel could team up with Lucasfilm and make some serious dough together:
      • Yoda - Master CPU, very small and lightweight, yet incredibly powerful. Only loses in a head to head comparison to the AMD Sidious.
      • Core Solo - Sure, she may not look like much, but she'll make .5 past lightspeed. Original Editions will shoot an instruction first, but Special Editions will delay in shooting.
      • Wookie - built for mobie devices as a direct competition with the ARM CPUs to rip them
  • This is a $300 processor, that with a $100 motherboard can hit 2.5GHZ without any effort. Not only that but it's proven, and the motherboard it uses are prooven and have been put through the paces. This Core Duo 2GHZ Cpu is $420, and no one knows much about overclocking with the available motherboards. Only ones on newegg are $150 and micro atx (and in my experience these types of boards do not overclock well. This is comparing apples and oranges. Simple fact, my 3800 X2 using Sandra's bench's outbenches every Intel CPU except the $1000 EE Edition. and it's damn close on that.
  • After all, AMD typically performs better when it runs at a smaller clock speed. :^)
  • skewed benchmark (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SolusSD ( 680489 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @03:23PM (#15367984) Homepage
    Wasn't it Intel that "taught" us that performance per clock cycle isn't important? This entire benchmark is a a little skewed since most people will not be running the core duo *overclocked*. So in reality, the Athlon FX-60 is still king of this benchmark. Don't get me wrong, I believe the core duo is a wonderful processor and I'll be sure to have it in my next notebook.
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @04:16PM (#15368387) Homepage Journal
    "AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market"

    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.

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: A giant panda bear is really a member of the racoon family.