Core 2 Duo vs. Core Duo

[Jeff7181]

Aside from clock speed, are there any significant differences between the two? Would a 1.86 GHz Core Duo perform the same as a 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo?

 

[LittleNemoNES]

:Q

 

[StrangerGuy]

Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

 

[Avalon]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Aside from clock speed, are there any significant differences between the two? Would a 1.86 GHz Core Duo perform the same as a 1.86 GHz Core 2 Duo?

I saw a comparison of a Core Duo and X2 a while back, and the Core Duo was fairly competitive in most applications, while falling behind in a few...so considering Core 2 Duo smokes AMD's X2, it should completely destroy a Core Duo.

An article covering its architecture can be found here, as well as other stuff on the net. Although, that doesn't directly compare the differences between Core and Core 2, but it should give you an idea if you already know a bit about Core.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

I was under the impression that all Core processors were loosely based on the Pentium M architecture (at least, moreso than the Pentium 4 architecture) and that the Core 2's were slightly modified for better performance on the desktop where better cooling could be used.

*EDIT* What gave me that impression was first, Intel's use of the word "Core" in both processor families, leading one to believe they are of the same architecture, just like the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2... same basic architecture. Also, while looking on Intel's website at Core 2 Duo details, they reference the Core Duo architecture. If you follow links to that, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

 

[broly8877]

There were benches at XS... I think Core2 is somewhere along the lines of 10-15% faster at the same frequency.

 

[Jeff7181]

Just found mention of the difference on another website...

The Core microarchitecture is a descendant of the one found in the current Core Duo, but it's been pretty extensively reworked and certainly deserves a new name.

So StrangerGuy, looks like you're more or less correct. One might assume that Core Duo was just Intel testing it's 65nm process and dual core architecture, and the Core 2 Duo is the polished product. Wonder if I'll be able to upgrade the Core Duo in my Latitude D520 to a mobile Core 2 Duo later this year.

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

I was under the impression that all Core processors were loosely based on the Pentium M architecture (at least, moreso than the Pentium 4 architecture) and that the Core 2's were slightly modified for better performance on the desktop where better cooling could be used.

*EDIT* What gave me that impression was first, Intel's use of the word "Core" in both processor families, leading one to believe they are of the same architecture, just like the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2... same basic architecture. Also, while looking on Intel's website at Core 2 Duo details, they reference the Core Duo architecture. If you follow links to that, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

Core 2 owes some of its heritage to P6 (Pentium Pro, II, III, M, and Core) chips, yes. But it emphatically is based on a new microarchitecture that draws in some elements from the Netburst family. It isn't the same thing as previous Core chips, and the differences are in fact significant.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

I was under the impression that all Core processors were loosely based on the Pentium M architecture (at least, moreso than the Pentium 4 architecture) and that the Core 2's were slightly modified for better performance on the desktop where better cooling could be used.

*EDIT* What gave me that impression was first, Intel's use of the word "Core" in both processor families, leading one to believe they are of the same architecture, just like the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2... same basic architecture. Also, while looking on Intel's website at Core 2 Duo details, they reference the Core Duo architecture. If you follow links to that, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

That isn't quite it. Core 2 is based on Core Architecture which is quite a bit faster then Core Duo based products, about the same margin as X2, but with the T2700 being the highest product on Core Duo.

it's isn't jsut extending the thermal envelope, the architecture has been changed significantly.

Eh, I don't blame you, Yonah was just there to get the Core brand name out...

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

I was under the impression that all Core processors were loosely based on the Pentium M architecture (at least, moreso than the Pentium 4 architecture) and that the Core 2's were slightly modified for better performance on the desktop where better cooling could be used.

*EDIT* What gave me that impression was first, Intel's use of the word "Core" in both processor families, leading one to believe they are of the same architecture, just like the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2... same basic architecture. Also, while looking on Intel's website at Core 2 Duo details, they reference the Core Duo architecture. If you follow links to that, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

Core 2 owes some of its heritage to P6 (Pentium Pro, II, III, M, and Core) chips, yes. But it emphatically is based on a new microarchitecture that draws in some elements from the Netburst family. It isn't the same thing as previous Core chips, and the differences are in fact significant.

I've read in a few places about the Core Duo's apparent inability for each core to access the other core's cache, which it's supposed to be able to do. I wonder if that's been corrected in the Core 2 Duo.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Just found mention of the difference on another website...

The Core microarchitecture is a descendant of the one found in the current Core Duo, but it's been pretty extensively reworked and certainly deserves a new name.

So StrangerGuy, looks like you're more or less correct. One might assume that Core Duo was just Intel testing it's 65nm process and dual core architecture, and the Core 2 Duo is the polished product. Wonder if I'll be able to upgrade the Core Duo in my Latitude D520 to a mobile Core 2 Duo later this year.

That shouldn't be a problme hopefully, as Merom 667FSB was designed to work with the Napa platform. Hopefully with a BIOS update, you can upgrade your CPU.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

I was under the impression that all Core processors were loosely based on the Pentium M architecture (at least, moreso than the Pentium 4 architecture) and that the Core 2's were slightly modified for better performance on the desktop where better cooling could be used.

*EDIT* What gave me that impression was first, Intel's use of the word "Core" in both processor families, leading one to believe they are of the same architecture, just like the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2... same basic architecture. Also, while looking on Intel's website at Core 2 Duo details, they reference the Core Duo architecture. If you follow links to that, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

Core 2 owes some of its heritage to P6 (Pentium Pro, II, III, M, and Core) chips, yes. But it emphatically is based on a new microarchitecture that draws in some elements from the Netburst family. It isn't the same thing as previous Core chips, and the differences are in fact significant.

I've read in a few places about the Core Duo's apparent inability for each core to access the other core's cache, which it's supposed to be able to do. I wonder if that's been corrected in the Core 2 Duo.

Do you have any links to back up these statements, becasue we don't want to spread FUD here and Core DUo has shared cache, so there is no "other core's cache" they both utilized a unified cache accessible from both cores.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

I was under the impression that all Core processors were loosely based on the Pentium M architecture (at least, moreso than the Pentium 4 architecture) and that the Core 2's were slightly modified for better performance on the desktop where better cooling could be used.

*EDIT* What gave me that impression was first, Intel's use of the word "Core" in both processor families, leading one to believe they are of the same architecture, just like the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2... same basic architecture. Also, while looking on Intel's website at Core 2 Duo details, they reference the Core Duo architecture. If you follow links to that, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

Core 2 owes some of its heritage to P6 (Pentium Pro, II, III, M, and Core) chips, yes. But it emphatically is based on a new microarchitecture that draws in some elements from the Netburst family. It isn't the same thing as previous Core chips, and the differences are in fact significant.

:thumbsup:

they are completely different architectures.

 

[broly8877]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Just found mention of the difference on another website...

The Core microarchitecture is a descendant of the one found in the current Core Duo, but it's been pretty extensively reworked and certainly deserves a new name.

So StrangerGuy, looks like you're more or less correct. One might assume that Core Duo was just Intel testing it's 65nm process and dual core architecture, and the Core 2 Duo is the polished product. Wonder if I'll be able to upgrade the Core Duo in my Latitude D520 to a mobile Core 2 Duo later this year.

Nope, Merom uses the all new socket "P"

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: broly8877

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Just found mention of the difference on another website...

The Core microarchitecture is a descendant of the one found in the current Core Duo, but it's been pretty extensively reworked and certainly deserves a new name.

So StrangerGuy, looks like you're more or less correct. One might assume that Core Duo was just Intel testing it's 65nm process and dual core architecture, and the Core 2 Duo is the polished product. Wonder if I'll be able to upgrade the Core Duo in my Latitude D520 to a mobile Core 2 Duo later this year.

Nope, Merom uses the all new socket "P"

The Santa Rosa platform uses Socket P, not the Napa platform that still uses FCPGA6.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: broly8877

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Just found mention of the difference on another website...

The Core microarchitecture is a descendant of the one found in the current Core Duo, but it's been pretty extensively reworked and certainly deserves a new name.

So StrangerGuy, looks like you're more or less correct. One might assume that Core Duo was just Intel testing it's 65nm process and dual core architecture, and the Core 2 Duo is the polished product. Wonder if I'll be able to upgrade the Core Duo in my Latitude D520 to a mobile Core 2 Duo later this year.

Nope, Merom uses the all new socket "P"

Wrong. Merom will launch for socket M initally (napa platform). Only later will it transition to socket P and the Santa Rosa platform. You will be able to upgrade core duo to merom with a BIOS update.

 

[broly8877]

yeah, just read that.

neat.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: StrangerGuy
Core Duo is Pentium-M based, while Core 2 Duo is based on brand new Conroe architecture. No doubt C2D will be significantly faster than the CD.

I was under the impression that all Core processors were loosely based on the Pentium M architecture (at least, moreso than the Pentium 4 architecture) and that the Core 2's were slightly modified for better performance on the desktop where better cooling could be used.

*EDIT* What gave me that impression was first, Intel's use of the word "Core" in both processor families, leading one to believe they are of the same architecture, just like the Athlon 64 and Athlon X2... same basic architecture. Also, while looking on Intel's website at Core 2 Duo details, they reference the Core Duo architecture. If you follow links to that, it doesn't appear to differentiate between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

Core 2 owes some of its heritage to P6 (Pentium Pro, II, III, M, and Core) chips, yes. But it emphatically is based on a new microarchitecture that draws in some elements from the Netburst family. It isn't the same thing as previous Core chips, and the differences are in fact significant.

I've read in a few places about the Core Duo's apparent inability for each core to access the other core's cache, which it's supposed to be able to do. I wonder if that's been corrected in the Core 2 Duo.

Do you have any links to back up these statements, becasue we don't want to spread FUD here and Core DUo has shared cache, so there is no "other core's cache" they both utilized a unified cache accessible from both cores.

I'm looking for it... haven't found it yet... I thought it was hardwaresecrets.com that did the test by benchmarking cache latency, which increase significantly when more than 1024 KB was tested, indicating that it was having to communicate with the 2nd core's L2 cache via the FSB. I may have misread it though... going to keep looking for it.

*EDIT* On second thought, maybe that was an article about the Athlon X2.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I'm looking for it... haven't found it yet... I thought it was hardwaresecrets.com that did the test by benchmarking cache latency, which increase significantly when more than 1024 KB was tested, indicating that it was having to communicate with the 2nd core's L2 cache via the FSB. I may have misread it though... going to keep looking for it.

*EDIT* On second thought, maybe that was an article about the Athlon X2.

Ah ok, that's good to hear, didn't think Core Duo was the culprit.