Slashdot Mirror
Core 2 Duo Notebooks Reviewed
An anonymous reader writes "With the launch of Intel's Core 2 Duo chip today, I found this article that not only covers the new chip itself, but also reviews and benchmarks two retail notebooks. It's interesting since one machine has the entry level 1.66GHz CPU while the other has the top end 2.33GHz chip."
Instead of reading the entire article, here's the summary ...
Verdict
Both of these are impressive machines for anyone who wants to get hold of the power of Merom straight away. The lower clocked AJP does seem slightly lack-lustre compared to the top end Rock, especially as the 1,920 x 1,200 screen wasn't the best we've seen. If battery life is the primary concern you might do better with a Core Duo, due to its lower TDP, unless you can wait for ultra-low voltage Core 2 Duo laptops to appear.
If you can spend the money the T7600 based Rock is outrageously fast for a notebook and it's well specced too. However, we think the mid-rage 2GHz, T7200 will end up being the Merom CPU of choice.
Core 2 Duo desktop and laptop chips were formally announced in July (the 27th or so). Desktop chips (Conre) were launched then, and started shipping (with models coming out in serious numbers over the last two weeks). Notebook chips (Merom) were "launched" today, which means we can look at pretty benchmarks as Intel starts shipping them out to most OEMs. We will see the processors in computers at stores in a few weeks.
You are entirely wrong.
No. Merom and Conroe are the notebook and desktop versions, respectively, of the same chip. Merom and Conroe are both the internal names of the chips. Officially, they're both called "Core 2 Duo", and the model numbers distinguish the two series. There are physical differences, including FSB speed and (IIRC) cache architecture.
No. Core Duo is based on the Pentium M Dothan, which was an improved (more cache and higher FSB) version of Banias.
True. Props to Intel for the dumb naming.
No! It's a Pentium M with two cores! Big difference! The Pentium 4-M is a pathetic, hot, power-hogging, slow version of the Pentium 4. The Pentium M is based mostly on the Pentium III, and was designed from the ground up to be more efficient per watt.
Yes. structure = microarchitecture.
While I agree, Intel's naming and branding sucks... try not to make it worse!
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Just found another review: http://www.hardware.info/en-US/articles/am5na2ptZA /Toshiba_Qosmio_G30_Intel_Core_2_Duo_Mobile_and_HD _DVD__Review/
I know a couple of people with Core 1 MacBook Pros, and they seem to get slightly better battery life than I do with a G4 PowerBook, so I think the Core 2 is promising. Now if only Apple would hurry up and put them in portables, I would give them some money...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I find it interesting that people readily accept the notion that Pentium M is a derivative of the PIII while Core 2 is somehow distinct from Core or Pentium M. The Pentium M was developed years after the PIII, was specifically developed for portables, was created by an entirely different design team, used the bus of the P4 and had significant architectural differences when compared to PIII. The Core 2, meanwhile, is an immediate follow-on of Core, just as Core was a follow-on of Pentium M, is architecturally similar and even shares a pinout with Core in the case of Merom. To claim that Core 2 is the first "Core architecture" product is arbitrary and more absurd than claiming that Pentium M is a new version of PIII, yet that seems to be what's floated around here. Each processor is a new design effort that benefits from designs that came before it. Naming is simply marketing BS.