2007 Mobile Roadmap

What will the future hold for Core 2 Duo?  The table below shows you the lineup by Q2 of next year:

 CPU Clock Speed FSB L2 Cache

Intel Core 2 Duo T7700

2.40GHz

800MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T7600

2.33GHz

667MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T7500

2.20GHz

800MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T7400

2.16GHz

667MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T7300

2.00GHz

800MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T7200

2.00GHz

667MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T7000

1.80GHz

800MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T5600

1.83GHz

667MHz

2MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T5500P*

1.66GHz

667MHz

2MB

Intel Core 2 Duo T5500*

1.66GHz

667MHz

2MB

Intel Core 2 Duo L7500

1.60GHz

800MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo L7400

1.50GHz

667MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo L7300

1.40GHz

800MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo L7200

1.33GHz

667MHz

4MB

Intel Core 2 Duo U7500

1.06GHz

533MHz

2MB

*Note: These CPUs lack Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) support)

By the end of this year you can expect a T5500 running at 1.66GHz for $209, but the rest of the new models won't appear until next year.  In Q1 2007 Intel will introduce the first Low Voltage Core 2 Duo processors, the L7400 and L7200 at 1.5GHz and 1.33GHz respectively.  In Q2 2007, Intel will introduce all of the 800MHz FSB Core 2 Duo parts, as well as the Ultra Low Voltage Core 2 Duo U7500. 

The difference between the T5500P and the T5500 is that the former is a Socket-P part (Santa Rosa platform), while the latter is Socket-M (Napa platform).

Model Numbers Galore Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo
POST A COMMENT

46 Comments

View All Comments

  • Sergio710 - Thursday, August 3, 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 3, 2006 - link

    All CPU series wiil go 45nm. Eventually.

    AFAIK don't expect 45nm Core 2's sooner that Q108.
    Reply
  • Sergio710 - Thursday, August 3, 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 4, 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 3, 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 3, 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 3, 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 3, 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 5, 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 3, 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

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now