Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Core Duo - Intel's Best CPU?

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the shadow-knows dept.

305

Bender writes "How good is Intel's Core Duo mobile processor? Good enough that Apple chose to put it in the iMac, and good enough that Intel chose to base its next generation microprocessor architecture on it. But is it already Intel's best CPU? The Tech Report has managed to snag a micro-ATX motherboard for this processor and compared the Core Duo directly to a range of mobile and desktop CPUs from AMD and Intel, including the Athlon 64 X2 and the Pentium Extreme Edition. The results are surprising. Not only is the Core Duo's performance per watt better than the rest, but they conclude that its 'outright performance is easily superior to Intel's supposed flagship desktop processor, the Pentium Extreme Edition 965.'"

cancel ×

305 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The real test will be time... (0, Redundant)

PenguinBoyDave (806137) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148417)

It might perform well now, but how long will it last under a load? Will something happen over time that they do not forsee?

Intel makes great stuff, but I think it is far too early to say it is the best chip ever...give it a few months in production and let the user decide.

Re:The real test will be time... (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148456)

Can we just all agree on "this is Intel's best chip so far"?

Re:The real test will be time... (1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148467)

Come on, this story is an ad, it's "Consumerism for Americans". Watch them while they put-a-non-sexual-word-for-masturbate-caus-they-pre fer-war-to-sex.
Even Israeli now find them worthless [jpost.com] :
America has sought to maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq, but that country was an artificial construct of post-World War I British diplomacy - a reality that can no longer be ignored. Iraq is a failed state, and in its agony it is dragging America down with it.

Re:The real test will be time... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148830)

The parent is the worst comment I have ever seen. Maybe my morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

"It might perform well now, but how long will it last under a load? Will something happen over time that they do not forsee?"

Of AMD Competition? Of continuous 100% CPU utilization? Of OEM bumblings putting on an improperly rated Heatsink fan? If there is any faith in Moore's law, then we will all come to the simple conclusion that this chip is not going to be the best forever. However, is it the best right now? Yes.

Performance per watt, per cycle, overall execution speed have proven this chip is the best x86-derieved architectures. This is a great accomplishment for Intel who's been on the ropes for quite some time.

Now, to say, "Well, they may randomly explode because Intel pushed the envelope too far, I'm going to sit on my hands for another 6 months and wait out the war," is just caution to a fault. Yes, things will happen that people don't forsee. Will it explode? Will it have catastrophic microcode failures which cause hardware damage? Maybe. But then again, you'd just be sitting on your hands waiting for the off chance that you are right.

p.s.
Long time reader, first time poster. Congratulations your post dragged me kicking and screaming into /.

Zonk 5-on-1: Slashdot's Best Gay DVD? (0, Offtopic)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148421)

you decide. I did.

Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (4, Informative)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148424)

I have to say the Intel Dual Core Processor is quite impressive. It's fast enough to run just about anything I throw at it, and still keep chugging, but I believe that the article negects the fact that the dual core processor runs extremely hot vs other Intel processor. My old Sony VAIO never got as hot as my MacBook Pro does, and it is something that should be considered.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1, Funny)

TERdON (862570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148540)

You're not even close to how a Prescott would feel in a laptop...

The Vaio AFAIK contains a Pentium M - which means they're on the very cool end of Intel processors.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (2, Informative)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148815)

There's not a huge difference between Pentium-M and Core Duo due to the dieshrink.

Pentium-M 2.26GHz 90nm 27W
Core Duo 2.16GHz 65mn 31W

Of course, there's low-watt versions of all of these.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1)

TERdON (862570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148972)

Key word in my answer: Prescott . You just skipped that word did you?

None of the Pentium M processors uses a Prescott core, with a TDP in the ranging from 84 to 115 W. As I said, Core Duo isn't even close...

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149097)

I was responding to your comments on the Pentium M. Go back and read your own comment.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1)

Sonic McTails (700139) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148956)

I should have stated I use an older VAIO which has a Pentium III and ran extremely hot, and then I used a newer one for awhile, which I believe was a P4M, and it made my P3 feel cool.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1)

TERdON (862570) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149065)

Ok, you're still not close to the desktop processors though (which TFA refers a lot to - it tests the Core Duo not only against laptop processors, but against desktop ones as well, and one of the conclusions is that Core Duo beats even the Pentium XE at most times - which is the Intel flagship).

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1, Insightful)

castoridae (453809) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148567)

My old Sony VAIO never got as hot as my MacBook Pro does, and it is something that should be considered.

How important is heat, really? Assuming that the machine has been engineered sufficiently well to prevent the processor from melting down, I think it's a minor consideration at most. I agree that my MBP can get hot, and I knew that from reviews before I bought it. But I never even considered not buying one because of the heat, and I can't imagine that heat is a serioius consideration to 99.9% of laptop buyers. And no consideration at all to desktop buyers (and in server rooms where it is a consideration... they'll have an A/C system anyway).
 
  I doubt Intel is going to lose any customers because their chip gets too hot.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (2, Informative)

phrasebook (740834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148661)

How important is heat, really?

Heat is a huge consideration to many people, often the deciding factor.

Assuming that the machine has been engineered sufficiently well to prevent the processor from melting down

It doesn't matter how well the machine is engineered. If you have hot componentry you'll have a hard time getting rid of the heat without making a lot of noise, especially under load.

But I never even considered not buying one because of the heat

What choice did you have? With laptops (especially Apple) you basically take what you can get. There's very little mention of heat or cooling considerations at all.

And no consideration at all to desktop buyers

I bought an Athlon X2 solely because it runs much cooler than the P4.

and in server rooms where it is a consideration... they'll have an A/C system anyway
The consideration is power consumption. More heat means more power draw means more expensive.

I doubt Intel is going to lose any customers because their chip gets too hot.

They lost me in the last round. Thankfully they're finally about to put the P4 to rest and we can get back to the good old P3. I mean, P-M. I mean, 'Core'. Whatever.

By the way, once you start caring about heat (and you will!) go here for starters: http://www.silentpcreview.com/ [silentpcreview.com]

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (2, Insightful)

Surt (22457) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148852)

I have a dell inspiron 9300. They designed it so that the fans don't go up to high speed until it gets really hot (to keep the noise down I assume). Unfortunately, that means it reaches lap scalding temperatures before the fan comes on to cool it off. So although it is a 'laptop' it cannot actually be used on the lap for more than 15 minutes without injury. So heat does matter to some extent. My next laptop will not have this problem, because I won't buy one that does.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148618)

After using a MacBook Pro for a while it is clear they are overpriced turds.

The things are ridiculously hot when even just sitting idle.

They have pathetic battery life after all the bragging Jobs did at last years WWDC.

They are slow. My old G4 laptops kick the shit out it for media type tasks, about the same for single thread performance, and of course are slower for multi-threaded tasks. It seems the speed most people are claiming for the MacBook Pros is due more to the faster video cards and the silky smooth desktop acceleration people weren't use to with their old G4 machines.

And of course the major problem with the MacBook Pros is almost the entire Mac library of software runs at a crawl under emulation or in many cases doesn't run at all.

It is depressing to think that if Apple hadn't pissed off IBM that we could be running much faster/cooler dual core 970 PowerBooks right now. Instead dual boot AMD Windows/Linux systems are looking like the only option for people who don't want to pay twice as much for x86 hardware.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1)

gb506 (738638) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148770)

Mod this turd down. I type this on a MBP and the thing is comfortably cool. I get close to 3 hours of battery life on a regular basis. It kicks the crap out of my old PBG4 1.67ghz, app for app, in universal binary, and except for Adobe and Microsoft apps, nothing I run is PowerPC. But what I CAN run, now, is Parallels and Win XP at near native speeds, simultaneously w/ MacOSX.

Go flush yourself, troll, you're stinking up the room.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148897)

Awww, the liddle Intel fanboy is throwing a tantrum!

No one gives a fuck about your slow, hot, overpriced piece of shit.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149091)

They have pathetic battery life after all the bragging Jobs did at last years WWDC.

The impression I got was that Jobs was trying really hard to avoid mentioning the battery life; the MacBook Pro was still in development and all they had were prototype models, so they actually didn't know what the battery life would be; they were guessing it should be "about the same" (as the PowerBook G4).

They are slow. My old G4 laptops kick the shit out it for media type tasks, about the same for single thread performance, and of course are slower for multi-threaded tasks.

Are you running all native applications? If not, it's not a fair comparison (and if you really need apps that aren't available natively yet, maybe you shouldn't have bought one yet). If you are running native apps, your experience seems to disagree with most reports I've heard.

It seems the speed most people are claiming for the MacBook Pros is due more to the faster video cards and the silky smooth desktop acceleration people weren't use to with their old G4 machines.

I'm really looking forward to this.

It is depressing to think that if Apple hadn't pissed off IBM that we could be running much faster/cooler dual core 970 PowerBooks right now.

If Apple hadn't pissed off IBM? When the G5 was released, Apple announced that they had 2GHz then, but would have 3GHz in one year. What was Apple supposed to do when that never happened? Just wait and hope that IBM figured out how to make something work?

Instead dual boot AMD Windows/Linux systems are looking like the only option for people who don't want to pay twice as much for x86 hardware.

Show me a laptop with comparable specs for half the price of a MacBook Pro. I think you're trolling.

Hot vs. OTHER Intel chips Holy Toasters Batma (1)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148922)

Its hard to believe anything outside the orbit of Mercury could run hot when comparied to Intel's other products. WTF? Does this thing actually brand "Intel Inside" directly onto your thighs if you actually hold it on your lap? Are all laptop cases now going to be made out of left over tiles from the Space Shuttle program? Will I need to wear my fire department issued gnomex bunker pants to use this thing? Will they be selling carbon fiber tablecloths as accessories? Will I need to carry a 5 gallon water pack on my back and connect it to cooling ports on the laptop if I want to run a game?

I'd already switched from Intel to AMD based largely on heat and power issues -- this won't help Intel's cause at all.

I can't imagine anything running so hot they'll need a magnetic bottle instead of a processor slot to hold the chip is going to be low-power consuming.

Re:Hot vs. OTHER Intel chips Holy Toasters Batma (1)

jsoderba (105512) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149119)

He was comparing the Core Duo to the ULV Pentium M in the Vaio. The Core Duo is still cooler than any Pentium 4 processor.

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1)

ZombieRoboNinja (905329) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148968)

Never used the VAIO, but this may have more to do with the aluminum case of the PowerBook than the processor itself. It really lets you FEEL the heat!

Re:Having used a Intel Dual Core for awhile ... (1, Offtopic)

ooze (307871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148998)

One of the worst things about the Intel switch is that we will never see a laptop (or desktop) that runs MacOS X with one of those. [freescale.com]

A good slim laptop with 10 hours battery life may have been possible.

Depends (4, Informative)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148432)

I would argue that the 8080 was. If you normalize for date/speed that is...

Re:Depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148521)

Or perhaps the Z80 ? That was the processor of the reliable/venerable TRS-80! Now that was a robust machine. I think the 8080 was used in the higher end TRS models.

Re:Depends (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148601)

I think the 6502 was clock-for-clock faster.

True fact: The minimalistic 6502 (which had been used in Acorn's BBC micro & predecessors) was the inspiration for the ARM RISC CPU (formerly Acorn Risc Machine, then renamed as Advanced Risc Machine).

Re:Depends (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148701)

I wrote micro interpreters at Infocom. My 1MHz Apple II 6502 interpreter was 80% fast as the 6MHz PC AT 80286 interpreter.

drewk

The 8080? No way! The Intel 4004 was smokin' hot! (5, Funny)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148687)

At the time it was introduced, there was no other microprocessor that came close to matching it.

It was indisputably not only the best microprocessor Intel had produced to date, but the best microprocessor on the market.

Simply no contest. No argument. It superlative in every way, the fastest, the cheapest, the lowest in power consumption, the most advanced in architecture, the widest path. It was king of the hill, the top of the tree, the Cadillac of microprocessors, the ne plus ultra, it bestrode the world of microprocessors like a colossus.

The world will never again see the day when one manufacturer so dominated the microprocessor market that a single product had a 100.0% market share.

Re:The 8080? No way! The Intel 4004 was smokin' ho (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148856)

There are likely lots of niche markets where one microprocessor has 100% market, share, it's just that the home/desktop PC market isnt so much of a niche anymore.. and even so, was it really 100%? I just can't help disagreeing with gross generalisation, sorry :p

Re:The 8080? No way! The Intel 4004 was smokin' ho (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148976)

Son, I say, son, that's a joke, son, when it was the first microprocessor on the market, with no competitors. By definition, it would be the fastest, cheapest, coolest, et cetera, as there is nothing else for means of comparison.

Goddamn, are all the UIDs over 500000 stupid 13-year-old kids who don't understand English?

Re:The 8080? No way! The Intel 4004 was smokin' ho (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149046)

No, I'm a 22 year old native english speaker (well, Scottish), but when I only started using PCs about 7 years ago, before that I thought that they were trash (well, mostly I still do :p ), since I was brought up on Macs and Commodores/Amigas. x86 is slowly improving though.

Re:Yes, it was really 100% (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149090)

It was 100%.

It was 100.0%.

It was 100.00000000000%.

Everything I stated was indisputable objective fact, not opinion.

Re:Depends (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148958)

Definitely not -- using n-mos/p-mos technology, it was really power hungry for the performance it provided. I think Intel switched to c-mos for the 8085 at first.

IF I could... (-1, Offtopic)

julienbh (969003) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148434)

If at least I could have sex with as much girls in my bed as cores in my computers

Re:IF I could... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148470)

grammer! many, not much.

Re:IF I could... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148506)

Spelling! Grammar, not grammer.

Re:IF I could... (1)

dago (25724) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148747)

and if only I was the owner of a Sun T1 ...

Re:IF I could... (1)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149060)

Sun has a 60 day try and buy on T1 systems (T1000 & T2000), go check it out at sun.com. Late last year they were running promotions where they shipped you a T2000 for doing benchmarks and blogging about it. Some of the best bloggers are going to get to keep the systems.

CoreDuo != Core Microarchitecture (4, Interesting)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148471)

It's not obvious from the article, but you can find it elsewhere on the internet (such as Intel's comment that the Core microarchitecture will provide 20% boost over CoreDuo). It is hinted at in the article with the following quote (emphasis mine).
If you've been hanging around here for a while, you may have heard us referring to Core Duo by its code name, Yonah, long before Intel decided to give it a somewhat confusing official name. ... In the case of the Core Duo, those CPU cores are massaged and tweaked versions of the Pentium M processor, familiar as part of Intel's Centrino mobile platform.

The new core microarchitecture, if you read the Ars Technica article in the previousl /. posting linked, was designed from the ground up and is similar to PentiumM in many respects, but is much more different than the CoreSolo and CoreDuo are.

Re:CoreDuo != Core Microarchitecture (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148587)

I was wondering on that myself, as i would have expected a "core" cpu to be even faster.

Just for those who dont know, improvements in the "core"-core are stuff like twice the shedulers, superscalar sse-x with duplicated units (so 2 identical commands can be committed per clockcycle, no only combinations) and 4 integer units.

But as much as i like those spec, the naming SUCKS. Yeah, the core architecture is new, but shouldnt be confused with the architecture of core duo, which is a dual core cpu, in contrast to amd dual core cpus which ar eof couse not core-cores... ARG
Why the hell redefine common words?

Re:CoreDuo != Core Microarchitecture (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148640)

The conspiracy theory is that Apple didn't want to ship a "Pentium", so Intel rebranded their CPUs early. When the real "Core" chips come out, they'll probably have to call them "Core II" or "Core Extreme" or something equally silly.

Re:CoreDuo != Core Microarchitecture (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148806)

Shit, they've been calling their chips P4s for how long.. Through how many architecture changes? Intels naming schemes are purly marketting, never about specs or architecture.

Re:CoreDuo != Core Microarchitecture (1)

NutscrapeSucks (446616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148879)

All Pentium 4s have the same architecture, AFAIK. Admittedly there is the "Pentium-D", and the PII/PIII thing was dubious, but for the most part Intel's naming schemes stick to the architecture.

Which makes this wierd especially because this is the biggest change in Intel's naming since the original Pentium came out, so they could have just waited 6 months.

Re:CoreDuo != Core Microarchitecture (4, Insightful)

MrFlibbs (945469) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148672)

The new Merom-based products (Conroe is the desktop version) were *NOT* designed from the ground up. The Ars Technica article repeated some Intel marketspeak that overstates the case. Merom is a major revision of Yonah, but is derived from the same code base. In fact, it is still technically a derivative of the P6 family that began with the Pentium Pro 10 years ago.

This is more than just a matter of semantics. The major micro-architectural features that defined the P6 are still present in Merom. The P4 architecture (may it rest in peace) was a brand new architecture -- Merom is not.

Link to mentioned article (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148838)

Here's the link to the article the parent mentioned.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/core.ar s [arstechnica.com]

This past IDF saw the unveiling of some significant details about this new microarchitecture, which was formerly called "Merom" but now goes by the official name of "Core."

Note the difference in code names. Processors based off the Core microarchitecture were codenamed Merom. However, processors based off of dual-core Pentium M's were codenamed Yonah.

so Steve Jobs ... (-1, Flamebait)

psergiu (67614) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148483)

... was smart for not choosing AMD :)

Hotter the Better (2, Interesting)

dueyfinster (872608) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148496)

You're forgetting all those students with Laptops, one I know said his laptop was so hot, he'd leave it on his bed before going to sleep, as the accommodation had substandard heating (the norm for all student places, no?)

Chip Special Olympics! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148502)

1) Apple didn't 'chose' to use Intel's Core Duo - they were forced to when IBM told them they weren't going to bother making any new chips for Apple and AMD didn't have the capacity.

Woohoo Intel, WTG! You won by default.

2) The Duo's 'performance per watt' is so good that Apple doesn't want to talk about it...

3) And finally, comparing performance to another Intel chip? Anything looks good compared to Intel's fastest...

Intel and performance is very much like Microsoft and security - there is always someone who needs to believe the hype regardless of the reality.

Even more reviews (4, Informative)

adam1101 (805240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148511)

More reviews here [vr-zone.com] and here [extremetech.com] .

Common Knowledge (3, Insightful)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148517)

I thought this was commonly known or assumed. Is this news to many people?

I thought that the only reason the P4 had not been totally abandoned already was that it takes time to switch directions in such a massive company. (and with so many partners that design around your product)

Re:Common Knowledge (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149031)

It's news for anyone who hasn't owned an x86 machine for over 10 years, and therefore never bothered to follow developments on the "other side."

Obvious (1)

rugger (61955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148524)

Of course its Intel's best performing desktop processor. It is not like the P4 has set the bar particularly high, with the unfavourable heat production these processors have. Maybe if the P4 scaled as well as Intel initally hoped for, it would be a more difficult task to design a better processor.

If those figures... (4, Insightful)

c0l0 (826165) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148544)

...actually show ANYTHING really well, then it's the absolute neglibility of recent synthetic benchmarks. Looking at the numbers SiSoft Sandra spills out, the clocked-to-the-brim Netburst-cores should take the performance-crown with ease in FPU and ALU-applications alike. In reality though, said CPUs hardly matter at all when it's about uncompromising peak-performance. I fail to understand why benchmark-suites this far away from reality still matter in reviews like this.
Sad, in an awkward way.

It's not that trivial! (0, Flamebait)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148545)

Good enough that Apple chose to put it in the iMac
Flies like shit a lot. This doesn't mean that we should do the same!
Core Duo actually seems to be a good architecture. Let's challenge it before any opinion!

What? (2, Insightful)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148551)

Core Duo is a 32bit processor.
Athlon 64 X2 is a 64bit processor.

I care not how much power it uses or how well it runs Word or whatever else they are doing to test these things.

The Core Duo cannot do the same things the Athlon 64 X2 can. Largely because (gasp) it cannot run 64bit code.

What the hell is the point of this comparison?

Re:What? (5, Informative)

DrDitto (962751) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148611)

The reason for going to 64-bits is to increase the amount of physical address space, not for speed. The majority of applications, especially integer, do not benefit from bigger registers and wider ALUs.

wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148707)

That sure is a nice 8-bit CPU you are running there. It is four times as fast as a 32-bit system cause you get to use 4 registers at the same time to represent 32 bits.

Re:What? (1)

phrasebook (740834) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148710)

The majority of applications, especially integer, do not benefit from bigger registers and wider ALUs

The point isn't that the registers are bigger, it's that there's twice as many of them

Re:What? (5, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148736)

Actually, x86-64 does have some speed benefits over standard ia32 for smaller programs and data sets in that it doubles the number of exposed registers. Most other archs were not register starved on the 32 bit version, so going 64 bit generally slowed the system down a bit because the pointer size doubled, taking more memory bandwidth to store pointers.

Re:What? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148797)

Amm... working with large numbers sure does benefit from 64bits. For one, multiplying large numbers is at least 3 (yes, three) times faster! Also, Java (that uses lots of "long" types) is also generally 2-3 times faster---as well as Lisp, Haskell, etc.

Of course, all these speed improvements only happen on the AMD's 64bit architecture---as the Intel's versions only provide the instructions, but still run just as slow as the 32bit version would.

Re:What? (1)

plantman-the-womb-st (776722) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148799)

I never mentioned speed at all. I do happen to run a lot of apps that make heavy use of the larger address space. Anyone who needs raw number smashing power will snort the same way I did when I read that they tested the Core Duo against any 64bit processor. Afterall, how many multi-socket rackmount Core Duo servers are on the market at the moment? None. Yes, this is the chip that will grace the desks of many an office worker, but popular has never meant superior.

I'm just baffled why they tested a 32bit chip against a 64bit chip. It makes zero sense to even bother.

Re:What? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148905)

A desktop chip probably shouldn't have been compared against a laptop chip. Still, the X2 is a desktop chip, not a server chip, so I don't understand why you say "multi-socket" because there are no multi-socket X2 servers, they are Opteron servers, so you seem to be making it a comparison between a mobile chip and a server ship. There aren't many (or any) laptops that I am aware of that are available in 4+ GB of memory, so it's not important for that market yet.

I do suspect that the number of people that need the larger address space is probably quite small compared to the number of laptop chips, but still, it's nice to know that the laptop chip is so powerful.

The other advantage of 64 bit (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149028)

is it allows large files to be mmaped.

mmaping is often both simpler and lower overhead than reading from the file into a buffer only to pass the data straight back to the OS to send down a socket or whatever.

however on a 32 bit architecture you can't mmap anything above a few gigabytes and thats assuming your only handling the one large file in your process at a time.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148740)

The Core Duo cannot do the same things the Athlon 64 X2 can. Largely because (gasp) it cannot run 64bit code.

What the hell is the point of this comparison?


You're correct, of course. However, many of us don't need to run 64-bit code. You can completely ignore this, because any 32-bit CPU doesn't fit your needs, but please try to understand that other people need different things.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148786)


The Core Duo cannot do the same things the Athlon 64 X2 can. Largely because (gasp) it cannot run 64bit code.


I drive an 18 wheeler, and I can't imagine why anyone would want a passenger car. You can't haul near the same amount of goods!

Re:What? (4, Informative)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148831)

Hate to say this, but there are not that many uses for 64 bit processors yet. Manufacturers do not provide 64-bit drivers for their products. The drivers that exist are buggy. To the average Joe, 64-bit is useless. He doesn't need the extra horsepower for his Internet browser or word processor. Well, unless Vista comes out.

Re:What? (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148835)

The Core Duo cannot do the same things the Athlon 64 X2 can. Largely because (gasp) it cannot run 64bit code.

Such as? A 64 bit chip generally means that you'll be addressing gobs (>4GB) of memory. Since that isn't a concern at the moment, Intel hasn't rushed EMT64 [wikipedia.org] into their laptop chips. However, EMT64 will be in the Merom [wikipedia.org] processor, scheduled for late this year.

AMD has both Turion and Sempron 64 bit processors available for mobile platforms, but you may notice that they are very difficult to find in new laptops. This would suggest that there is not much demand for high-end 64 bit CPUs in laptops right now. While that could change at any time, it does seem that Intel still has time to reach the market with a 64 bit laptop CPU before the matter becomes an issue.

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Mark Gillespie (866733) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149003)

Who wants a EMT64/AMD64 in a mobile processor? it serves no purpose. I think the AMD fanboys are realising that the sleeping giant is waking up...

Re:What? (1)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149137)

Who wants a EMT64/AMD64 in a mobile processor? it serves no purpose. I think the AMD fanboys are realising that the sleeping giant is waking up...

Given that the article is talking about using the processor on the desktop, it does seem to be an entirely pertinent point. Even in the mobile space, I just ordered a laptop with 2GB - the maximum available in the model. It seems odd that a new chip would come out today that supports close to the average new PC (even bargain PCs come with 1GB+ now) as an upper limit. While I never expect much future proofing in computer hardware, it would be nice if there were some headroom.

Advertisement? (-1, Redundant)

anti-human 1 (911677) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148571)

Anyone else get the AMD Enterprise Flash ad directly below the article?

:P

Someone's on top of things...

Benchmarks (2, Informative)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148575)

I already posted some benchmarks of a Core Duo Mac Mini running Windows (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=182379&cid=15 077120 [slashdot.org] ) and to be honest I was fairly impressed. The gaming benchmark was obviously miserable, the "general purpose" benchmark (zipping files, encoding audio/video, etcdid very well. The Apple zealots may say "it's because it's a Mac", but really the hardware is almost identical to your average Intel laptop. The only major difference is the Core Duo, which not many laptops have (although that's increasing all the time), and that's what I'm putting my money on. Can't wait to see a benchmark with this thing in a gaming rig.

mod1 d0wn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148583)

they stAr7ed to

No way! (2, Funny)

thetaco82 (791202) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148603)

So, Intel's new 65nm process is better than their older processes? Weird...

Load of Crap (-1, Troll)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148620)

Look we already know how good ro how bad these processors are. Do a search on Apple's new iMacs that ship with them and see real world tests. A MacWorld article takes Intela and Apple to task. They are faster compared to the G4 processors but not by alot, as claimed and on certain tasks, not faster at all.

It is not faster than the G5 period! Let alone AMD's dual core processors. Am I not mistaken but the FX processor is a single core processor. Hardly a comparison.

You may be saving some heat and power but you are not gaining in processing capability.

Re:Load of Crap (4, Informative)

NCG_Mike (905098) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148709)

Our QA department is testing my universal application right now (AppKit based). They've recorded a 20 to 30 percent increase in performance of a 1GB MacBook Pro over a 3GB 2Ghz Dual G5 doing a particular operation (mostly mathematics based done in cross-platform C++). It's single threaded, I might add, since OpenMP isn't here yet. The *ONLY* difference in the XCode settings between the two architectures that I made was to enable SSE3 for the Intel build. I can't believe that it's that alone, of course, and suspect it's just better code gen for the Intel architecture coming out of GCC.

Re:Load of Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148744)

So far the only way these slow Duo chips are winning benchmarks are:

1) The usual bogus Intel SPEC compiler marketing games

2) Comparing Duos to single core chips

3) Outright lies on Apple's part

What is most pathetic about the Duo Macs are they are barely outperforming OLD G4 systems, have worse battery life, and are almost too hot to touch in the MacBook Pro systems.

Dual and Quad 970s and AMD systems utterly destroy Duo based systems in real world tests.

Re:Load of Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148754)

RTFM. It whomps the tar out of a A64 X2 3800. I'm an AMD fan having owned nothing but AMD from as far back as the K6-2 but this Core Duo will definitely be the next CPU I purchase. I'm just glad that AMD was able to push Intel to actually develop a decent CPU for the firat time in recent memory and I hope that AMD is able to keep putting pressure on them. If the battle between Intel and AMD stays close, then consumers win.

Re:Load of Crap (3, Informative)

nsayer (86181) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148850)

It is not faster than the G5 period!

It sure the hell is. I have a 2.0x2 G5 desktop machine and one of the new 1.66 GHz Core Duo Mac Minis. Running Handbrake [m0k.org] , the mini is easily twice as fast.

Re:Load of Crap (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148988)

Bzzzttt!!!

You lose dummy. Let me guess, you also believe Steve Jobs' lies about performance from last years WWDC?

Even the three year old dual 2Ghz system smoke the shit out of the fastest Core Duo systems with the exception of the usual pathological rare cases. And the latest 2.5 duals and quads absolutely humiliate Duo systems.

No wonder Apple bumped the Mhz DOWN on their latest PPC update...

Re:Load of Crap (2, Interesting)

wvitXpert (769356) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149030)

I wish there was a mod option for 'Blatantly Incorrect'.

2.0 iMac versus 2.8 P4 (1, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148624)

I just got a new 2.0 Core Duo iMac and it feels a lot more powerful than my old P4 2.8 GHz Sony PC.

I know it's subjective, and I'm now running OS X instead of Windows, but still -- I definately *feels* more powerful.

boxlight

Re:2.0 iMac versus 2.8 P4 (1)

btmark (968861) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148653)

If only I wasn't an AMD snob.. (Or too poor to buy one of these sum'bitches)

Re:2.0 iMac versus 2.8 P4 (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15149055)

I just got a new 2.0 Core Duo iMac and it feels a lot more powerful than my old P4 2.8 GHz Sony PC.

How much RAM in each system? What kind of video card? Shared AGP or dedicated video memory?

What would the results show (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148633)

if the tests were run on Linux?

Take note! Many of these features inside AMD too. (4, Insightful)

Inoshiro (71693) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148644)

"But Yonah also supports the group of 13 new instructions known as SSE3, handles some SSE2 instructing like Shuffle and Unpack up to 30% faster, and is capable of using its instruction-grouping abilities (known as micro-ops fusion) on some SSE instructions, improving overall throughput."

SSE3 has some very nice hardware thread synchronization instructions. These are important (and AMD has them now). As for the instruction grouping, that sounds rather suspiciously like the double dispatch operations [chip-architect.com] that were added to Opteron:
"Appendix C of Opteron's Optimization Guide specifies to which class each and every instruction belongs. Most 128 bit SSE and SSE2 instructions are implemented as double dispatch instructions. Only those that can not be split into two independent 64 bit operations are handled as Vector Path (Micro Code) instructions. Those SSE2 instructions that operate on only one half of a 128 bit register are implemented as a single (Direct Path) instruction."

Assuming AMD can tune Turion64s to be more power friendly, they'll be able to best Intel's fancy new Core Duo. If they can't, then Intel may be the best game in town for the first time in a decade (assuming they price competitively).

SSE (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148966)

Not only does SSE3 have those hardware thread sync instructions (which I thought were mainly for HyperThreading) but the other math instructions are supposed to be helpful for complex numbers.

SSE3 [wikipedia.org] isn't exactly new, either...it's been around since Prescott (about two years as of now).

I recall that Intel's internal data paths were 64-bits wide, which meant SSE's 128 bit operations were actually hacks. I'm not sure if AMD had a similar hack, or if they included real 128-bit data paths. I know Merom/Core/NGMA is supposed to have true 128-bit data paths, so SSE will be even better.

Maybe per watt performance is the best but... (4, Interesting)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148654)

Looks like AMD still has them beat. From my take on this, on pure performance, the 3800+ X2 is going toe-to-toe and the 4800+ X2 is beating it every single time. So again, not that impressive. Now the per watt performance is important in some applications, so I can see why it would be a better, say, mobile platform than the AMD chips. But let's not pretend that Intel is winning the benchmarks with this quite yet.

Bound to happen (1)

Cthefuture (665326) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148658)

I think we could all see this coming. The Prescott Pentium 4's were never that great compared to the competition. They sucked tons of power, were hotter than hell, and the performance really wasn't all that great compared to the competition.

The Pentium M on the other hand had a much better core design. It just lacked the connectivity of the Pentium 4 because it used socket 478 and similar older technologies. These new Core Duo's are the logical extension to the already good Pentium M line. I wish Intel would just kill all those Prescott processors already.

I have been waiting many years to dump my Opteron machine for an Intel based version. I love the Opteron processors but you just can't get a decent motherboard for them. Hopefully in the near future I can switch to one of these newer Intel procs.

Re:Bound to happen (1)

Krischi (61667) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148727)

What is so bad about the Tyan motherboards, e.g. the Thunder K8W? Rock solid, and quite fast.

Re:Bound to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148826)

You want a decent Intel motherboard like the one used by Tech Report?

The excellent high-quality motherboard that required cold booting because it would have 50% of the time in a warm reboot?

The one that has zero enthusiast options, thus making it pointless for the vast majority of people that would spend the money for something like this, and possibly would have put up with the above issue?

There's nothing great about Intel chipsets. People say they're good because people are repeating what other people have said for years, back from the days when the competition was VIA. The only thing I'd say about them is that they're as crap as all the other chipsets, i.e., the other chipsets suck as well.

Mhz War AMD vs Intel (2, Insightful)

vchoy (134429) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148729)

From the article: ...The T2600 can't quite take the overall performance crown from the likes of the Athlon 64 FX-60 or the X2 4800+, but jeez, it's startlingly close....

Given the T2600 runs at 2.16ghz

Compare this to

AMD 4800+ 2.4ghz

it really does seem the 'Mhz = performance' is well and truely over...and for the first time Intel seems to be saying to AMD "We too can play your Mhz mean 'nuffin game'"

Again...the test results maybe affected by the chipsets used for the different processor architectures, which in turn affected the the types of memory used (DDR2/DDR) etc etc...

Tech Report's self-destructive behavior (0, Offtopic)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148762)

That Tech Report article is so infested with Flash ads that it discourages me from reading it, or even taking Tech Report seriously.

It seems to me that a company has to be very, very stupid to believe that trying to force people to read ads is productive.

I was trying to do without the FlashBlock extension [mozilla.org] because Firefox developers tend to blame the instability and CPU hogging of Firefox on extensions. However, I've installed it now.

--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

Re:Tech Report's self-destructive behavior (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148798)

Moreso than Flash itself?!

Practical experiance (3, Interesting)

weiserfireman (917228) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148801)

Just this week, I received a brand new HP nx9420 laptop with a 1.83Ghz Duo processor. I use this laptop for 3D Solid CAD/CAM applications. For my application, it is definately faster. The CAM rendering is faster, the part rotation is smoother. Overall very efficient. I have done some stress testing by doing some long database queries at the same time I am rendering a part. My old computers would have joked. There is a noticable hit on rendering performance, but it is still able to complete both tasks in a reasonable manner. We have the same CAD/CAM software on a 1.6Ghz PentiumM Laptop and two 2.8GHz Pentium-4 desktop machines. All the machines have 1024MB of RAM, and the two Desktops have 256MB video cards. I have not noticed that heat issues that other folks have mentioned, but I don't hold it in my lap either. So far I am very impressed.

Battery life in the MacBooks? (2, Interesting)

delire (809063) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148851)

Not only is the Core Duo's performance per watt better than the rest [...]
Why then is the battery life in the MacBooks so miserly?

Re:Battery life in the MacBooks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15148918)

English Motherfarker - Do you speak it?

Miserly indeed.

What is AMD going to do? (2, Interesting)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148893)

I think its extreme pricewhore time for AMD, apart from a new Socket with DDR2 - which solves a problem which has never really existed at AMD* (I still enjoy my Opterons NUMA as much as the next person though :) ), although DDR2 still brings some benefits none the less.

* Apart from the Athlon MP, whose usefullness apart from a low low cost SMP server platform disappeared when stuff started to demand more bandwidth. A Uniprocessor Duron on an nForce2 owns it on anything where AGP and memory bandwidth comes into play!

that may be... (0)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 8 years ago | (#15148973)

But dollars for power still goes to amd.gimme 64bit x2.It's a feel good article for the inTEL fan boys.

you people will reply to anything (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15149135)

here's some links! now rehash everything that's been said over the past few months!
pretend you know what you're talking about!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>