Slashdot Mirror
Core Duo Reaches the Desktop
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.'"
I'm sure AMD would beg to differ.
For more information, click here.
Apple is aready using the Intel Core Duo T2500 in the iMac, and the Core Duo and Core Solo in the Mac mini.
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.
mp3 encoding and other floating point workloads are quite common. AMD wins hands down there.
When it supports AMD64 instruction set, it will be worth a look. Until then who cares?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
"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.
Core Duo has been available in a desktop machine for months. They are standard in every iMac.
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.
Will program for karma.
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.
I don't understand the articles' conclusions.
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 noticeably increase speed on several programs in Linux. Please don't whine about not having a 64-bit OS; those of us in the Linux world can choose 64-bit or 32-bit at will.
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=
Now, I'll admit that the Intel's Performance per Watt is significantly better. But it ain't faster.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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.
AKA Core 2 Duo. Not sure on offical launch date, November I think. At any rate it's their high performance chip based on the Core design, targeted at desktops. Faster and has EMT64 (Intel's name for the x86 64-bit extensions). Limited testing on it at this point, since it's still engineering samples only, but AnandTech found it to be about 10-30% faster than a 2.8GHz Athlon X2 (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2713&p=1) .
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.)
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Yes, until Conroe arrives later this year.
Until then the consumer space really doesn't need 64-bit processors for most work people do.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Democrat delenda est
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?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
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.
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.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
The Sempron processors are their low end, all sub-$100 from a quick glance at Pricewatch.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
It's how I have obtained everything I have on a meager income. (1> meager 100000) /hr. 5x what I bill my clients, and 17x what I make hourly.
For instance when I bought my car, I spent about 10 hours researching. I saved over $4000 off of sticker, and 70000 miles later I am still a happy camper! that was between 12-18% off the price. My time was worth $400
How to buy anything.
1. Set a realistic budget for the item you wish to purchase & save money for it
2. Do research on the best Price:Performance
a. Look up your options, consider items that are similar, look at diferent brands.
b. Compare reviews
c. Don't spend so much time researching that your savings is no longer worth it. (don't spend tons of time looking how to save 10 cents on dryer sheets!)
3. Look for a reputable vendor for said product.
4. Make purchase, and enjoy without feeling guilty about what you spent!
Thats why I purchased an AMD x2 4400
and an nvida geforce 7900 gt. Great games performance / Excellent multitasking
Smokin like the tires on my car!
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
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?
"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 a Core Duo laptop (Intel has managed to maintain superiority in the mobile market) I am definately considering going to Conroe for my next desktop upgrade depending on price and what AMD comes out with. I already have an X2 3800+ based file server, and in terms of raw CPU, the Core Duo beats it. I'll admit that other than transcoding of video I can't do many comparisons between the two machines though.
That would've been a good comparison to make - Core Duo T2500 (approx $350-360) vs. Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (Approx $300). Like the FX-60 vs. OCed Core Duo, they run at the same clock speed. Note that the Core Duo has a TDP of 31W and the X2 3800+ has a TDP of 89W. Price/performance is close if not equal in my experience, and performance per watt of the Core Duo is WAY ahead.
One key here - Intel has a roadmap that includes a clear performance boost beyond that of the Core Duo within months, while AMD only has incremental upgrades (Socket AM2) planned. I've also seen references to a new A64 core with an extra FPU, but nothing about availability of that.
Just because AMD has been the king of the desktop for a while doesn't mean you should count Intel out now that they've finally ditched the Netburst architecture.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Geek Religion
/. 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.
You're sick of techie holy wars. But you're reading
Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
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.
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.
Prove it.
So I do partially agree with the OP, but he does seem to be putting too much stock on 64-bit mode. It's not like the moment Vista comes out, all 32-bit processors will be obsolete immediately. Companies will continue to produce 32-bit apps for some time. Heck, it took nigh on 3 years after the intro of OS X for companies to stop producing OS 9 versions of their apps, and that is a significantly harder changeover! Microsoft is famous for eternal compatibility, so they won't be pushing for 64-bit-only apps for some time. (How many Windows users are STILL running on Pentium 3s with Windows 98?)
To use an even more recent example, Apple has switched to Intel processors (In all likelihood, the entire line will be switched over by July.) Yet some MAJOR applications (Microsoft Office and the Adobe apps,) will likely not be Intel-native for at least another year. The change from 32-bit to 64-bit in the Windows world will produce about a 10-15% increase in speed; yet the improvement in the Mac world can produce up to a 400% increase! You'd think Adobe would have had their ass in gear! I don't imagine that MOST Windows developers will switch to 64-bit until the majority of the Windows computers (both brand new and 'already in service',) are 64-bit. (Then again, 64-bit Windows has been around for over a year now, and how many have 64-bit apps?)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
"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.
--
make install -not war
http://anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2750&p=1
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.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
I didn't think there would be any difference for everyday desktop use, but the system did feel a tad more responsive over all.
I see you used the official Gentoo benchmark suite.
No, when Vista comes out all 32-bit processors will have been obsolete for years.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News