Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Core 2 Duo Notebooks Reviewed 125

An anonymous reader writes "With the launch of Intel's Core 2 Duo chip today, I found this article that not only covers the new chip itself, but also reviews and benchmarks two retail notebooks. It's interesting since one machine has the entry level 1.66GHz CPU while the other has the top end 2.33GHz chip."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Core 2 Duo Notebooks Reviewed

Comments Filter:
  • Bottom line? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:00AM (#15993519) Homepage Journal
    So it's a glorified gamer machine? How fast can it start and run Lotus Notes or Thunderbird? How fast can it run a complete AV scan? How well and how fast does it run end to end, real world applications and not just RAM resident games? These benchmarks suck and pretty much ignore the fact that it's a notebook machine at all. And battery life appears to suck hard.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PhoenixOne ( 674466 )

      My view is very limited (I work in the game industry), but do people really buy the latest and greatest hardware just so they can run Thunderbird faster?

      I know there are plenty of non-game apps out there that require some serious CPU clocks, but if you need 2+ GHz to view your mail something has gone very wrong...

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by personman21 ( 762072 )
        Have you not heard of a little project called Windows Vista?
        • Score a Slashdot point (bashing Microsoft). :)

          But you're not wrong. If the release version of Vista is only 2 to 3 times as fast as the latest beta, then running any app with less than 3GHz would be a crime.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
        Well CAD users and yes a lot of people use CAD on notebooks.
        Photoshop users need a lot of CPU power as well.
        I for the life of me don't know why people pay two grand to play a $60 game.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Moofie ( 22272 )
          Wow...it's almost like you have a different set of values and predilections from other people! What a stunning revelation. Where ever will it stop?
          • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
            Yes I do find it odd. There are so many games that are fun and will run on an $800 machine just fine these days. The very idea of an Athlon FX, with SLI or ATI Crossfire video boards does strike me as a huge waste of money. The funny thing is that most gaming sites agree with me.
            • by Moofie ( 22272 )
              Right. Again, you seem to be surprised that there are people who will spend large amounts of money for small amounts of performance. What color is the sky on your planet?

              (I happen to think those people are rather foolish, but I definitely appreciate their efforts to drive down prices on second- and third-string gear, which is what I buy on the infrequent occasions that I upgrade my PC.)
              • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
                Oh I am never surprised. Just commenting on the obvious silliness of it. Right up with magnetic wrist bands for air sickness, the pink razor cell phone, and the Sony PS-3.
                I do wonder if you can use Nvidia Quadro cards in SLI mode. I mean does anyone that needs super high graphics performance use SLI?
                And yes I feel that there is a difference between the words needs, and wants.
                Unless you write video games for a living, review them, or compete professionally anything involving a video game is in the want categ
        • To be fair, it's $2000 to play several $60 games, and then run a free IM client to talk about how cool it all is.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Rytr23 ( 704409 )
      Well, I am not defending them too much but they did perform more than gaming benchmarks..ie large file encryption, photoshop rendering etc etc.. so i am not sure what you're saying... as for ignoring that it is a notebook, well, it would seem to me that if I were looking for a "notebook" as opposed to a "desktop replacement" I wouldn't be looking at a 17" laptop that weighs 10 pounds.. maybe something a little more portable and less exhausting to tote around. And OF COURSE BATTERY LIFE IS GOING TO SUCK!!
      • by shmlco ( 594907 )
        Apple MacBook Pro, 17" screen, 6.8lbs, 1" thick, 5.5 hours. ;)
        • Apple MacBook Pro, 17" screen, 6.8lbs, 1" thick, 5.5 hours. ;)
          Ability to cook two eggs at the same time? Priceless.

          Regards,
          Ross
          • by shmlco ( 594907 )
            Since mine's always on a desk, lapdesk, or table, I think I'll not bother carrying three extra pounds of insulation. But hey, it's your back.
    • This article tells absolutely nothing useful about the Core 2 platform, but it may have useful bits in it for those who are buzzword hungry. As our sister site reports, the first chip is better than the other chip. Let's have a look at a list comparing features of Chip A and Chip 2.
      • first chip - better than some other chips, unless you wait until spring
      • chip II - chip C is better than this in all respects, except that a certain chip which may or may not be the second chip or chip 3 is more modern and consumes less heat and is faster
      • third chip - designed in a foreign country and better than chip 2 but slower than the second chip
      • another chip - better than a chip which is to say not really better, but overwhelmingly not quite as power hungry as chip 1
      • a different chip - this is the be-all and end-all of chips off the ol' block, the mother load of chipdom, but not very impressive otherwise as that other chip
      Having trouble following me? Oh, gosh! I'm so sorry! As you can see, I'm having some difficulty stringing nouns and verbs together in order which conveys useful meaning. This article is a wedgie bunchy terdhammer pukebucket of crap. This article is a hopeless string of buzz words in a mash-up, probably ripped from an ars technica article or two and cranked back and forth through the Google translator to obscure the source . Don't waste your time reading it.

      I hope and desire that reading this really-not-fine-in-any-way article has not permanently affected my linguistic processing ability, although it may be so effected... doh! affected.

      Doesn't anybody *screen* these submissions?
      • Doesn't anybody *screen* these submissions?

        I hate to have to say this, but you're apparently new here :)

        And well done on that post. I went from gloomy-but-workable to happier-than-pot after reading it. You should either

        A) Start a blog
        2) Do a stand up show.
        5) Save your comment somewhere for future reference.

        Not only have you used the word "turdhammer" (albeit misspelt, you clown) , but you used it beautifully. I hope and desire that every post that makes fun of other people/corporations/websites elevates its
      • That guy ignore! Real review of article here is:

        -

        This article the usefulness does not inform no matter what at all concerning the platform center 2, perhaps it possesses that useful bit for those which is hungry special language that. Because us the report of the place of the sisters, is better than the first fragment other fragment. It probably will have glance with the list which compares the feature of fragment a and fragment 2.
        • First when the fragment - it does not wait to the spring, improve than the fragment which has other things
        • Chip II - chip C this compared to compared to recovers with all directions, being instead of second chip or chip 3 intelligence the map which will not be the specific chip which it does not know today and compared to the enemy consumes ten and it is quicker
        • It becomes design from the foreign nation and 3rd the chip - and second the chip than folds and it cuts smaller 2 to improve it sees but it is slower
        • The different chip - with chip 1 by hungry force compared to it recovers with realness and it talks and the chip which is for compared to improves but overwhelmingly positively
        • The different chip - this when it is not like that, all, the different chip with the fact that it is impressed quite together but chipdom mother burden ol block falling chips end all, and so

        There is a trouble which follows me? Oh, Oh! Me quite sensibility be! The possibility you seeing the broad way which is, me the order broad way what kind of to be young bud which conveys meaning which is useful ties the personage and freezing to death together and. This article wedgie of the trash is terdhammer pukebucket where it is convex. This article is to chain every hour comfort which is not hope of popular saying, Iri it is torn like that and probably ars technica articles or in order to do darkly from 2 origin Google interpretations which the crank attach it leads and. It it does not waste you timely reading to dry.

        I do not know and so brought about... as many as doh logs i hope and the fact that it reads the what kind of method article from under the precision which is not this realness is Yongwon and to my language processing ability and the thing effect do not go mad i want! where Effect it received.

        The troublesome army song submits *screen*?

        -

        Mod the tubes it will kick and power Insightful is this post!
        • Dang it! I was going to run it through the Google translator and back before I posted. :-)

          Thank you so much for taking care of this for me.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      It sounds like you think those tasks are more CPU-intensive than gaming might be. Gaming is not just a RAM benchmarks; games hit the CPU harder than almost anything you can throw at a PC. As far as application load times and AV scans go, that's probably equal parts CPU, RAM, and HD speed (more HD speed on the AV scan). If you're benchmarking a CPU, you've got synthetic benchmarks, games, and PhotoShop, pretty much.
      • by Jerom ( 96338 )
        I generally agree with you, but I would add media encoding to this list (MP3 or DIVX ripping)

        Regards,

        J.
    • These benchmarks suck and pretty much ignore the fact that it's a notebook machine at all. And battery life appears to suck hard.

      Thanks for this, now I really don't have to read all 10000 words in that article.
      • by gelfling ( 6534 )
        That's exactly the point - give me a test that evaluates the real world end to end performance of a machine and load it up with all the spyware and AV scanners you'd need to keep it running. I really don't understand why for instance one of the dual-cores can't be dedicated to security, malware, spyware, phishing and so on.
    • Please take some time to think before you bash a review. These benchmarks are all things we can realate to and know the startup times on our machines for. They are in relative terms to something we know quite well.
      • by gelfling ( 6534 )
        No they're the same parameters we've been using since 1980 when such things were critical for ALL applications, regardless of their function. They're basically testing the arbitrary performance of the most non real world scenario possible in order to squeeze max numbers.
    • all the tasks you mentioned are choked more by laptop harddrive speed than by the processor, so those would not make good tests. the harddrive has been the choke point for laptops for years, so tests dependent on accessing the disk (especially AV scans) would not be helpful
    • You can never make everyone happy with a benchmark/review. I'm sitting at a "mobile workstation" class laptop, it's actually only 8lb but it's got a 17" widescreen, nvidia quadro graphics, blah blah blah. It's got the highest end core duo (not core 2 duo) and it's pretty speedy. The primary use for a system like this is CAD and they've spent a lot of money having this hardware certified by various vendors. As such, the only part of this review that helps the normal market for a machine like this is the 3DMa
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trifthen ( 40989 )
      There's actually a much better review at Hot Hardware:

      http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articl eid=864&cid=10 [hothardware.com]

      According to them, there's rough parity on battery usage (within 10% by clock) yet the chip is anywhere from 15-50% faster than the Core Duo depending on what you're doing.

      This is seriously a massive step forward, and I for one plan on buying a laptop equipped with one of these.
      • Thanks, that is a better article. But I'm still confused about battery life. They claim only about 100 minutes for the new memron just reading a document in netscape? How can it be that bad? I wonder if they had all the power-saving features enabled? My 3 year old Pentium-M 1.6 GHz T40 with a fresh battery goes for 5-6 hours. Can't I run the fancy new chips at reduced speed to get good battery life when I need it? Since they are comparable, can somebody with a current Core Duo laptop comment on this
        • by Trifthen ( 40989 )
          It really is entirely dependant on the laptop. In their particular test-bed, they saw roughly a 8-9% decrease in battery performance per clock, but other manufacturers:

          http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6547 [hexus.net]

          Claim 7 hours using the Core 2 Duo. Remember there's also a screen, a high-end video-card and other power sucking elements. The Merom runs at 34W idle, while the Core Duo runs 31W idle. There's your difference in a nutshell; anything else is purely laptop design limitations. If that's one of
          • by thsths ( 31372 )
            > The Merom runs at 34W idle

            I feel old now. My first laptop was running on 10W under full CPU load, and maybe 14W with heavy HD activity and the display at maximum brightness. Battery life was 3 hours with a new battery pack, but going down after a few years of use. And it ran Linux like a charm, as long as you kept in mind that 8MB of RAM are not enough for X11, emacs and gcc...
          • Remember there's also a screen, a high-end video-card and other power sucking elements.

            If the CPU isn't all that bad, I wonder what those other power-sucking elements are? My T40 already has a 7200 RPM drive and 1GB of RAM. I would expect a powerful video card to zap the battery if I were playing games, but not while I'm writing a document. And I would not expect a battery life test to be carried out at max brightness for the screen, either. Nevertheless the claim of a 7 hour Core 2 duo laptop is re

    • by nofx_3 ( 40519 )
      Sometimes I think you would need a supercomputer to run Lotus Notes decently. It is sloooooow even on my fastest machines, although I've only ever used it through my corporate email so most of the slowness could be our servers.
       
      -Kap
  • by Anonymous Coward
    We've had a Core 2 Duo ("Conroe") workstation here for a couple weeks now.

    Only the Core 2 Duo "Merom," [google.com] for notebooks, was released today.
  • The Verdict (Score:4, Informative)

    by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:04AM (#15993550) Homepage
    Instead of reading the entire article, here's the summary ...

    Verdict

    Both of these are impressive machines for anyone who wants to get hold of the power of Merom straight away. The lower clocked AJP does seem slightly lack-lustre compared to the top end Rock, especially as the 1,920 x 1,200 screen wasn't the best we've seen. If battery life is the primary concern you might do better with a Core Duo, due to its lower TDP, unless you can wait for ultra-low voltage Core 2 Duo laptops to appear.

    If you can spend the money the T7600 based Rock is outrageously fast for a notebook and it's well specced too. However, we think the mid-rage 2GHz, T7200 will end up being the Merom CPU of choice.
    • So in other words, just as with nearly every review of a new processor ever made that doesn't try to divide by 0... if you can afford the brand new bleeding-edge chip, you might like it better than the less-expensive version.
  • So the Intel Core 2 Duo chip, also known as Merom was internally known as Conroe and is based on the Pentium M 'Banias' mobile chip based out of Haifa.

    Additionally, the original Core Duo (Yonah) isn't really a Core product, it's just a P4M with two cores. Core structure actually starts with Core 2 Duo, thus the Core 2 identification?

    And to think it used to be confusing to explain to a customer the difference between 486 DX and 486 SX.

    And where is the Intel Sexium chip we've been waiting for?
    • Re:Nomenclature (Score:5, Informative)

      by ThinkingInBinary ( 899485 ) <thinkinginbinaryNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:20AM (#15993648) Homepage

      You are entirely wrong.

      So the Intel Core 2 Duo chip, also known as Merom was internally known as Conroe...

      No. Merom and Conroe are the notebook and desktop versions, respectively, of the same chip. Merom and Conroe are both the internal names of the chips. Officially, they're both called "Core 2 Duo", and the model numbers distinguish the two series. There are physical differences, including FSB speed and (IIRC) cache architecture.

      and is based on the Pentium M 'Banias' mobile chip based out of Haifa.

      No. Core Duo is based on the Pentium M Dothan, which was an improved (more cache and higher FSB) version of Banias.

      Additionally, the original Core Duo (Yonah) isn't really a Core product,

      True. Props to Intel for the dumb naming.

      it's just a P4M with two cores.

      No! It's a Pentium M with two cores! Big difference! The Pentium 4-M is a pathetic, hot, power-hogging, slow version of the Pentium 4. The Pentium M is based mostly on the Pentium III, and was designed from the ground up to be more efficient per watt.

      Core structure actually starts with Core 2 Duo, thus the Core 2 identification?

      Yes. structure = microarchitecture.

      While I agree, Intel's naming and branding sucks... try not to make it worse!

      • While I agree, Intel's naming and branding sucks... try not to make it worse!
        Eh, sorry. I was just taking what I said from the article. Is the article wrong or did I misread it?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          I think you misread it. but that's easy to do. Decide for yourself:

          Website: So how does the mobile version of Core 2 Duo (Merom) actually differ from the desktop version (Conroe)? Actually, the differences are relatively minor - though as it's essentially the same chip that's not really surprising.

          You: So the Intel Core 2 Duo chip, also known as Merom was internally known as Conroe...

          Website: (well, the website doesn't explicitly say this, but Dothan came after Banias)

          You: and is based on the Penti

      • Re:Nomenclature (Score:4, Informative)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @10:03AM (#15993875)
        I find it interesting that people readily accept the notion that Pentium M is a derivative of the PIII while Core 2 is somehow distinct from Core or Pentium M. The Pentium M was developed years after the PIII, was specifically developed for portables, was created by an entirely different design team, used the bus of the P4 and had significant architectural differences when compared to PIII. The Core 2, meanwhile, is an immediate follow-on of Core, just as Core was a follow-on of Pentium M, is architecturally similar and even shares a pinout with Core in the case of Merom. To claim that Core 2 is the first "Core architecture" product is arbitrary and more absurd than claiming that Pentium M is a new version of PIII, yet that seems to be what's floated around here. Each processor is a new design effort that benefits from designs that came before it. Naming is simply marketing BS.
        • I find it interesting that people readily accept the notion that Pentium M is a derivative of the PIII while Core 2 is somehow distinct from Core or Pentium M... To claim that Core 2 is the first "Core architecture" product is arbitrary and more absurd than claiming that Pentium M is a new version of PIII, yet that seems to be what's floated around here.

          I've seen this information in dozens of articles, and the writers of those articles usually get it from Intel. The Pentium M is a derivative of the Pentiu

    • Is there any way to tell which of these intel chips are 64 bit?

      You know you've reached sublime advertising obfuscation when a cell phone plan seems simple in comparison.

      WTF, K.
      • Is there any way to tell which of these intel chips are 64 bit?

        Core Duo = 32 bit. Core 2 Duo = 64 bit.

      • by ncmusic ( 31531 )
        Yes. All of them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by OfNoAccount ( 906368 )
        As far as I can recall all Core2 CPUs are 64bit.

        The xnnnn E parts lack virtualization though, not to be confused with the Ennnn parts which are Allendale server chips with virtualization.

        OK, I can see why people are confused now ;)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Dolly_Llama ( 267016 ) *
      the original Core Duo (Yonah) isn't really a Core product,


      It has only itself to blame really. If it had only listened to God in the first place it wouldn't have been swallowed whole by that other chip.
  • battery life (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mike_ya ( 911105 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:10AM (#15993593) Homepage
    How does the battery life compare to the 'single core' Pentium M?
    Does battery life not matter in laptop reviews anymore?

    How is the lap heat, is it twice as hot? My current laptop gets limited lap time because of the heat.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Halo1 ( 136547 )
      It's on the last page [trustedreviews.com] of the review. And it's very bad (a laptop that can't even run 2 hours on a battery charge?)
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:29AM (#15993686)

        It also says "Times in seconds (lower is better)"

      • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
        It doesn't really say (without having to dig up "MobileMark 2005" specifics) what the conditions are.

        Just under 2 hours for both cores fully loaded at full clock speed is pretty good. I don't think any laptop made in the past 5-6 years could manage much more than 2 hours at full tilt.

        Just under 2 hours idling at low clock speed would be awful though.

        I know my Core Duo based Inspiron E1705 lasted about 2 hours per battery at medium load, full screen brightness (at one point I was doing power measurements, a
    • Re:battery life (Score:4, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:57AM (#15993832) Journal
      Tests I have seen show Core 2 laptops having about a 7% longer battery life than their Core 1 counterparts. Part of this is due to the fact that they run faster, and so they spend less time in high-drain mode and more time in power-saving mode.

      I know a couple of people with Core 1 MacBook Pros, and they seem to get slightly better battery life than I do with a G4 PowerBook, so I think the Core 2 is promising. Now if only Apple would hurry up and put them in portables, I would give them some money...

      • The thing is that those of us with Pentium M notebooks were already getting 4 to 6 hours of battery, depending on power settings (and whether wireless was on), and we've been doing that for years. So for those of us who were already using Centrino-based notebooks (I'm specifying because it implies things like power control for the wireless ethernet adapter, we might actually see a drop in battery life.
    • I've got the Acer 8204 (Dual core at 2Ghz) and a MacBook Pro (Dual core at 2Ghz) the Acer has legendary battery life when you put in power consumption mode. I've managed to get over six hours worth of work when on a plan having forgotten my adaptor, even with WiFi on I've managed to get well over 3.5 hours and upwards by turning the LCD brightness down. The MacBook isn't quite as impressive, its over 3.5 hours when using WiFi, but doesn't last above 5 when I'm trying to conserve power.

      My old Intel Celeron
    • I agree. That's why the marketing says "notebook". They are careful not to call them laptops because they know they are too hot for on-lap use.

      The TDP of the T series Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are something like 31 and 34W, respectively.

      If battery time, weight and heat are your concern, you will want the L series or U series Core Duo, which are rated for about 15W and 9W, respectively. They tend to be used in the ultralight notebooks. Going with the T series Core Solo won't help much because that's rated a
      • I agree. That's why the marketing says "notebook". They are careful not to call them laptops because they know they are too hot for on-lap use.

        You know, this really bugs me. A notebook has a strict definition; it is a laptop which is either A4 or US Letter sized. Now people are starting to describe laptops as 'sub-notebooks,' when they are noticeably bigger than any note book you are likely to encounter.

  • Whats the power usage like on a dual core?
  • by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:21AM (#15993649)
    Jesus, check their logo [trustedreviews.com].

    intel(r)
    core(tm)
    inside(tm)

    This requires talent. I just hope we don't run out of words we can use seeing how businesses trademark them one by one.
  • What no AMD ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by denisbergeron ( 197036 ) <DenisBergeron@@@yahoo...com> on Monday August 28, 2006 @09:40AM (#15993737)
    Since amd have a lot of CPU with dual core on the store now. I would like to see a comparative with Intel and AMD dual core 64 bits CPU.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
      "Since amd have a lot of CPU with dual core on the store now. I would like to see a comparative with Intel and AMD dual core 64 bits CPU."

      No they don't. The Turion 64 X2 was only released very recently, and to this day, good systems (read, NOT from HP or Compaq) with Turion 64s (let alone X2 variants) are hard to find. In fact, in March when I bought my new Core Duo-based Dell, it was simply not possible to find a Turion 64-based laptop with a 17" screen, reputable vendor or not.

      Remember, this article is
      • Sorry, but Acer, HP, Asus, Fujitsu and others big manufacturer made Turion X2 with 17" for more than 2 months. Period.
        • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
          Asus - http://usa.asus.com/products2.aspx?l1=5&l2=70 [asus.com] - Not a single AMD-based 17" notebook. In fact, even in their other size ranges, no AMD CPUs

          HP - See my previous comment. I don't consider HP to be a reputable vendor when it comes to consumer systems (consumer desktops and notebooks) - every HP notebook I've seen has been flimsy low-quality junk. No surprise, HP and Compaq are the same company!

          Acer - It is honestly not possible to tell whether you are right in this regard. Acer doesn't let you sh
          • Well, I have a x64 AMD laptop made by HP. I buy it in last december or november... anyway...
            It's the first HP computer I buy, after thinking the same way you do.
            Before buying this one, I go thru 2 DELL, 1 Fujitsu, 2 Gateway, 1 ACER, and 3 others from "I don't remember the company"tm.
            Anyway, the HP doesn't have any defect. No hot pixel, a working dvd-rw-dl drive, 2 gig of memory.... etc.. etc. etc. and everything in working order. This was the first computer I buy than don't have any DOA (except desktop comp
      • The Turion 64 X2 was only released very recently, and to this day, good systems (read, NOT from HP or Compaq) with Turion 64s (let alone X2 variants) are hard to find.

        HP Compaq nx6125 Notebook PC- models [hp.com] - AMD Turion(TM) 64 Mobile Technology processor.

        HP Compaq nx6325 Notebook PC- models [hp.com] - AMD Turion(TM) 64 X2 Mobile Technology processors or Mobile AMD Sempron processors.

        I really love it when I do something like this...

        • by Andy Dodd ( 701 )
          Did you bother to read the original post at all?

          HP and Compaq are about the only vendors selling such systems (and since they are the same company, are effectively a single vendor), and their quality track record for consumer-grade units leaves MUCH to be desired (hence my comment of "NOT HP or Compaq". As to Compaq, would you buy from a vendor with their awful track record and can't even spell properly on their ordering page? "Core solor", what's that?

          Also note that those systems you linked to both have
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jamesborr ( 876769 )
      More relevant to me at least, is the ability to meaningfully add 4GB of memory to a laptop (starting multiple VM's being one use case). The Intel stack (with the addition of the Merom) finally getts a 64 bit CPU, there are 64 bit OS's available (including Windows XP/2003), but we are still waiting on a 64 bit (or greater then a 32 bit) chipset (and will be waiting at least another 7-8 months, best case). Without all 3, even if one puts 4 GB of memory in the laptop, the top 1 GB (usually) will be hidden and
  • Does anyone know when we can buy these on places like Newegg so we can upgrade our Core Duo CPUs?
  • From the 2D benchmarks, it's obvious that both of these systems are still vastly outperformed by the E6600 chip on the desktop. Either it's a poor mix of hardware, or these notebooks are still quite lacking in performance compared to the mainstream desktop.
  • The Front Side Bus speeds is of particular interest as it's the same as the current Core Duo chips. The new chip also uses the same Socket M interface, which means that it's a drop in replacement for the old Core Duo, so you could, in theory upgrade an older notebook with the newer chip.


    Where's the instructions for upgrading the cheapest old Core Duo notebook to a Core2 Duo with these new chips?
    • Where's the instructions for upgrading the cheapest old Core Duo notebook to a Core2 Duo with these new chips?

      It's on the back side of your Geek Card.. but I'm afraid you have to hand it in on your way out ;)

      BTW, I've successfully upgraded a laptop processor before, it's no different from other computers. Except the cases are a bit harder to take apart and even harder to put back together. And you need to be careful of things like heat (obviously) and voltage. With software-controlled voltages you'll

      • My geek card is a moebius strip ;).

        Are the CPUs pins, BGA, soldered, or some other interconnect? I wonder where to find the specs for the new BIOS, and what the specific order of upgrade operations for it is. And which Core Duo notebook is the cheapest/best to upgrade, and how much that winds up costing compared to a factory new Core2 Duo of equivalent specs.
        • The CPU I upgraded in a laptop was a regular Socket 7. I'd never attempt to replace a BGA chip myself -- it's been hard enough to replace capacitors on a regular mobo, with the higher melting point of today's solders.

          I sometimes contemplate on upgrading my current laptop's Pentium M Dothan, as it uses some kind of a PGA, but it'll probably be more cost effective to simply get a new laptop. It would have faster memory as well.

  • Dell laptop advertised with core 2 duo [dell.com]

    Click through to specify the machine and only the T2600/T2700 for sale. These are Core Duos arent they?

    Wouldnt suprise me to see Dell guilty of misleading adverting (They got me on an "upgradable graphics card" before) but this looks prity blatant.
  • by bingo_cannon ( 779085 ) on Monday August 28, 2006 @12:07PM (#15994756)
    How much time does it take to finish an infinite loop? Did they say that?
    • by Soong ( 7225 )
      > How much time does it take to finish an infinite loop?

      Exactly as much time as it takes for Apple to go out of business.
    • by Ruie ( 30480 )
      How much time does it take to finish an infinite loop? Did they say that?

      One and half hour when on battery.

  • I have a laptop sitting here next to me which is a dual core 3.6 GHZ machine. It is already 1.5 years old.

    Control panel says "Pentium(R) 4 3.59 GHZ 2.00 GB of RAM". Why yes, it was a custom build for me, and yes I do use it, but not as a gaming tool as much as I do for CASE tool processing.

    So why do we care about a "top end" 2.33 GHZ machine?

    This is old news, move along here.
    • That's not a dual core processor. It's also considerably slower than the 2.33GHz processor referenced in the article.

      But I guess it's not surprising that someone who mistakes Hyperthreading for dual cores would actually believe that higher MHz numbers are better.
    • You can't change facts by marking something troll. The machine is right here and running fine. This whole article is not news it is garbage.
  • After reading Anandtech [anandtech.com] and Tom's hardware [tomshardware.com] for years, just looking at the site hurt my eyes.
    • You must be immune. Tom's Hardware in particular is an aesthetic monstrosity, a slave to the god of 'maximum ad impressions per page'. 6 pages to review a hard drive? With 2 /inline/ ads per page, and 6+ out of line ad blocks per page? That's 48 ads just to say "this is a decent hard drive, with faster access speeds than one that came out 6 months ago"
  • I wonder how long before Apple deploys 64-bit notebooks...

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN

Working...