Mobile CPU Wars: Core 2 Duo vs. Core Duo

by Anand Lal Shimpi on 8/3/2006 9:25 AM EST
POST A COMMENT

46 Comments

Back to Article

  • saleemi - Saturday, February 28, 2009 - link

    what is the difference between Dual Core and Core 2 Duo processor?
    I want to buy a laptop what i will do?
    Can some body please explain the difference..
    Reply
  • kem - Thursday, December 06, 2007 - link

    I have a notebook with a 940GML / Celeron 440. Can i upgrade to a CoreDuo FSB533? Reply
  • tatpeng - Sunday, December 02, 2007 - link

    Anand,

    I would like seek your advice. I want to buy laptop but i confused on the Centrino Duo Core 2 Duo and Intel Core 2 Duo. I looking at the Acer Aspire Laptop Centrino Duo Core 2 Duo and Compaq Presario Intel Core 2 Duo. So i would like to know the difference. Please assist. Both is Core2 Duo but the Acer is with Centrino. Is Acer better or Compaq better?
    Reply
  • a rabbit - Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - link

    Hi,

    A few questions:

    (1) Can we assume that the power draw numbers represent the best possible performance one can expect from Core 2 Duo mobile systems one can purchase today, or, should we assume that they represent typical performance, or, can we say we don't know because we only used one sample of Core 2 Duo?

    (2) What about the Core Duo (Yonah)? Theoretically, if Intel supplied all CPUs to the reviewer, I as Intel would supply the best quality (lowest power draw) Core 2 Duo, and the worst quality (highest power draw) Core Duo for my reviewer to perform the review on.

    Thanks!

    -a rabbit
    Reply
  • chetech - Friday, August 11, 2006 - link

    Can a Core 2 Duo processor be fitted into an Apple Mac Mini using their new Intel Core Duo processors? Reply
  • wimh - Thursday, August 10, 2006 - link

    quote:

    one of the funny things about performance and battery life is that if you can complete a task quickly enough thus returning your CPU to an idle state faster, battery life will grow even though instantaneous power consumption may be higher.


    Actually this is not correct: a CPU that's clocked higher also needs a higer voltage. Therefore, doing the same amount of work faster will require more energy than spreading it out over a longer time (in theory).
    For this to be true in practice, you'll off course need to factor other things into account, like I/O-devices (which may have less choice in sleep states: keeping the hard disk spinning for a longer time can destroy the gain you had by slowing down the CPU), etc...
    Reply
  • devilzangel - Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - link

    .
    "Eventually" we will have processors based on light particles vs electrons; but that is "eventually"; lets talk about the very near mobile future shall we (1 year).

    1. EM64T enabling - Will DEFINATELY boost and widen the performance gap b/w Core D & Core2 D. Especially with the Vista 64bit OS system installed. EVEN when u run 32bit applications on it.

    2. Quad-Core 'Santa Rosa' - Another great stride by Intel to boost performance (of course at the expense of battery life (which i might add, shouldnt matter much since most laptop users use the laptop near AC outlets). I am definately going to wait until next year to upgrade to a new laptop. Plus Vista will take advantage of the extra cores.

    3. FSB, and Battery Life - Comon, lets not fool ourselves; Intel can full well come out with a 1066 config for mobiles WHENEVER they want. AND mobile MOBO can be fabricated to take advantage of it JUST as fast. BATTERY life is the ONLY culprit. I would be the FIRST to buy such a laptop. Why use a clumsy desktop with so much wattage when you can get slightly less performance with much better gains to offset the balance regardless. Lets get one thing straight ... Desktops are losing ground, Laptops are the future.

    4. Shared L2 Memory Cache - The 1st Core D processors were CRUDE at best in this regard. Core 2 D Proc.s will SHARE the FULL L2 cache.

    Ehh who knows what will happen in 2008, and 2009 .. IBM and Georgia Tech's 300GHZ (room temperature) processors may be producable by that time ..

    Sometimes, I feel as if the corporate giants stagger the new technology into consumer hands in stages so that they may reap the profits.

    devilzangel
    Reply
  • ViperV990 - Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - link

    Regarding the FSB vs battery life issue, can't they just throttle the FSB dynamically like they do with the multiplier? I mean, come on, I've been able to change the FSB speed on the fly using software since like what, the Celeron 300A days?

    (Forgive me if that was possible earlier. My earliest overclocking experience was with a Klamath P II 266...)
    Reply
  • devilzangel - Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - link

    In the older processors and mobos it may have been easier to access this code settings to allow HIGHER speeds than mentioned limits ..

    normal throttling of CPU, Cache, FSB, Fanspeed etc, is part of the architecture (or so i understand it to be) .. 'Over'throttling the FSB is something i am unsure of .. at best it is a risk.

    recently though, most (if not almost all) boards have such options blocked or hidden in Bios settings and chip configurations (except the higher end GA, Asus, DFI, Abit boards).. ofcourse it very possible (and it wouldnt surprise me if it is) that the Core 2 D are ALREADY capable of 1066FSB but the chips have been locked onto 667, or 800 (the architecture of the C2D desktop chips is pretty much identical to the meroms, almost); it is possible that such mobile settings may be unstable if someone managed to crack the coding and change the frequency settings. The causes could range from MOBO coding chips, to Heat issues

    It is kind of like apple; we the consumers found out around the beginning of this year that Apple always had a somewhat working version of their OS for intel hardware settings.

    remember the technology staggering .. the FSB is part of it. It is like Diamonds, and Oil; limit the supply of higher and faster technology to increase the chances of a higher profit history overall.

    devilzangel
    Reply
  • IsLNdbOi - Monday, August 07, 2006 - link

    I've got a Toshiba U205-S5002 which has a 945GM chipset. This article says that the 945GM supports Core 2 Duo. I need to find out now if the processor in my laptop has a PGA Socket-M or BGA CPU. I've checked Toshiba's support pages, but can't find any info. regarding the CPU's interface w/ the mobo.

    Anyone have any info. regarding the U205-S5002's CPU interface?
    Reply
  • juanpoh - Friday, August 04, 2006 - link

    Looking at http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentiumm/i...">Intel Pentium M link, only 915 and 855 chipset is supported. However 945 chipset is listed as supported in http://www.intel.com/products/processor/celeron_m/...">Intel Celeron M link. Reply
  • jaybuffet - Friday, August 04, 2006 - link

    I have the nx9420 notebook with the 945pm chipset... i was on hp support yesterday, and they said they would not support upgrading the CPU.. does that mean i am SOL because they wont upgrade the BIOS to support it? Reply
  • Pjotr - Friday, August 04, 2006 - link

    Please correct the percentage numbers on http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    "17.5% increase in performance" -> "17.5 % less time used" OR "21.3 % increaase in performance"

    Same mistake for all other time based benchmarks.
    Reply
  • shecknoscopy - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Given the nearly identical architectures of the desktop Conroes and the new Merom chips - how well do all of you think the two would stack up in a direct side-by-side comparison? This is open to blatant conjecture, of course, as the necessary hardware to <b>really</b> make a single-variable experiment isn't out there. But for those of us considering mobile-on-desktop options, how much of a performance cut would we see jumping from a Conroe to a Merom? Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Saturday, August 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Given the nearly identical architectures of the desktop Conroes and the new Merom chips - how well do all of you think the two would stack up in a direct side-by-side comparison? This is open to blatant conjecture, of course, as the necessary hardware to <b>really</b> make a single-variable experiment isn't out there. But for those of us considering mobile-on-desktop options, how much of a performance cut would we see jumping from a Conroe to a Merom?


    Intel mentioned something about having different prefetchers that match the market, meaning Woodcrest's Prefetchers are fit for workstation/server, Conroe for desktop, Merom for mobile applications(performance/battery life).

    If you look at Core Extreme X6800 vs. Core 2 Duo E6700 benchmarks, you can see that in some reviews the differences are greater than the 267MHz clock difference(10% clock difference). Maybe Core Extreme has superior prefetchers to the Core 2 Duos, giving advantage in select few applications.
    Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    This was the exact question I just signed on to ask....so I await and answer as well. Reply
  • shecknoscopy - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Woohoo! Great minds think alike, eh? Also, so do ours! Reply
  • JackPack - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Which stepping did you use in this test? B1? Reply
  • EagleEye - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I think the asus barebones configuration is mislabeled in this article. The s96j has the WXGA 1280x 800 screen while the z96j has the WSXGA 1680x 1050 screen. They either had an s96j or the native resolution is wrong as they stated it. Reply
  • Kalessian - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I noticed that, too. Reply
  • Sergio710 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I've heard that Merom would come to 45 nm some day, does anyone know more about it ?

    supposed date ?
    impact on battery life ?
    Reply
  • mino - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    All CPU series wiil go 45nm. Eventually.

    AFAIK don't expect 45nm Core 2's sooner that Q108.
    Reply
  • Sergio710 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Forgive my ignorance, but what benefit will have 64 bits for every day use ?

    better performances on Vista or enabled soiftware or only the possibility to install more RAM ?
    Reply
  • LoneWolf15 - Friday, August 04, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Forgive my ignorance, but what benefit will have 64 bits for every day use ?

    better performances on Vista or enabled soiftware or only the possibility to install more RAM ?
    Longevity will be the benefit.

    It's not helpful right now, but if you're like me, you'd keep a notebook computer for some time before getting rid of it. I buy as future-proof (since that isn't possible, future-resistant) as I can. That means I'd want a 64-bit capable processor so that I can run the 64-bit version of Vista at some point, and so that I have the option of going to 4GB of RAM on my notebook some day. Since Merom prices are the equivalent of Yonah prices, this makes even more sense --it wouldn't cost me any more.
    Reply
  • Pandaren - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Right now, there is no benefit. Unless you are running Linux. 64-bit is completely useless for most people until Microsoft gets it together and finishes Windows Vista. Reply
  • peternelson - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I agree I was thinking of 64 bit linux and technical apps like rendering.

    However there is possible option on XP64 professional. eg if you want to do trial factoring for mersenne.org prime number project, running the 64 bit client gives a big boost over 32 bit version.

    I hope 64 bit becomes more mainstream (not just nerds) when Vista 64 is available.

    In ideal world: boot linux64 and Vista64 or virtualise one with the other.

    As a bonus if you can throw in a 64 bit version of a new Mac OS for a triple OS environment, that would be just what the doctor ordered.

    At the moment I can live without the Apple support, so linux/vista will be fine. ie Linux for serious work, Vista for 3D gaming.
    Reply
  • jeffwegher - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Isn't another advantage of the new Merom that it's 64-bit whereas the older Yonah is only 32-bit? Reply
  • peternelson - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    He stole my comment, but ABSOLUTELY.

    A major disadvantage of Core Solo and Duo (as in Yonah) was that it's 32 bit ONLY.
    For that reason I won't buy a laptop or apple mac based around it.
    Merom (Core 2 Duo) IS 64 bit capable and that's important to me. It's the MOST important feature of this upgrade, second most important is virtualisation.

    I hope Apple wake up and start sticking Meroms into their desktop and notebook macs real soon.

    Also anandtech you don't mention that very point, using a so-called mobile cpu in a desktop SFF which is a market predicted to grow.

    This has to be another big market for Merom cpu: space saving home systems, media centres etc.

    As for all the hype about how much better this new generation architecture is, I have to say the performance jump of 2-5-10-15-20% is mediocre compared to what might have been expected if the reality lived up to the hype. Thanks anandtech for setting the record straight. On the other hand ANY performance increase for no extra battery usage has to be welcome. You're right that the FSB constraint limits it in today's machines.

    It's good they are priced similarly although in the market I expect manufacturers to charge a premium in the short term.

    How quickly will Apple be adopting this in their small desktop machines?
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Saturday, August 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    As for all the hype about how much better this new generation architecture is, I have to say the performance jump of 2-5-10-15-20% is mediocre compared to what might have been expected if the reality lived up to the hype. Thanks anandtech for setting the record straight. On the other hand ANY performance increase for no extra battery usage has to be welcome. You're right that the FSB constraint limits it in today's machines.

    It's good they are priced similarly although in the market I expect manufacturers to charge a premium in the short term.

    How quickly will Apple be adopting this in their small desktop machines?


    Actually you are in your own reality to expect greater advantage than that over Core Duo. If you have been actually paying attention, Intel expects 20% advantage for Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz over Core Duo 2.167GHz. Core 2 Duo's performance advantage of 40% applies against Pentium D, which is worse performer than Core Duo.

    Not to mention Core 2 Duo in Laptop has same FSB, same memory, same chipset as Core Duo!!
    Reply
  • Pandaren - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Intel claimed all along a 40% performance jump relative to Pentium D, NOT Core Duo. The performance jump relative to Core Duo was always claimed as "up to 20%," which is in line with Anandtech's findings. Reply
  • Spacecomber - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I know that we are perhaps past the time for this, but I'd be curious how the Pentium M stacked up against its replacement, the Core Solo. It might shed some light on the roots for the Core line of processors. Reply
  • ksherman - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I for one hope Apple pops these babies in the MacBook as well as the MacBook Pro. I have been reading a lot of rumors suggesting that Apple will only put Merom in the Pro model at first... Seems kinda goofy, since they purchase processors in *relatively* low quantity. Ive got my eye on the MacBook, so any performance increase with no price premium is always a plus, and I do plan on doing a lot of video editing/rendering Reply
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I'm waiting for the third revision of the Macbook Pro in the middle of next year. By this revision most of the problems with the new designs should be ironed out and these notebooks will probably be based on the Santa Rosa platform (800 MHz FSB). Right now I have a 1.5 GHz G4 Powerbook and it does what I need. I will upgrade to the Macbook Pro 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo (Merom) on the Santa Rosa platform. If you like your notebook right now, I would wait until then. This would give you the most stability and bump in performance in the near future. Expect the third revision sometime next summer. Reply
  • mlittl3 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    To be more clear:

    First Revision - Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz Core Duo 667 MHz FSB 2 MB (1Q 2006)
    Second Revision - Macbook Pro 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo 667 MHz FSB 4 MB (3Q 2006?)
    Third Revision - Macbook Pro 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo 800 MHz FST 4 MB (2Q 2007?)
    Reply
  • AndrewChang - Sunday, August 06, 2006 - link

    Santa Rosa... At the earliest? I mean, I supose with the Core 2 Duo being 'crippled' by a slow(er) FSB, it might be worth the wait. But what do you think Anand means by, at the earliest?

    Whats next after Santa Rosa? Does he know something we don't know? Well, thats a given, but now I'm sketched out about all this... Should we expect some early adopter problems with the introduction of this newfangled Robson technology? God, for a hardware enthusiast, who would've thought that making a new hardware purchase could be so tough. All I want is the fastest performing Merom/Leopard based Macbook Pro available. Am I really going to have to wait until at least Santa Rosa next year? It's going to be a long wait...
    Reply
  • Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    quote:

    Our final battery life test centers around wireless internet browsing, and thus we could only test the three Compaqs in this roundup that featured built in wireless.


    What three Compaqs?
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Didn't you see the three compaqs in the review? ;)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply
  • yacoub - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    now this is a test i can totally appreciate: everything is identical except the CPU, so you get to see what the REAL WORLD benefit of changing the CPU is in your REAL WORLD system that people might actually buy/own. ie, instead of maxing everything else out with parts 99% of people don't buy / can't afford.

    of course the result is that you see that the real world difference is only noticeable in some situations and with some programs. but hey, that's the reality of it and actually it's easy to see that since the pricing is comparable and all else the same, it's a decent upgrade and certainly a level of future-proofing as well.
    Reply
  • jones377 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    It was interesting to compare the numbers in this review with the previous Core 2 Duo desktop review where 2MB vs 4MB L2 cache was examined (although at 1,83GHz/1066)

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    Its not a perfect comparison but from what I can gather, there are significant improvements performance wise coming from the core, even in the non-FP/SSE related benchmarks. A favorite argument among some people is that the extra cache makes all the difference, I hope this will shut them up! (tho I really doubt it)
    Reply
  • iollmann - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - link


    In SSE code, I see close to a factor of 2 performance increase from Yonah to Merom much of the time. These benchmarks are depressing. The improvement should be better than what we see. Does no one vectorize?
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Saturday, August 05, 2006 - link

    quote:

    It was interesting to compare the numbers in this review with the previous Core 2 Duo desktop review where 2MB vs 4MB L2 cache was examined (although at 1,83GHz/1066)

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...

    Its not a perfect comparison but from what I can gather, there are significant improvements performance wise coming from the core, even in the non-FP/SSE related benchmarks. A favorite argument among some people is that the extra cache makes all the difference, I hope this will shut them up! (tho I really doubt it)


    Correct. Lots of the benchmarks show 10% advantage for Core 2 Duo over Core Duo. The only 10% advantage 4MB L2 over 2MB L2 is in a single app.
    Reply
  • bob661 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Video makes ALL the difference in the world. Reply
  • monsoon - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I'm in the market for a mini PC to do video trancode, and I was considering the MEROM chip to compare to YONAH...

    ...in the end, given the right graphic card ( add ATI X1400 series or higher here ) with hardware embedded transcode features, i guess the YONAH fits my bill just right.

    And i get to pay 100$ or 200$ less than the same computer with a MEROM which could not offer me better on the video side...

    What do you think ?
    Reply
  • bob661 - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    I would get the best video you can get with the cash saved from getting the Memron. Reply
  • Tiamat - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    Whats the difference between the Intel Core Duo T2300E* and the Intel Core Duo T2300E?

    I see a difference in price, but not specs. The page in the article does not address the asterisk...
    Reply
  • Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, August 03, 2006 - link

    The asterisk means that the CPU lacks support for Intel Virtualization Technology (VT). I had the note on Page 3 but I forgot to include it on Page 2 :) Thanks for the heads up :)

    Take care,
    Anand
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now