Intel Core 2 Duo

[nmX.Memnoch]

HE knows that what you mean, but the OP (and other people asking the questions) don't. I don't know what more I can do to make you understand that you can't just generalize the technical stuff and then expect the person who's asking the question to just understand the rest without explaining it fully.

On to answering the question...

Put simply...the Core 2 CPUs are a completely different architecture from the Pentium D's. The Pentium D CPUs are nothing more than two Pentium 4 cores slapped together in a single package. There were no other optimizations done to them at all. Intel took the best of the Pentium 4, Pentium III and the original Pentium M, added some more optimizations and power saving features and ended up with the Core 2's as a result.

Since the Core 2 architecture is much more optimized, it is clock-for-clock faster than the Pentium D. A 3GHz Core 2 will run circles around a 3GHz Pentium D any day. For that matter, a 3GHz Core 2 will be faster than a 3.6GHz Pentium D.

As for the 45nm die shrink (codename Penryn), it's scheduled to be released on or about 12 Nov of this year.

[jcarle]

HE knows that what you mean...

Actually, no I don't...

i'm saying that you cant say a 3ghz p4 can beat a 3ghz c2d and you know thats what i mean

No, I don't know what you mean. I only know what you say. If that's what you mean, then you need to be specific and clear about what you're trying to say. I'm not in your head and the only thing I have to go on is what you say. If you state the facts wrong, damned straight I'm going to correct you. Most of the time, if you'd take the extra effort to compose a little more content into your sentences and actually take the time to explain yourself properly, you'd never get corrected like this.

[_Erik]

The reason the Core 2 outperforms the Pentium D in most benchmarks is because of the optimizations brough to the new architecture, as well as the new instructions that were'nt available for the Pentium D. It's somewhat similar to the Pentium vs Pentium MMX debates back in the day. Core 2's contrast is somewhat similar.

Thanks for explaining that. I was actually about to make the comparison between Pentium and Pentium MMX processors but I decided against it because I wasn't completely sure wheter it was a good comparison or not and I didn't wan't to run the risk of making a bulls*** post . But I'm glad you did so I know I understand the outline of this matter.

The optimizations provide a lot more punch per Hz however if you speed a Pentium D fast enough and slow a Core 2 down enough, the Core 2 optimizations won't be enough to supercede the Pentium D.

Well that was always pretty obvious to me, I just wondered why you picked those specefic processors in your last post but you cleared that up aswell.

I think the point Ripken is trying to make is that when two processors from different generations (like a Pentium D versus a Core 2 Duo) with the same clock speed are compared the newer model performs better. In this case due to the better argitecture. Also the advantages of the Core 2 Duo go pretty far when you compare slower Core 2 Duo's to faster Pentium D's but as jcarle pointed out clockspeed is always a factor. I think Ripken knows that but I believe he was more trying to make a statement.

[nmX.Memnoch]

I think the point Ripken is trying to make is that when two processors from different generations (like a Pentium D versus a Core 2 Duo) with the same clock speed are compared the newer model performs better.

Sadly, that isn't always the case. Look at the Pentium III vs. the Pentium 4. Clock for clock, the P3 was faster but due to the limitations in the design they hit a wall and couldn't get the thing any faster than 1.4GHz (and those were rare).

I think we can consider that case a "lesson learned" on Intel's part though...I don't expect that to ever happen again.

Edited September 22, 2007 by nmX.Memnoch

[weEvil]

new core 2s, and new amd? where have I been? lol please explain the new amd to me

They're okay. AMD is currently Barcelona for servers if I'm not mistaken. So far they're slightly better than the Xeons on some things, mostly on par though at the same clock speed.

Benches: http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3091&p=1

Phenom is scheduled to be released in January. That's the desktop version of Barcelona. The 'true' quad core.

[Zxian]

They're okay. AMD is currently Barcelona for servers if I'm not mistaken. So far they're slightly better than the Xeons on some things, mostly on par though at the same clock speed.

Just like what jcarle was saying earlier, you can't simply compare clock speed. I'd definitely hope that my 1.8GHz E2160 outperforms a 1.8GHz P4 Northwood from 5 years ago.

Barcelona is a flop - it's just that nobody wants to admit it. AMD was promising to beat current Xeons by about 40%, which I'm sorry to say - isn't happening. People are already saying "but wait until the clock speed of the Barcelona goes up." By the time that happens, Penryn will be on the shelves, and the whole argument will be moot.

[weEvil]

Barcelona is a flop - it's just that nobody wants to admit it.

Maybe. But you can't just take in performance. What about performance per/watt? And price?

Let's see those bargain prices and it will be flying off the shelves. (Phenom)

AMD was promising to beat current Xeons by about 40%, which I'm sorry to say - isn't happening.

Marketing B.S. They were trying to create artificial hype.

[Zxian]

It's a flop based on what AMD promised to deliver. If you had invested money into a company that promised to deliver 1000 of productX, and yet they only made it to 700, you'd be p***ed, no matter what the selling post, price/performance, etc etc. Hopefully we'll see AMD take a similar standpoint to what Intel did with their NetBurst architecture, and admit they had fallen behind.

You shouldn't bite off more than you can chew - especially when it comes to the fate of your company.

[weEvil]

You shouldn't bite off more than you can chew - especially when it comes to the fate of your company.

That's true. I'd be a shame to see AMD sink under because of this mistake.

I hope its just going to be a very painful lesson for them.