RIP to Core 2 Duo

Intel discontinues Core 2 Mobile CPUs

Hopefully Sandy Bridge can bring back the awesome performance/power saving combo that lacks with Nehalem.

The SU9400 (my Acer 3810T), T7500 (mom's work HP), and P8400 (brother's Vaio SR) where my only experiences with this generation. RIP Core 2 Duo!

 

Well that's a shame. I guess all that will be left are Celeron, Pentium Dual core for Socket P? And did Intel ever discontinue Core 2 Quad for Socket P?

 

Hardly RIP since they are still going to be shipping the discontinued processors for another 10 months, they still have some Core 2 Duo products they aren't discontinuing, and the Celeron and Pentium Dual Core products haven't been discontinued.

 

What? Overall, Arrandale delivers much better performance for the same battery life. It's only the UM chips that failed to deliver.

Intel Arrandale: 32nm for Notebooks, Core i5 540M Reviewed - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

 

I'm actually a little sad, lol.

 

thank god about time

 

NOOOOOOOOO lol, well yeah just hurry up and get me an i26

 

Penryn, my silicon favorite.

Goodbye old friend.

 

Core 2 Duo were epic in performance, amen to that.

 

Core 2 Duo were fantastic desktop and mobile CPU's. I'd rank it up there with a Pentium-M as one of the best mobile CPU's from Intel.

 

A sad day for us all... I love my p8600.

 

It was just a brand name that outlived its usefulness. At the time the Core 2 Duo brandname appeared, Intel had really stuck with single core processors for too long. It was time for a change and Pentium nameplate no longer seemed cutting edge. The name "Core 2 Duo" indicated a dual core processor and actually represented a rare case of "truth in advertising."

Now with dual core Atoms, Celerons and Pentiums, it's just time to ditch this nameplate. Personally, I think AMD is smart to market as a brand and avoid sub-brands. AMD's gone for the red stickers that simply say "AMD Vision," so maybe its time for Intel to follow suit.

 

what are you talking about? AMD uses a really stupid name scheme from phenom, I, II, and is there a III now? they use x2 x3 x4 x6. They use a more random catagory than intel. They also use K125 K325 K935(i think) and N930 and others.

 

At least there's a workable piece of information in the name (i.e. the number of cores). Intel provides nothing equivalent : what's in an i5-2xxx+[insert random letter that may turn it into a complete different CPU] ? The answer is always tricky.

 

not really....quad cores have a Q at the end and extreme have an X and duel cores have nothing. Bigger the number the better it is and the various UM LM and what not indicate its power lvl. Intel uses a more simple self explanatory method than amd. Bigger means better.....duh

 

That's only true for the mobile market. Dual core Pentiums were dominating the desktop market loooong before then. Cedar Mill dual core Pentiums really weren't that bad. They put out less heat than i7, that's for sure.

I agree that all these names are just adding tons of confusion and obfuscation. Intel's (and AMD's) product names give you absolutely no indication of the specs or how well it matches up against any similar products. It is just a big joke and the names are more like a reference code to type into Intel.com or Wikipedia to translate it into English.

 

I think Core 2's have been amazing CPUs for the mobile space. Years later they still put up some sort of fight with Montevina's stuff, especially in the power consumption category. It's only with the coming of Sandy Bridge that the Core 2 will be able to be completely replaced.

 

Yeah, Core 2 must be good if Intel is still going to be selling them for 9 months after it's replacement's replacement, SB, is released.

 

Pentium D's were terrible...if your referring to those. Intel was horrible during the last of the P4's and P D's AMD owned the market and speed until intel came out with the conroe(core due).

i7 was far more monumental than core 2s. The slowest i7 was faster than the fastest core 2. You could get a i7 920 for liek 300 bucks and the core 2 quad that was 1100 bucks couldn't touch it.

the i5's i believe are faster than the Q9300 if i remember correctly from a review. i core's are by far a much greater leap in performance. Never before from what i can remember did a CPU low/mid end meet or beat the highest extreme version. The regular or slowest i3 matched/beat the T9800 if i remember correctly. It was in a preview of benchmarks in notebookcheck.net

Now i will say if the hype turns out to be true about SB it'll be amazing. supposible the slowest quad core will be faster than the 940XM. Plus the on-die gpu...thats a real leap. That will be even greater leap than the i7 release. Core 2 was never that big of a deal. So i honestly don't know what you guys' are talking about

 

I still have an E1405 that can take a Core 2 Duo processor! Such a sad day to see the budget performance chip disappear. Just like ATi brand name, you can't just kill it. Though they continue the Core naming..

 

a i7 920 is far more budget...well more bang for your buck. That thing is fast as can be and cheap.

 

Just because something get superseded by something way better doesn't mean that the original thing was terrible. The 90nm Prescott caused a big fiasco by running hotter than its 130nm Northwood predecessor, but Intel did end up taming their Pentiums' power consumption pretty well. They basically set the new standard for power consumption that continues to this day.

Core 2 was a huge deal. On a clock for clock basis, it was almost twice as powerful as the last Netburst processors. It also had the ability to scale up and down very well and had enough efficiency to realign Intel's desktop and mobile segments. Not only that, but it simply crushed the Athlon 64 that had stayed ahead of the Pentium 4 and Pentium D since its release. On the mobile front, Core 2 just blew the Pentium M derived processors out of the water.

I'm sorry but Core i didn't scale any better than Core 2, offered roughly a 20% clock for clock improvement in most things, and had about the same power consumption at the same clock speeds. To say that the passing of the torch from Core 2 to Core i was "far more monumental" than the leap from netburst (or pentium m) to Core 2 is just ridiculous.

And you are getting way too excited about Sandy Bridge. There are some neat features, but again, like Core i, it is not the sort of drastic change that Core 2 was. Unless you are dying for SB's integrated graphics, which still suck btw, SB will make even less of a splash than Core i did. If there was a big difference, Intel wouldn't release socket 1156's SB replacement, socket 1155, and then wait three quarters of a year to release socket 1366's SB replacement.

 

your blowing it out of proportion your saying that core 2 came after Pentium which is false. it went from Pentium to to Pentium duel core than core due and core 2. Also core and core 2 had several architectural changes. It's like saying Ivy bridge replaces Core 2.... seriously There were 2 generations before it so of course core 2 is way better than Pentium M. It's like comparing P4 compared to a P2....common get serious here

EDIT don't quote me on this but it's kinda close i think

Pentium M
Pentium duel core (1 gen)
core duo (2 gen)
was there a change in core duo?
core 2 due (3 gen)
core 2 due (penryn) (4 gen)

4 generations of processors maybe 5 not sure if i am missing one. That is no comparison

 

On the desktop it went straight from the Netburst to Core architecture. Cedar Mill(pentium 4)/Presler(pentium d) --> Allendale(core 2)/Conroe(core 2).

On the mobile segment it went Netburst, then Pentium M, then Core architecture. Northwood(pentium 4) --> Banias(pentium m)/Dothan(pentium m)/Yonah(core) --> Merom(core 2)

These are all Pentium M architecture:

These are Core architecture:

 

core duo is a core architecture. It's not Pentium mobile....


EDIT: none the less your blowing it out of proportion.

 

Core Duo is based on Pentium M architecture cores. Core 2 is based on Core architecture cores.

 

yea i just read that like 5 misn ago...its like total refresh..kinda like a half and half. Some sources consider it a Pentium and others call it a core architecture that's a "modified" Pentium.

 

In DC's defense its actually news to me that Core was not a new architecture and that it started with Core 2. I skipped Core, Jumped Pentium 4 to C2D so I also have an excuse lol.

 

Either your sources that consider Yonah to be based on the Core architecture is getting tripped up by the name, or you are getting tripped up by the name. The Penitum M based Yonah core started the Core name for Intel's processors. That name is slated to continue at least through the Ivy Bridge core. That is at least 4 distinct microarchitectures using the Core brand name for their processors. Similar circumstances held true, and still hold true for the Pentium brand name. So just because it uses the Core name does not make Yonah a Core architecture based design.

When Intel released the Core 2 processors, there was much hoopla about the new Core architecture they were based on.

 

you miss understood what i meant but whatever.

 

I love my T9900 too... I am not planning to change it anytime soon though. Still performing fine...


--

 

No I didn't. The Core architecture started and ended with the Core 2 processors. Saying that Yonah processors are like half and half between the Pentium M and Core architecture is like saying Arrandale(Westmere) is half and half between the Nehalem and Sandy Bridge architectures. Very confusing and convoluted I know, considering Intel pulls new random names out of a hat for everything, but it makes sense.

 

RIP Core 2 Duo! Loved you my T9400 while i had you! Now I only love my i7