I just realized the other day that when the Core Duo came out, the first processor from Intel to use their new Core architecture, it wasn't a very big deal and not something I even realized happened until I started hearing about them being in Macs. Why is it that Core 2 Duo is really the big deal, and why is THIS the chip to offer the incredible performance gains when it's actually the second chip to use this new architecture? Wouldn't it have made more sense for all this hype to have been surrounding Core Duo?
Question about Core architecture
- Thread starter archcommus
- Start date
Core Duo is not the same architecture as Core 2 Duo, it's just got the same brand name. Core Duo is based on the Banias/Dothan Pentium M micro-arch, and was used only (officially) in mobile systems. Core 2 Duo is based on the Conroe/Woodcrest/Merom micro-arch, which has elements of the Pentium M and Pentum 4 architecture as well as new many new features like macro-ops fusion, shared L2 cache, etc etc... Anand has a pretty in-depth analysis of what's new in the Core 2 design.
Ahh okay, that explains it then, I thought the Core Duo used the new architecture.
Well, that's really stupid then. Core Duo is a completely confusing part. It's basically a dual-core Pentium M, for laptops only, yet it shares the name of the brand new chip. I think Core Duo should've just been like, Pentium M D or something, and CONROE is what should be the original Core Duo.
Well, that's really stupid then. Core Duo is a completely confusing part. It's basically a dual-core Pentium M, for laptops only, yet it shares the name of the brand new chip. I think Core Duo should've just been like, Pentium M D or something, and CONROE is what should be the original Core Duo.
To be fair to the marketers, the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo will share many similarites even though they aren't really the same architecture... they're both exceptional performance per watt parts, for example. I'm guessing Intel probably just wanted to get the consumers used to the Core product line as quickly as possible once it was decided that Intel Inside was going to be replaced...
Sort of. Except there's also Core Solo, and Pentium M and Core Solo are not identical. Core Duo and Solo build upon the Pentium M, but also have enhancements.
The Core microarchitecture (Core 2 processor family & Xeon 5100 series) was mostly developed from the ground up. However, it was also built upon ideas that go back to the Pentium M & Core Duo/Solo. That's why it's called Core 2.
There's a discussion of the nomenclature here.
stupid nitpick: not really, since pentium 2 (12? stage ooo) was totally different from pentium (5 stage in order). p6 -> p2 would be better.
in any case, i can replace intel's entire marketing team, because i already have great marketing names for penryn and then nehalem. anyone care to gake a guess? LOL.
I'm just trying to say that its supposedly the second generation part, and not the same as Yonah, not to try to draw any parellels to the specific improvements made over the previous generation
Ya I know, you even put the "stupid nitpick" disclaimer on there, but now i gotta put my own diclaimer on the prevous statement.
Ya I know, you even put the "stupid nitpick" disclaimer on there, but now i gotta put my own diclaimer on the prevous statement.
Originally posted by: Viditor
Whatever they are, they HAVE to be better than "Core" and "Athlon", mate!
how about "core 3/4 solo/duo/quad/octo"? there, intel owes me the combined salaries of the marketing dept.
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Viditor
Whatever they are, they HAVE to be better than "Core" and "Athlon", mate!
how about "core 3/4 solo/duo/quad/octo"? there, intel owes me the combined salaries of the marketing dept.
LOL
I still recon its gonna bite them back in the a** droping the pentium name, i mean average joe consumer does not think "intel", they think "pentium"
Name is everything, there is still some people who think athlons are the chips which heat up like crazy, eg the original athlons.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Viditor
Whatever they are, they HAVE to be better than "Core" and "Athlon", mate!
how about "core 3/4 solo/duo/quad/octo"? there, intel owes me the combined salaries of the marketing dept.
LOL
I still recon its gonna bite them back in the a** droping the pentium name, i mean average joe consumer does not think "intel", they think "pentium"
Name is everything, there is still some people who think athlons are the chips which heat up like crazy, eg the original athlons.
The Intel name is all they need. I never really liked the "Pentium" name. Not that Core 2 Duo has me warm and fuzzy either.
phaxmohdem
Golden Member
I often wonder if "Core" actually sounds normal to the average non geek consumer.... As a person who associates the word 'core' with the actual CPU die(s) the new Intel nomenclature sounds completely off to me. You can knock "Pentium" and "Athlon" all you want, but those names do not conflict with any industry naming for components, and they do sound 'powerful' like something you'd want at the heart of your computer making all those little Solitaire cards fly off the stack. The word 'Core' aside from being confusing to me also brings back images of the horrendous monstricity of a movie 'The Core'.
Bottom line, I'd much rather just call it 'Conroe', which makes me thankful I participate in such a technically elite community as this one, because at least you will all know what I'm talking about.
BTW... I'm thinking for the successor to Conroe... 'Core 2 Duo Second Edition'
Bottom line, I'd much rather just call it 'Conroe', which makes me thankful I participate in such a technically elite community as this one, because at least you will all know what I'm talking about.
BTW... I'm thinking for the successor to Conroe... 'Core 2 Duo Second Edition'
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 626
- 126
When I first heard the Opteron name, I thought it sounded wierd. But it really grows on you. I now think it is the best name ever for a processor.
Core is without a doubt, one of the WORST name ever attached to a piece of electronics.
Core is without a doubt, one of the WORST name ever attached to a piece of electronics.
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Viditor
Whatever they are, they HAVE to be better than "Core" and "Athlon", mate!
how about "core 3/4 solo/duo/quad/octo"? there, intel owes me the combined salaries of the marketing dept.
I know your joking but...
For Penryn I would go Core 2 Duo T8xxx Sequence, for Penryn 6MB and Core 2 Duo T6xxx sequnece for Penryn 3MB.
Maybe Core 3 for Nehalem derivatives.
I wonder how Intel is going to market Kentsfield, it will probably have lower GHZ then Conroe XE so how are they gonna market it against the rumored 3.2GHZ Conroe XE it's replacing? It would be a major feat if Intel had a 3.2GHZ Quad Core out, that would jsut boggle the mind.
If your talking about Ridgefield, Core 2 Duo E7xxx. On another topic I really enjoyed the movie "The Core" the science of it may not make sense, but it was still the enjoyable movie.
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Viditor
Whatever they are, they HAVE to be better than "Core" and "Athlon", mate!
how about "core 3/4 solo/duo/quad/octo"? there, intel owes me the combined salaries of the marketing dept.
I know your joking but...
For Penryn I would go Core 2 Duo T8xxx Sequence, for Penryn 6MB and Core 2 Duo T6xxx sequnece for Penryn 3MB.
Maybe Core 3 for Nehalem derivatives.
I wonder how Intel is going to market Kentsfield, it will probably have lower GHZ then Conroe XE so how are they gonna market it against the rumored 3.2GHZ Conroe XE it's replacing? It would be a major feat if Intel had a 3.2GHZ Quad Core out, that would jsut boggle the mind.
Problem is u put that 4 core beast on the desktop board with limited fsb and ur gonna have a cpu which is bandwidth limited to the point of not being funny, and if they make it dual fsb (what i think they do in server space to conteract the limitation) than its gonna cost and arm and a leg. The HTT approach is much more clean and upgradable.
I dont know what fool desided to call it "core 2 duo" i mean thats just rediculous. Athlon and Pentium are much better names, even the k6-2 sounds better than core 2 duo. I guess they made it for all the computer iliterate people, and Amd already snatched the X2 name.
Merom (Core 2 duo) is a proliferation of Yonah(Core Duo).
But it is an aggressive proliferation!
-EMT64 is only supported by Core 2
- Core2 is 4-wide decode/rename/retire vs. 3wide for Core Duo.
- Full 128-bit SSEx
- Macro-fusion support on Core2.
- and much more !
But it is an aggressive proliferation!
-EMT64 is only supported by Core 2
- Core2 is 4-wide decode/rename/retire vs. 3wide for Core Duo.
- Full 128-bit SSEx
- Macro-fusion support on Core2.
- and much more !
Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
Originally posted by: coldpower27
Originally posted by: dmens
Originally posted by: Viditor
Whatever they are, they HAVE to be better than "Core" and "Athlon", mate!
how about "core 3/4 solo/duo/quad/octo"? there, intel owes me the combined salaries of the marketing dept.
I know your joking but...
For Penryn I would go Core 2 Duo T8xxx Sequence, for Penryn 6MB and Core 2 Duo T6xxx sequnece for Penryn 3MB.
Maybe Core 3 for Nehalem derivatives.
I wonder how Intel is going to market Kentsfield, it will probably have lower GHZ then Conroe XE so how are they gonna market it against the rumored 3.2GHZ Conroe XE it's replacing? It would be a major feat if Intel had a 3.2GHZ Quad Core out, that would jsut boggle the mind.
Problem is u put that 4 core beast on the desktop board with limited fsb and ur gonna have a cpu which is bandwidth limited to the point of not being funny, and if they make it dual fsb (what i think they do in server space to conteract the limitation) than its gonna cost and arm and a leg. The HTT approach is much more clean and upgradable.
I dont know what fool desided to call it "core 2 duo" i mean thats just rediculous. Athlon and Pentium are much better names, even the k6-2 sounds better than core 2 duo. I guess they made it for all the computer iliterate people, and Amd already snatched the X2 name.
If Kentsfield is placed on a 1066FSB, I would be curious as to if it would choke Core Architecture enough that it would be a bad thing of cirtical importance.
So far from the data we have even NetBurst, which is apparently a bandwidth pig, only midly fell in performance with the switch to Dual Core on it's castrated 800FSB.
With A nomal Pentium 4 3.2GHZ is good enough to contend with the Athlon 64 3200+, on Socket 939 more or less, it takes about Pentium D 950 to be moderately competitive with the Athlon 64x2 3800+, even with the Dual Die implementation the speed didn't fall that dramatically you need about 1 or 2 higher to compensate. This is for NetBurst however.
Can you claim the same for products based on Core Architecture? High IPC Architecture, from the past leading up to this point aren't that sensitive to memory banwidth access, more memory bandwidth usually produce limited gains. Not to mention I think Intel knew that Core was going the Dual Die implementation in the near term, and designed it to limit memory access to as little as possible and not rely on FSB so much unlike NetBurst.
With Servers it's not such a big issue DIB motherboards are out now which support Dempsey with Woodcrest ones basically based on the sam tech, and Clovertown compatible ones eould basically be the same thing on updated version of the motherboards. They have the power circuitry already I believe, they were supporting Dempsey after lol, it won't be much more expensive then what we have now for motherboards for Woodcrest and even still you have to consider that AMD's solution isn't arriving till what H2 2007 at the earliest?
What I am most worried about is Tigerton, AMD has the best chance in the 4-way and up to where their stuff works to 8/16 way or so.
I will agree that AMD solution is more prefered allowing you to have access to more memory bandwidth, it's more forward looking, and seem to be the direction Intel will be heading later on as well. This doesn't mean Kentsfield is going to be strangling and gasping for air on FSB of 1.06GHZ.
Meh regarding the names, I think what Intel did is very smart, Core 2 Duo is a pretty catch phrase to me, it is just a name as long as it isn't offensive or extremely difficult to pronounce I don't really mind.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter