No categories

Intel Core 2: Better than AMD

Friday, Jul. 14 2006 | Author: J. Angelo Racoma

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

ExtremeTech reviews the new Core 2 Duo E6700 and Core 2 Extreme X6800 (codenamed Conroe), Intel’s new set of processors for the desktop market. Core 2 promises efficiency improvements over the previous iteration of Intel desktop processors. Looks like they’re no longer fighting the Megahertz wars. These days it’s a question of the efficiency of a processor in terms of how it processes data and how much power it uses.

Core 2 owes much of its heritage to the Intel’s mobile Pentium M processor line. The first iteration of that architecture, known as Banias, was the creation of Intel’s Israeli design team. But Core 2 isn’t just another iteration of the Pentium M. Instead, it steals a little from the old NetBurst architecture and adds enhancements of its own.

The net result is a processor with a substantially shorter instruction pipeline than NetBurst (Intel’s name for the architecture of the Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors.) In Core 2, substantially more instructions are executed per clock cycle, so even though Core 2 processors run at a lower clock frequency than previous Intel desktop lines, they run applications faster. Core 2 is also more power efficient: Intel’s goals for the mainstream CPU is to maintain 65W, versus the 90W to 95W of the mainstream Pentium Ds or the 130W of the high-end Pentium D 940 or Extreme Edition CPUs.

Comparing the Core 2 against AMD’s Athlon 64 FX-62, in application, content creation and gaming benchmarks, the new Intel chips come out as the winner.

Core 2 looks like a winner, and will likely be the shiny new bauble that performance enthusiasts love to have dangled in front of them. We’re certainly impressed with what we’ve seenâhigh performance and low power utilization. And while Core 2 Extreme is pricey, the E6700 demonstrates that it’s no slouch, either.

Looks like it’s going to be a good year for Intel. Especially with Vista just around the corner, enthusiasts and casual users alike would have something to look forward to. The Core 2 is not cheap, though–the 2.66GHz E6700 costs $530 and the 2.93 GHz X6800 $999.

Share and Enjoy

Intel Core 2 Duo to match (and beat?) AMD’s performance
Intel gives details on Core 2’s successor: Penryn
Core 2 Quad Processors Tested
Apple Looking At Pentium M
Intel Move Quad Core Sooner

Hope you like that post!

Forever Geek is a resource for all things geek. You can stay tuned by having the latest FG news delivered to you for free via RSS.

Category: Uncategorized
Tags:

4 Responses for "Intel Core 2: Better than AMD"

SID

August 3rd, 2006 at 6:36 pm
1

Well in a view , I have some interesting points to ponder over

1.Dual core philosophy ( at least according to Intel Fan Boys )= both of the above

This being the case , if the Core architecture gives quad cores , you’ll really
need a space age cooling system and chassis.

NetBurst isnt dead yet !

BUT THIS TIME AROUND THEY HAVE DEFEATED THE BETTER AMD ARCHITECTURE with On die memory controller , 64-bit computing and Hyper Transport links that improved the overall performance ( a CPU as an entire major platform advantage instead of the mainboard and chipstes of individual components ) of the system and the other components [ A true system wide architecture that scales and improves performance],compared to Intels,that only boosted rather boasted quicker CPUs.

The concept of entire major platformisation advantages in Intel such as DDR / 2 ; PCIe started with i 915 Chipset while older AMD X2 chips use same motherboards , give major performance gain , cost less.

But I support Intel’s clock speed view because apps run faster on higher clocks.But the way it is shrinking chip geometry,soon it will have to find a new manufacturing material for its CPUs [ death of Moore's Law of circuitry complexity doubling in every 18 months is very near ] / lose market share to AMD who use a 90 nm fab yet and thus will win the battle in the long run because it has a lower shrink rate to Intel.

So how do I manage multiple tasks and provide faster clocks with same size,again Intel wins with Virtualization.Use technology like HyperThread in Core microarchitectures to reduce heat levels,rate of shrinking chip size and give at least same or slightly less performance !
Ispas D

September 27th, 2006 at 8:31 am
2

this is not a winner neither, this architecture, it is for now, but imagine that it has limits on speed. theyl slowly in the furure implement more from netburst, coz that old netburst u all say bad things about, if it is feedup with good compiled code, can perform faar better than any benchmarks u see around. the truth is somewhere at the middle.

and the better amd architecture, will block my pc if i recive a message on yahoo msg, while i render a damn scene. thats what i see in a better architecture, not the plain text benchmarks. i dont know about core2 didnt tryed yet, it must be better, but think abit that u cant go forever with adding cores over cores, thats not a smart choice, coz ul endup with some huge power bills that are unjustified(at least for now).
the truth is in the middle, somewhere, and i dont belive this enthusiasm about core 2, like the entusiasm when netburst arrived.

and about future cpu development. i think, that theyll have to find some other material and other strategy, and maybe it is better to have smarter cores, instead of adding more of the “stupid” ones and sell them for profit, benchmarking them……..that take us nowhere.

imagine that now a cpu is on a die, a plate litle thing, stretched, well, thy should use some other aproach for developing a super cpu, like using a square/ christal like shape(yes like u see in the movyes) that will make things more logic inside and everything on a scale, with a superfast core. what i see now is a dead end by emproving performance through adding distinct cores. is a good thing but they should not forget that this is not much of an inovaton, is just sticking the same old stuff and multiply it over and over, technological is prety sad if they dont research of producing and developing another technology with a complete new philosophy. it seems that this materials and strategy of making cpu`s reached its end. all must be abit rethinked, logical.
Lillian

December 18th, 2006 at 7:31 am
3

This is a wonderful page for everyone!
[url=][/url]
Lillian

December 18th, 2006 at 7:31 am
4

This is a wonderful page for everyone!
[url=][/url]