What is Digg?115 Comments
- krakelohm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+86I love competition.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21I really hate to complain, but the first thing I look for when I want to find out about how fast a certain processor can perform tasks compared to others is to look for a graph demonstrating the benchmarks.
- whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25sounds like good advice, bogie...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21News flash for you. Core2Duo's clock rates hover around the same clock speeds of A64's.
- dobesov, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23LOL... I bet a few years ago you defended how much better Apple chips were than Intel or those other PC processors...
- niqhil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=15
- shucklak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Are you serious? How old are you??
If you prefer Slashdot then post on Slashdot. No one cares about your OPINIONS anyway.
"So all you Intel fanbois can go blow a goat."
No one is interested in your ignorant closed-minded views on processors. It is a fact that the Intel Core 2 can out perform and AMD chip, as it is also a fact that AMD will come up with something later this year, early next year that will blow it away. Thats competition. - guytoronto, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Here you go:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page12.html
Let the monkey spanking begin. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21Since when does the Washington Post know anything about computer tests? I mean, even though they're not affiliated at all with the government, the word "Washington" near anything to do with computers only conjures up images of Ted Stevens talking about his clogged tubes.
- bolero421, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16This message was brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11what I want, and no one seems to give this, is not a comparison of the best of the best, the stuff I can't afford. How about a comparison of the low end, affordable Core2's versus the old low end (3ghz and below P4) and the older AMD's, maybe the first gen 64's and the 3200xp.
I'd like to know if upgrading my processor will really be beneficial to me in the games I play. - nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10"And it took Intel how long to finally outperform Athlon64?"
If you want to get technical... negative 7 months. The Pentium M was originally launched /before/ the Athlon 64, but Intel marketing decided to play the Pentium 4 out completely and allow Prescott (the core that never should have been) to come to light. If they would have gone with the Pentium M as their next platform chip from the beginning, it'd be a completely different landscape by now. - somnus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12The redundant naming schemes will only get worse when it's in the Mac Pro's: it'll be called the "Mac Pro Dual Core 2 Duo"... how's that for redundant?
Redundant. - drewpost, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14I must say I am VERY impressed with how my Core Duo in my MacBook Pro has performed. This thing absolutely SCREAMS when encoding h.264 (OR VIDEO IN GENERAL) and has made me eat my own words. I was afraid that the shift to Intel would hurt Apple but if this increase in power is what we can come to expect then bring it on!! I love being able to do everything that I did formerly on a G5 tower on my MacBook at nearly the same speed if not faster!
- tabledesk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Why wouldn't that be in a newspaper? The semiconductor industry is just a tiny bit influential in today's economy, right?
- nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"It took Intel long enough to do this. With the past failures they had with different irritations of the P4, they went back to a simpler solution based on the P3, and it worked. No more extremely long stepped pipelines, on-die everything. low power consumption."
Actually, the Pentium M, Core's progenitor, has been around BEFORE the Athlon 64s have been. Intel's been literally sitting on its hands when it comes to the Israeli design team; from rumors of Yonah that have been circling around since 2004, we just got a glimpse of it earier this year, and now Yonah's siblings are coming out to play. Furthermore, the P6 core has been quite corrupted in the Core and Core 2 layouts, the fundamentals of it are still around, but it's vastly different, taking advantage of a great deal of code that was actually used in the Pentium 4 (for example, Netburst's bus was completely lifted from the P4 and used with the Pentium M/Core/Core2 [Next Generation Architecture]).
"But AMD is around the corner with it's new virtualization core CPUs (I think that's the terminology). Where they take a dual-core CPU (or more cores), and run them sharing cpu cycles between all cores, and it runs twice as fast, but to your OS it appears as a SINGLE core runinng really fast."
The technology is called Speculative Multithreading, it's technology that both Intel (Core Mitosis) and AMD ("Reverse Hyperthreading") have been working on, and with Intel's Advanced Smart Cache, it is available on the Core and Core 2 chips as well, as long as it is turned on via BIOS, much as Hyperthreading would have needed to be. Furthermore, it's at Intel's advantage here, simply because the Core 2 chips can execute four instructions a clock vs AMD's cores doing 3 instructions per clock. This basically means that a Core 2 with Core Multiplexing Technology enabled will retire 8 instructions a cycle (including 2 entire SSE instructions), whereas an Athlon 64 will only be able to retire 6. Further to Intel's advantage with this, the technology for use with Core Multiplexing/Core Mitosis was actually developed by Intel, and the Intel Compiler should have support for it in upcoming patches (as should GCC if they can get on the ball and write a GCC plug for it). Oh, and it DOES require the software be compiled and aware of the technology, else it's absolutely useless (aka your code as it is compiled now will NOT see a speed up from Core Mitosis).
"Dual core is great but mostly useless when your OS and Apps need to be aware of it and coded for it. Even then you're not getting twice the performance with dual cores as you think you should. But virtualization cores is what dual core CPUs should have been line 10 years ago when workstations used dual CPUs."
No, Dual cores are QUITE useful as they are, even without Core Mitosis/Multiplexing. Because most applications these days are single threaded, one application can be sitting on one core, and the other application utilizing the other core, allowing for seemless multitasking. Furthermore, it's an ever shrinking section of applications that CAN'T be easily parallelized, so even now with two cores, you're going to see a huge performance increase (and with 4, 8, etc. until the law of diminishing returns catches up with you somewhere out in the 32/64 range). - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5guys guys guys....
it's just going to bounce back and forth...
AMD is going to be king sometimes, sometimes Intel will.
When you pay 1000$ for their latest chips... it really doesn't matter.
On the Speed dial you're still sitting on fast.
And who cares about 90 fps, when your monitor only does 60hz? - mayurpatil, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Finally a competition for AMD....
Wake up AMD time for some serious work.. - ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Intel processors are a bit like tribbles, they double in number every five minutes.
- nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page2.html
If you go through this page, it has the listings of all the processors Tom tested, from the lowest Core 2 chip they're making at the moment (Conroe 1.83GHz), and it smokes Athlon 64's clocked up to 2.4GHz, so that can tell you about how fast it is. But, unless you've got a board with a 965 chipset, I wouldn't look into just dropping the P4 and going with a C2 yet, especially as the Bad Axe motherboards are still being developed/released into the channels. Might as well drop the cash all at once and get a complete platform upgrade. - JayRod, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Is Core 3 trio next followed by Core 4 quattro
- jonshipman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It's a good thing that CPU's stay stagnate over a few years... A few years ago PPC did outperform x86. However, with more R&D being thrown into x86 now - PPC just can't keep up. Saying a G5 is better than a Pentium 4 is pretty much fact. Now Intel is pushing out a new generation and IBM can't match speeds - so Apple goes with Intel.
- drewpost, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@debesov Yes I did (I used to work for Apple so it was my job!) And on some things I was right and you have to admit that the G5 chip is still a freaking powerful chip, it's just that for the money and power Intel rocks PowerPCs world.
- drewpost, on 10/12/2007, -12/+15I was going to post the same thing but my internet got clogged in the tubes.... Someone should do something about this b/c my mom STILL hasn't recieved my internet I sent her last week....
- thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Because it's very common for sites to re-purpose content from other ones. If you notice the article says it's from PC World. Washington Post is simply re-publishing it on their site in hopes of getting more clicks... or even better getting Dugg! Yahoo is the most famous.... they don't really write anything, everything is from content partners.
- keitho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3look at application performance data, encoding/decoding scores, and things like that.
- niqhil, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Cost diff > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=2
- Anth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5100%
Intel's Woodcrest will be in the new Mac Pro line. I'm still hoping for a Mac (regular) line that has conroe chips inside them. - Mrkamikaze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Nice! i was going to stay bleeding edge with my next system but if the prices are resonable i might pick me up a low end Conroe.
- timmage89, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2$180 for a processor that outperforms the $600 X2 4800+!?!? I gotta get me one of those!
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5What are the chances of these new intel chips making into macs and be anounced at WWDC?
- bdmbdm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@vandread:
I'm in the same situation as you man. Because the only way I'd buy a $1000 processor, is if I had a lot of money. - sirmasterboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2LOL on practicly every test the Core 2 Duo E6600 smokes the Athlon FX62. The FX62 is over $1000 and the Core 2 Duo E6600 retails at $318 looks like intel is the best bang for the buck now by 66%!!! lol way more than AMD ever had on intel.
- groceryheist, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13isn't "2 duo" somewhat redundant?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@nTensify
Thanks for the link, I wish they had actually done the benchmarking with the lower processors too, it shows that to beat the AMD I've got to go with at least the 6600 though. I would have liked to see what the 6300 would do in comparison to the Pentium D. But its better than nothing. - thehacker123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This article is written by the washington post based on PC worlds tests
if an overclocked version of a core 2 duo extreme can be 17-25% faster than an FX-62 I would seriously consider it because it consumes 30-40% less power and can be up to 25% faster than an FX-62 (extremely overclocked) and has the highest world bench 5 score ever and it is actually cheaper than an FX-62 - nTensify, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I haven't seen one review of the retail B2 stepping, they are all of old steppings, fast and bugged steppings."
The reviews out now are _all_ of the retail B2 stepping, the NDA just ran out on them earlier today, which is why everyone's coming out of the games with reviews. Then again, forums all over the internet have had newer steppings for ages, so it's not really news to those "in the know" so to speak. But, it is incredibly good news either way around it. - askjeffro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5http://images.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/game_over_core_2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/core2_intro.jpg
But there's always the next game. (Well, the game after next...)
Sorry, I just love that picture. :) - crbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm handing in my AMD fanboy club membership. Intel, sign me up.
- rexxars, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/07/14/intel_core_2_duo_processors/1.html
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Actually it means the second iteration of the core duo processor. It just sounds weird, but it isn't redundant.
- lnxaddct, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5treleung,
That is what the lottery balls are for ;) - marthaphoebe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1so what's the difference between conroe and woodcrest? cause I see woodcrests available on dell workstations (as well as servers) too. money aside, which of these should I get ?
- maxtypezero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3no.
Core 2 is name for all Conroe cpus. Duo, Solo and Extreme get more specific and not redundant. - DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2anyone have benchmarks on how these perform playing back 1080p video? my current cpu (venice 3000) struggles with the ones I dl'd off apples site.
- tuxidomasx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3why, oh why did i JUST buy a socket 775 motherboard
like...last week.
for those that dont know, the core 2 duos use the same socket type as the pentium D/ newer P4s, but require a different chipset. so...you cant just pop them into any old 775 supported motherboard.
oh well... - member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1fanbois
- Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3hardocp -- i love them but there are so many other good sites reporting better results then they are...
for once i dont think they did a great review. - jackielee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://digg.com/hardware/Intel_Core_2_(Conroe)_Thermal_Power_Analyzed
More on INtel Core 2 Conroe - codemonkey420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ keitho: Thanks man. Appreciated.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 