Posted on 07/14/2006 8:31:15 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Two weeks from now, Intel will release its all-new Core 2 Duo processor. The technical details were made available to the public in March 2006, and first benchmarks made clear that Intel is not joking: Core 2 Duo shall become the undisputed leader in performance and performance per Watt. It's time to separate facts from rumors.
Intel does not talk about changes to the processor architecture; it talks about a complete redesign. The engineers took elements from the current Pentium D NetBurst architecture and added ingredients that made the Pentium M and Core Duo mobile processors successful, and voilá: The Core2 micro-architecture was born. Key design goals were an ideal relation between processing performance and power consumption, which was a direct result of AMD's processors delivering better performance per Watt of energy, and the public complaining about unreasonably high power consumption and cooling requirements for Intel platforms.
For industry experts, Core 2 Duo beating the Athlon 64 processor family is no surprise: On the one hand, Core 2 Duo is a brand-new state-of-the-art processor, whereas the Athlon 64 X2 has been around for a while. On the other hand, Intel must come out with a superior product to finally beat AMD after two years of Athlon 64 headwinds.
So fasten your seatbelts, because Core 2 Duo is the new high-flyer. We will go through all technical aspects that have not been discussed on the web. So don't expect lots of architecture details (these can be found in our Spring IDF article), but hands-on testing and analysis. We will also have a look at the impact Core 2 Duo might have on AMD.
.
.(snipped out most of the article)
.
First of all let me sort the facts: As soon as Core 2 Duo hits the market, it will...
We expect Core 2 Duo to roll out slower than Intel proclaims, so don't expect to get every model in every shop right from the start. All eyes are staring at Intel, especially after it announced decreasing revenues and layoffs. For these reasons we believe that it will do everything that is necessary to ensure a stable processor supply.
Is the game over for AMD then? By no means. The performance race might be over for the time being, but it still can look at more attractive platforms for the enthusiast customer base (for ATI Crossfire and Nvidia SLI). In addition, AMD spokesperson Damon Muzny told us earlier this week that AMD intends to adjust its processor prices to keep delivering the best price/performance for the customer. Although we do not have any numbers yet, you can be pretty sure that the price cuts will be substantial, so check processor prices before you buy! And that is not all: There are AMD's low-power Athlon 64 X2 processors, rated at 65 W and 35 W - these will help the firm to compete in the digital home space. As Intel moves towards its first quad core processor in the winter and AMD will rollout first 65 nm processors, we will certainly see the battle heating up even more.
True, that. Even with the older core, it's usually spanking the AMD mobile processor in benchmarks. :-/
Windows Vista will come on an install DVD. It needs a minimum 20 gig partition for install. But since it's not patched & updated up the wazoo it will probably run faster than XPSP2+updates. Run faster on your XP computer just so long as you don't turn on Aero-Glass and some of the new file indexing. At least that's my theory
Those are all HOT ( Heatwise ) little buggers....
The AMD64's at 90 nm are superior....
What the hell is a 24" inch Dell? Ahhh, never mind!
"Good news for the 1% who need that processing power"
That would be me!
Big database, heavy crunching kind of guy.
So are you waiting for the quad-core processors,....or does the software not use multi processing threads?
------
You make a good point -- the dual-core processing power of today remains very lightly used, with some exceptions. The software writers have not yet really converted over to heavy use of multi-threading and some never will, that will fully use the power of present dual-core technology to its fullest, let alone future stuff like quad-cores. The hardware remains way ahead of consumer software -- my dual core AMD will be very adequate for even the most advanced of games and 3D for a long time, or until the software community begins to write for multi-core CPU structures.
Running the SUSE prerelease version of the new Linux Enterprise Desktop...with all the visual effects turnon (I think )...XGL translucent windows,....shimmering side boundaries....multiple facets of a 5 sided cube...etc...makes the low end AMD64 X2 3800+ work a bit, but response time is still great....got to see if the MS Vista windows effects beat
that....
Those are all HOT ( Heatwise ) little buggers....
The AMD64's at 90 nm are superior....
Apropos of that I just got a new Athlon XP heatsink via priority mail today. 80mm fan and copper aluminum heatsink for $10 total off of eBay. I know this heatsink is good and quiet enough because I already have one. NewEgg usually beats eBay but this was one was a deal ---->>>
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=86163&CatId=0
Have you compared your Dell to other monitors? I'm in the market for a lcd and was wondering. I do some photo stuff -- semi-pro.
3D Studio Viz does take advantage of multiple processing
Its 64bit
My heavy duty model building and CAD work is ok with a 1 Gig Pentium 3 and 1 gig of RAM for most wrok. Rarely do I crash AutoCad, but it happens. Especially on big complciated models. It's the photo realistic rendering that kills me.
None of this CAD and gaming processor stuff means much until Intel or AMD can stick a 1 Watt processor in a cell phone / portable server. Not to mention interconnected, ubiquitous wireless servers coast to coast running from a couple watts of solar and battery power.
Increased processor speed means nothing until bus speeds increase also.
Fortunately, a superfast PC usually won't have you laying on the ground with road rash. While there are always the gamers, autocad people, 3D animators, statistical analysis people, etc, that need more and more power, the majority of computer users only use about half of their existing power base. This puts about 3/4 of the computer base out there only changing when the system fails, instead of a two year or so replacement cycle to take advantage of new technology.
Additionally, CPU speed is no longer an issue for most applications. Other system bottlenecks have far more potential for increasing speed now. Personally, I think the next big thing will occur when flash memory or something similar drops to commodity price. At some point, a laptop will come out with something like a 20 gig flash drive installed. The flash drive will store the OS and the most commonly used files and virtual memory, with a larger hard drive for less frequently accessed files. Eventually, a laptop will come out without a hard drive, but will have a 60 to 80 gig flash drive (It may not actually be flash memory, but some form of non-volatile, non-mechanical storage device that accesses data much faster than a hard drive). In my recent experience, almost all system slowdowns are the result of swapping out virtual memory or reading from the hard drive.
My camera currently uses a 2 gig flash card and a 1 gig smart media card. I'm out running around the sidelines of football fields with it while it's operating. The reliability, toughness, and speed of the cards is truly amazing. A laptop with flash as the primary storage device would be much tougher, faster and thinner.
"Tom's Hardware is a well known Intel-loving tech site. They cherry pick benchmarks for those that show Intel CPUs in their best light."
Oh, I suppose Anand (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795) and everyone else who's tested Core 2 are also "Intel-loving"?
Some "intel-loving" from Anand: "But make no mistake, what you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it's the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years."
Please. Fact is Intel, after years of coasting, has produced a very good chip! AMD is great. Four of four machines in my house run AMD processors (all Socket A vintage). Right now, and for an unknown period of time, Intel has the performance crown. Hyperbolic statements on your part don't change that.
Me, I'm happy; AMD will cut prices, and either way I get a bargain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.