WTF difference between a Core Duo and a Core 2 Duo?

[r00tzz]

I looked for it, but I can't find. Even Intel's site says nothing relevant.

What's the difference between the two new processors?? Are they both dual core? 64 bits?

Help!

[caesar_bs]

it's faster. consult http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page17.html#core_2_duo_scaling_vs_fx62_and_pentium _ee
to know how much faster. if u need the power, you have to decide for urself. Im happy with a core duo, its by far enough for all my needs. :mrgreen:

julius

[testube_babies]

"Compared to Intel Core Duo (Yonah), Intel Core 2 Duo (Merom) has larger L2 cache, slightly deeper pipeline and added decode and execution units. In addition, Merom features more aggressive pre-fetch mechanisms than Yonah, as well as Intel’s Memory Disambiguation technology that allows for out-of-order loads. In other words, not only is Merom able to process more data at once, at a faster speed, but it can also get access to that data quicker."

[From Xbit Labs (http://www.xbitlabs.com/web/display/20060807233613.html)]

[taurus]

Move to Cafe...

[Rhapsody]

The main differences I can think of is that the Core 2 Duo is faster than the Core Duo, and the Core 2 Duo is 64-bit while the Core Duo is 32-bit (though both run 32-bit operating systems perfectly well, it's just that the Core 2 Duo can also run in 64-bit mode). Both are dual-core processors.

Also, a Core 2 Solo (single-core) and Core 2 Quad (quad-core) are coming up. Somewhat confusingly, there's also the Core 2 Extreme, which can be dual-core or quad-core (both called the Core 2 Extreme, and there may be a single-core version of this too). Intel is promising eighty-core CPUs pretty soon from what I heard, but I've learned to be sceptical of Intel's promises after the NetBurst fiasco.

All in all, your chances of going out to get a Intel CPU and coming home with the one you actually wanted just went down considerably.

[Sef]

Unless you are in video editing or gaming, there won't be much of a difference in speed between the cores.

[HW_Hack]

The main differences I can think of is that the Core 2 Duo is faster than the Core Duo, and the Core 2 Duo is 64-bit while the Core Duo is 32-bit (though both run 32-bit operating systems perfectly well, it's just that the Core 2 Duo can also run in 64-bit mode). Both are dual-core processors.

Also, a Core 2 Solo (single-core) and Core 2 Quad (quad-core) are coming up. Somewhat confusingly, there's also the Core 2 Extreme, which can be dual-core or quad-core (both called the Core 2 Extreme, and there may be a single-core version of this too). Intel is promising eighty-core CPUs pretty soon from what I heard, but I've learned to be sceptical of Intel's promises after the NetBurst fiasco.

All in all, your chances of going out to get a Intel CPU and coming home with the one you actually wanted just went down considerably.

As an ex Intel puke in '04 --- way prior to Core 2 etc. -- in fact they pulled Core 2 / Duo out of their asses to catch up to AMD -- anyway in my last meetings in the "secret circle" (cpu plannning) there was much talk of multiple cores and many "virtual cores" in the '08 - 2010 time frame. This was still speculative planning and the "GHz at any cost crowd we're still in control (and in denial)"

So almost 2yrs ago these plans were already percolating at Intel - driven by 1 goal: the ability to have multiple OS's running independantly on a PC ... be they the same OS or different OS's ------ Intel manages to succeed in spite of its self -- so I see this happening around '08/'09 .... and thats really why we need 64bit addressing - a but-load of memory space for multiple OS's

As to the point of this thread - the perf differences as others have said are going to be deeper "smarter" pipes - and more cache

[r00tzz]

Thanks for all the replies. Although not a super-heavy user, I liked to know tha what I want - 64 bits - is in the core 2 duo. Thanks