How would you describe Core 2 Duo?

When Core 2 Duos came out how would you describe the impact they made?

Are they very very fast compared to old processors or were they just the next step in a linear progression of processor speeds?

Were they revolutionary?

 

It was not "revolutionary" esp since AMD did it first

But unlike the step from current quads to i7 wich I see as more of a normal step, it was a very big step.

The core2duos & core2quads beat out the older cpu tech by a big margin even in direct clock per clock comparisons, but in addition they can overclock very high also so you get 2x the boost.

Actually more like 3x the boost in many cases if you count 2 cores, as a single core on a core2due beats a Pentium 4 at the same clock speed.

Factor in faster cooler runing cpu tech, then the overclock + the extra core and its total dominance.

Same goes even if you factore dual vs quad. A 2ghz quad will destroy a 2.8ghz dual in a multi core environment.

8 core cpu's are the next thing to look for in the desktop world. (I think AMD is first doing a 6 core)

 

I'm glad they finally went with multi core processors. It always seemed like a "Duh why not do that?" thing instead of just trying to pump out more speed from a single core.

8 core cpu's... would that beat the crap out of an i7 then?

Because I'm glad I got a decked out laptop to tide me over until even better tech comes out because I WAS going to get an i7 desktop.

 

The jump from Pentium 4 to Pentium M was much bigger than the jump from Yohah to Merom... the Pentium M was the first processor designed for laptops, so it definitely changed the game. Core 2 Duo did not bring any revolutionary designs to the CPU market... in fact, the only other "game-changing" technology besides the rise of the Pentium M was the trend toward multi-core CPUs.

Core 2 Duo (+~15% performance over Yonah) > Core Duo (+~20%) > Pentium M (+~100% over Netburst) > Pentium 4 > bottom of the barrel.

 

Intel is releasing their new Nehalem-EX server processors with 8 cores and 16 threads (8 from hyperthreading)!

 

Oh I forgot to ask
with multiple cores, do they all get taken advantage of, or do they only come into play with multiple processes?

I know there IS software that natively knows to take advantage of it,
but let's say I was using old software to transcode a video... would it only use one core?

 

A process is a running program, while multiple threads can exist within that process; each one would be completing various tasks as the OS allocates CPU time (as necessary) for that process.

In order for a program to take advantage of multiple cores, it must be coded in such a way that the process will create multiple threads that will complete tasks sequentially (ie, allow for multitasking). Most modern games, audio/video encoders, and CAD programs are optimized in this way for multiple cores.

 

But would a 64-bit Windows OS like W7 allocate it automatically even if the program doesn't know about dual cores?

Also by all means don't limit this discussion to just Core 2 Duo. Other huge leaps should be mentioned as I'm very curious. Any dual core platform for example.

 

In order for the OS itself to take advantage of multiple-cores, it must have support built-in to the kernel. This functionality has been around in Windows since XP (both Vista and 7 have it as well).

In order for a program to benefit from a multiple-core CPU, it must a) be running on an OS that supports multi-core CPUs and b) the program must be optimized for multi-threading. Of course, you must also have a multiple-core CPU.

Also, keep in mind that there are many mobile CPUs out there besides the Core 2 Duo that have multiple cores, such as the Core Duo, Core 2 Quad, and AMD's competing lineup: Turion X2 and Athlon X2 series. The same principles apply to these models as well.

 

Yeah I was sort of curious about the core 2 duo by itself (i'm not sure how different it is from just dual core (intels) and core duos) as well as the leap to multiple cores.

So basically, old program = one core (but at you can also run 7 other programs simultaneously...) ?

 

I have been using a Core Duo (2 cores) for almost a year now. I'm also using a single core CPU every now and then. Unless I'm doing rendering I don't see any performance gain.

I wonder if upping the fsb as intel did for a while with the pentium 4 was such a bad idea after all?!

 

Most people don't need C2D since even a P4 isn't bottlenecked with internet surfing, word, excel, listening to music, and whatever else home users do.

 

just another step in moore's law.

 

In terms of re-shaping the CPU market however, Core 2 Duo had a much larger impact than Pentium M. After AMD enjoyed a long streak of dominance starting with the Athlon 64+ and continuing on to the X2 vs Pentium D, Core 2 Duo vaulted Intel ahead to a position they haven't yet lost to AMD.

 

I think Sun Systems were trying to do some 8 core cpu's and they were called "Niagra" and "Niagra 2" or something like that.

 

sun was bought by oracle recently and they never made any successful mainstream cpu. it takes ages of development and large sums of money and resources.

 

Pentium 4 - Ran hot, ran slow, sucked battery power like a Hummer burns gas
Pentium M - Added some P4 bits into the Pentium III architecture, a real gem
Core Duo - Two Pentium Ms stapled together with new instructions
Core 2 Duo - New architecture, both cores on one die, evolutionary in the mobile market (but revolutionary in desktops, who still had to suffer with Pentium 4s and Ds)

 

Core 2 Duo is an evolutionary development of Core Duo (Yonah) and thus Pentium M.

Pentium 4 was a dead end in terms of design. Other than Intel's meager effort to put two in a chip (Pentium D), it has no descendents.

 

For me, C2 is something that just does what I need; no more freezes, and pretty much no lags anymore; its sheer awesomeness.

 

Core Duo = lame name... much rather would have had Pentium 5 X2
Core 2 Duo = finally Intel has 64bit... finally... and still a lame name...