Intel's Core 2 Duo consists of two dual-core CPUs in one package.

So a duo of two-core CPUs.

AMD's pride, such as it is, is having one chip with four cores with full and equal intercommunication between all four cores, in a much praised architecture that is undoubtedly more efficient than Intel's.

Unfortunately, AMD is behind the power curve on the raw speed of their chips, so Intel is leading the pack again, at least for the moment.

I just leart somethin'!
Thanks Grazie. Love this list.

I just leart somethin'!
Thanks Grazie.

I love this list.

Well, MJ, you can truly depend on me asking the "embarrassing" question - oh yes!!

Still learning though.

Grazie

Intel's Core 2 Duo consists of two dual-core CPUs in one package.

the core 2 duo's were also duel core's. So were Core Duo's. duo must mean duel cores not the # of cpu's on the die (not duel-duel core cpu's)

Happy,

You're right of course. The original Core Duo was two cores on a chip, Core 2 Duo put two of these in one package.

The criticism of Intel's architecture for this four-core setup was that the two dual-cores were dueling for resources (say that quickly :O), while AMD's four core architecture was a true four-core CPU on one chip and high speed on-chip communication between all cores.

Core2 is the name of an Intel processor series just like 386, 486 and Pentium were names for earlier series. They also currently have the Celeron, Centrino and XEON series. (They also still sell Pentiums.)

There is the Core2 SOLO, which is a single processor, ONE core.

Core2 DUO is 2 processors in one package; TWO cores.

Core2 QUAD is four processors in one package, FOUR cores. (It is actually a pair of Core2 DUOs in one package.)

Not completely right:

There was a Core Solo, which was Single Core on one die. This one is actualy a Core Duo but one Core is burned or not function.
There was Core Duo, which was Dual Core on one die.
There is a Core2 Duo, which has 2 dies, one Core each
and so on. i think they will never stop :-)


Axel, San Jose

ur giving me a headache...

hey if it works, thats al that matters yeah...

Corsedesign,

"AMD's pride, such as it is, is having one chip with four cores with full and equal intercommunication between all four cores, in a much praised architecture that is undoubtedly more efficient than Intel's.

Unfortunately, AMD is behind the power curve on the raw speed of their chips, so Intel is leading the pack again, at least for the moment."


Just about all tests of Phenom show it to be less effecient PER CLOCK cycle than Core 2 Duo in the current Conroe process. At best it equals Conroe in IPC in a very few select benches. Penryn which is just around the corner will have an IPC 5% or so better than Conroe. Which obviously only makes matters worse for AMD.

On top of that Penryn will be out at 3.2GHz and Phenom at 2.3GHz.

Things are really bad for AMD right now. They are beaten IPC (instruction per clock) and on raw clock speed.

So much for their superior design. A year ago they were talking about simulations showing Phenom being up to 40% faster per clock than Conroe. They got very quiet about that after they tested running silicon.

Hopefully they'll pull a rabbit out of their hat and manage to get back in the game as we need the competition or we'll be back on a very slow cpu upgrade path at very high prices.

Grazie, you are correct. There is a lot of confusion about the name Core2. It is the second in an architectural approach to multiple cores. All Core2 products are built using an architecture intended to support 2 cores integrated together rather than simply co-present with each other.

If only one core works then the chip is labeled core2 solo. Sort of like selling a stereo amp as a mono amp when one channel is not working.

Core 2 Solo has only one working core
Core 2 Duo has two working cores
Core 2 Quad has 4 working cores
Core 2 Extreme has 2 working cores but certain features are unlocked so users can overclock it without altering the FSB speed.

Thank you Bob.

This had been bugging me for a fortnight.

Now what YOU have done is add that final bit of the jigsaw - the architecture revision thing. Excellent!

Grazie



PC is at the hospital being UG-ed with a QUAD!! I'm real lonesome. .

Things are really bad for AMD right now. They are beaten IPC (instruction per clock) and on raw clock speed.

Intel likes to use integer benchmarks because that has always been their focus, since the 4004 :O).

AMD has been strong in floating point performance and memory access, and from what I recall from recent benchmarks they're still comparing favorably on a same clock rate basis with Intel in those areas, as measured in real life application benchmarks.

Still, with everything going on inside AMD right now, I won't be betting on them ahead of Intel for desktop workstations anytime soon. What a mess with ATI, huge distraction, and loss of key executives.

The Opterons are still doing very well for servers, and I wouldn't assume that even Intel's latest Xeons can beat them in all situations, at available clock speeds.

> I haven't seen a PC with a Core 1 for sale, I think that was the CPU originally make of the Intel Mac's. I know they have it & core 2's.

Actually you have seen them for sale and probably didn't realize it... and this is an important point. Right now the market is flooded with $599 laptops that advertise "Intel® Pentium® Dual Core" processor. This is a first generation dual core that is slower than a single core. It was a dismal failure and you don't want one of these. You want the "Intel® Core™ 2 Duo". People miss the "2" but it's really important because there are lots and lots of the first generation Duo Core's for sale. Don't be fooled.

~jr