Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Core Duo Reaches the Desktop

Posted by Zonk on Fri May 19, 2006 12:42 PM
from the back-in-the-race dept.
Intel AMD Hardware
rtt writes "AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market due to Intel's offerings struggling to keep up in terms of performance and power consumption. Yonah is the predecessor to the Core architecture and is predominantly a mobile chip, and is used at the heart of Intel's Viiv technology. Bit-tech has an article about Yonah beating the top of the range desktop AMD chip, the FX60, clock for clock. From the article" 'When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Core Duo Reaches the Desktop 50 Comments More /

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

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

  • Already on the desktop (Score:5, Informative)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Friday May 19 2006, @12:44PM (#15367074)
    Apple is aready using the Intel Core Duo T2500 in the iMac [apple.com], and the Core Duo and Core Solo in the Mac mini [apple.com].

    Based on these and other benchmarks it would appear that Merom ("Core 2 Duo", the next generation portable processor, Conroe (the next generation desktop/workstation processor), and Woodcrest (the next generation workstation/server processor) will have quite a bit to offer.

  • every situation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19 2006, @12:47PM (#15367123)
    mp3 encoding and other floating point workloads are quite common. AMD wins hands down there.

  • Wake me up when it supports 64-bit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RelliK (4466) on Friday May 19 2006, @12:48PM (#15367125)
    When it supports AMD64 instruction set, it will be worth a look. Until then who cares?

  • It's a play on words. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by insomniac8400 (590226) on Friday May 19 2006, @12:48PM (#15367129)
    "When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation." If this is true, it would be the first time intel made anything better than amd. But in the end, all that matters is that AMD's $200 chip outperforms intel's $200 chip.
    • It's worth noting that the comparison is between the FX-60 running at factory speed, and a Core Duo running overclocked.
      • It's worth nothing that the comparison is between the FX-60 running at 2.6 GHz, and a Core Duo running at 2.6 GHz. Hence the clock-for-clock comparison. I think they were trying to compare architectures, for which I thought the article did a good job. I learned that the Yonah is nice, but can't do 64-bit or FPU operations well.

        Actually, I already knew that, but I still looked at the benchmarks.

    • Re:It's a play on words. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Thats the thing, the FX60 is AMD's highest FX chip, and it starts at $990 on pricewatch and over $1000 on froogle. Pricewatch isnt listing core duos yet, but froogle has this model (duo T2600) startng at $640.

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

      Clearly you never got to play with a K6.

  • Uh (Score:4, Informative)

    by Moby Cock (771358) on Friday May 19 2006, @12:50PM (#15367147) Homepage
    Core Duo has been available in a desktop machine for months. They are standard in every iMac.

  • Over the top (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rorian (88503) <james.fysh@nosPAm.gmail.com> on Friday May 19 2006, @12:50PM (#15367152) Homepage Journal
    I think they go just a bit overboard in saying that Yonah beats the FX-60 "into a corner".. Most benchmarks had it either infront or behind by around 2-3%. Is it really worth forking out a few hundred dollars for such a dismal gain in performance? Does it have better performance-per-watt? That's what really seems to count these days anyway.

  • Match on Desktop perhaps but not as a workstation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HighOrbit (631451) * on Friday May 19 2006, @12:53PM (#15367187)
    From TFA:

    Core Duo solves a lot of the short comings, but there is one major feature omission from Yonah's architecture: it doesn't support Intel's EM64T 64-bit extensions

    and later:
    The lack of 64-bit extensions may be a worry for some, as will the poor FPU performance - the latter showed up in our MP3 encoding test.

    So if you are doing anything with a 64-bit, high memory, or FPU requirement, AMD still wins.
    • Yes, until Conroe arrives later this year.

      Until then the consumer space really doesn't need 64-bit processors for most work people do.
  • I don't understand the articles' conclusions.

    Athlon X2 4800+ stock > Core Duo at stock clocks, in 32-bit mode.
    Athlon X2 4800+ stock Core Duo at stock, in 32-bit mode.
    Athlon FX-60 stock http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1 845&page=2 , it is possible to run the Athlon X2 4800+ at 3.14 ghz , which is a 30% overclock, albeit with a very serious cooling solution. I'm wagering that at that speed it would flatten the overclock Core Duo, especially if you permit 64-bit optimizations, which DO
    • Wow slashdot kills brackets.

      AMD X2 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock.
      AMD X2 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked.
      AMD FX-60 Stock Faster than Core Duo Stock.
      AMD FX-60 Stock Slower than Core Duo Overclocked.
    • "it is possible to run the Athlon X2 4800+ at 3.14 ghz , which is a 30% overclock, albeit with a very serious cooling solution."

      Note the "very serious cooling solution". In the case of the OCed Core Duo, they used the stock cooler and it didn't even get hot when clocked WAY beyond the speed they tested it at. If you read the article they were able to run it as high as 3.1 GHz or so and the stock heatsink was still cold to the touch at that speed.

      I've been a big AMD fan for a long time, but now that I own

  • Dubious Test (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cait56 (677299) * on Friday May 19 2006, @12:57PM (#15367224) Homepage

    As near as I can determine from reading the article, it proves that a Core Duo *slightly* outperforms an Athlon 64 XP2 when doing heavy number crunching with a 32-bit Windows application.

    Comparing the same application build for 64-bit on Linux vs. 32-bit on Linux (or BSD) would have been a far more meaningful comparison.

  • Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)

    by thebdj (768618) on Friday May 19 2006, @12:59PM (#15367236) Journal
    First, I would hardly say it is beating it. The numbers are all close, but most the processes they are running are almost running into other limits beyond processing speed at this point. The differences are not that great and the chip still loses (and much more then it whens other tests) in anything that is single threaded.

    The other thing we need to remember is pricing. I was checking prices the other day for 4200+ processors and D950 processors. While almost exactly the same price, right now the AMD would still be much cheaper because of RAM price differences (especially if you get large RAM sticks, I am looking for 2x 1GB) and motherboards. Find motherboards for AMD and Intel that I believe were equal in features had the Intel motherboard almost $20 more then the AMD one.

    Now, while I cannot attest for the power consumption on Intel right off, AMD is releasing more energy efficient processors with the AM2 release, due in just a few weeks. There should also be a slight (5-10%) performance increase based off of information from reviews of the processors and boards while still in development (improvements may be better in production models), so I would not call this a win for Intel yet.

    I am glad that Intel finally seems to be catching up with AMD, which hopefully will only lead to better competition between the two over time. I really do not like these speculative reviews (remember those Opteron 64-bit reviews before the first Athlon64s hit), so someone wake me up when Socket AM2 and its processor are out and the new line of Intel chips is actually available and not just a ramped up Yonah. Especially since the cost of the motherboard they used makes you want to cringe. (I have yet to have to break $100 on my motherboards.)
  • Ok, Intel is getting some game, 'bout freaking time. But this isn't an "AMD killer" by any means.

    Notice how they only included ONE FPU intensive task and AMD (and several of the Intel products) schooled this mobile offering? Most reviews include a lot more balanced set of tests, this one obviously had their storyline written for them and was tailoring the tests to fit the plot.

    And also, let us not forget that the STOCK benchmark numbers for this chip were anything but impressive, so they played up the overclocked numbers. However, while this chip does have some seriously intersting overclock potential it isn't the first chip to be massively overclocked. Just last week we were salivating over a budgie Intel chip that somebody overclocked into the world's fastest CPU. So why not include THAT firebreathing monster's numbers on the chart along with some seriously overclocked AMD parts? Perhaps that would't have had such a dramatic narrative? Ah.

    Meanwhile, I'll keep comparing parts running at factory spec and waiting to see what AMD drops next week to compare current gen parts to current gen parts.
  • It seems to be one of those mysterious things like IBM's "SAA" or Microsoft's ".NET" or Vitalis' "V7..." .

    It's a secret miracle ingredient about which all that is clear is that you're supposed to think it's good without needing to know what it is, exactly, or what it does, or why it's good.

    Intel says: With Intel Viiv technology, you control a highly integrated Intel platform designed for digital entertainment. That means you can: Take charge of your media. Share experiences with movies, photos, and music with your friends and family. Simplify your digital life.

    It's sort of like saying "Texaco gasoline has CleanSystem3, which will help you score with hot chicks."

    Will somebody please explain to me what technical characteristics of a processor allow you to "share experiences with movies, photos, and music with your friends and family?"

    Unless that means it doesn't support DRM?

    • Re:What the heck is "Intel's ViiV technology?" (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrchaotica (681592) * on Friday May 19 2006, @01:53PM (#15367724)
      Unless that means it doesn't support DRM?
      On the contrary, it means that it does support DRM. And not just DRM, but Treacherous Computing. In hardware.

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

  • hrm (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Silicon Mike (611992) *
    So.. What they are saying is Intel's latest and greatest CPU is finally gonna beat something AMD released, what, 5 or 6 months ago? Intel is STILL playing catch-up.

  • Sham (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Short Circuit (52384) * <mikemol@gmail.com> on Friday May 19 2006, @01:11PM (#15367336) Homepage Journal
    You know, I like the Core Duo, and would love to have one in a laptop or on a desktop. (If Debian isn't ready for x86-64, then x86-64 isn't ready for me.)

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


    As others have pointed out, the Core Duo only beat out the Athlon64 FX-60 when overclocked. If the chip, when overclocked, was safe for production environments, then the chip would have shipped at a higher default clock speed.

    The whole tone of the article is wrong...it seems more interested in Intel than in technology. Notice that the "most impressive thing" is that the Core Duo chip does better than a high-end Intel chip. The only negative thing they mention in the article is a reminder that AMD's AM2 architecture is supposed to come out next week.

    They're misrepresenting the product. I have to wonder if they were paid for this review.

    • Re:Sham (Score:3, Insightful)

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

      Both were clocked to 2.6ghz so that a clock for clock comparison could be made...
        • http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&p=1 [anandtech.com]

          This review is weeks old.

          Core Duo beats Opteron 175 clock-for-clock in nearly every test (including all that measure primarily CPU performance and bandwidth). Yes, the Core Duo was massively overclocked, it wins clock-for-clock, but if you want the highest performance right now with no overclocking, it's still AMD. But you'll pay a big power/heat price for it.

    • Re:Sham (Score:3, Insightful)

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

      Of course they were.... If not outright in cash, by getting early access to hot new stuff.

      It's also not unknown for a manufacturer to 'accidentally' forget to ask for their stuff back if you write a really glowing review of it.

      NVidia appears to have shills working the forums, hired via some marketing agency. This is a hard thing to prove conclusively, but there was at least one documented case a couple months back, so a

  • Core Duo Speeds (Score:4, Funny)

    by digitaldc (879047) * on Friday May 19 2006, @01:12PM (#15367349)
    When Yonah is running at the same clock speed as AMD's Athlon 64 FX-60, we found that it beat it into a corner in just about every situation.

    In other words, the Athlon 64 ran fine - it just needed a bit more time to cache up to it.

  • Enter obligatory comment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Temujin_12 (832986) on Friday May 19 2006, @01:25PM (#15367479)
    Entry obligatory AMD zealot, "intel can't possibly make something better then AMD" comments here _______.

    Seriously, I'm sick of the overly zealous statements when it comes to "OS vs. OS" "Company vs. Company" etc. debates. Why is it so threatening when another companies/organizations happen to produce something better than your favorite company/organization?

    Sometimes intel will get it right and sometimes AMD will. Deal with it.

    Ya, I know. This is probably eligible for flaimbait and/or troll mod points. Oh well, I just needed to get this off my chest.

    • Two Words (Score:4, Funny)

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

      You're sick of techie holy wars. But you're reading /. comments? If you can't stand baseless bickering over meaningless arguments, it's best to probably stay away from the Comments section of this site.

  • Let's Get A Few Things Straight about Yonah (Score:5, Informative)

    by Shuh (13578) on Friday May 19 2006, @01:31PM (#15367541) Journal


    Yonah = "Core Duo/Solo"

    Conroe, Merom = "Core 2 Duo/Solo"

    The Woodcrest, who knows?

    Conroe, Merom, Woodcrest = "Next Generation Architecture" = "Core Architecture"

    Although Yonah is the "Core Duo/Solo," it is not actually part of the "Core Architecture."

    Capisci?
  • This is a $300 processor, that with a $100 motherboard can hit 2.5GHZ without any effort. Not only that but it's proven, and the motherboard it uses are prooven and have been put through the paces. This Core Duo 2GHZ Cpu is $420, and no one knows much about overclocking with the available motherboards. Only ones on newegg are $150 and micro atx (and in my experience these types of boards do not overclock well. This is comparing apples and oranges. Simple fact, my 3800 X2 using Sandra's bench's outbenches every Intel CPU except the $1000 EE Edition. and it's damn close on that.

  • skewed benchmark (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SolusSD (680489) on Friday May 19 2006, @02:23PM (#15367984) Homepage
    Wasn't it Intel that "taught" us that performance per clock cycle isn't important? This entire benchmark is a a little skewed since most people will not be running the core duo *overclocked*. So in reality, the Athlon FX-60 is still king of this benchmark. Don't get me wrong, I believe the core duo is a wonderful processor and I'll be sure to have it in my next notebook.

  • Reign on Your Parade (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday May 19 2006, @03:16PM (#15368387) Homepage Journal
    "AMD has long reigned the desktop CPU market"

    AMD has never (or infrequently and briefly) ruled the market. Their often superior tech might sometimes "lead the pack", or even "lead the market" in the sense of directing development. But more people buy Intel desktop CPUs, which is what rules the market.
      • While it is true that for x86 processors, 64-bit mode is measurably faster than 32-bit mode, it's not MASSIVELY different. (i.e. The Athlon FX-60 is bested by the Core Duo T2500, but not by much, running the AMD in 64-bit mode with native 64-bit apps, the AMD would probably barely beat the Core Duo then. The main speed increase doesn't come specifically from being 64-bit, but rather that the 64-bit extensions more than double the number of registers. THAT is what makes it faster. If AMD had added the re

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.