The truth about the Core Duo

Intel, is better at hyping processors than building them.

Intel claimed a 70% performance increase from the core duo.

What about this so called 70% performance increase? Let's look at an independent benchmark done by AnandTech. As we can see, the 2GHZ 2MB cache Core Duo is generally slower than AMD's lowest Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (2GHZ, 1MB cache). The X2 3800+ is 20% faster than Core Duo in DivX encoding, X2 3800+ is 17% faster than Core Duo in Windows Media Encoding, 11% faster in playing Battlefield 2. Overall, the X2 3800+ won 16 benchmarks, the Core Duo won 6. In tests the Core Duo did win, the margin of victory is always less than a few percent. Keeping in mind that the 2GHZ Core Duo is INTEL's top of line and the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ is AMD's lowest entry level, you see although Core Duo represented a quantum leap from Pentium 4 D, its performance is still far below AMD64.

What about the so called "28% longer battery life"? Again, it's hype with no factual foundation. According to this Tomshardware test, Core Duo consumes more than twice the power of a Pentium M or Turion when doing low load work such as reading and office work. According to INTEL's design data sheet, Core Duo has an estimated Thermal Design Power of 67 watts, which is consistent with my estimate that Core Duo is at least 53 watts based on an AnandTech measurement of system power. In comparison, the Opteron 870HE is only 55 watts max. No wonder DELL is only making 17inch, 8 pound desktop replacement notebooks with Core Duo.

So, we fully analysed INTEL Israel's hypish marketing on all three aspects. Core Duo is no revolutionary chip, is just a modification of Pentium III; Core Duo is not 70% faster, but 10-20% slower than AMD's lowest entry level Athlon 64 X2 3800+; Core Duo does not run cooler, but runs hotter than Opteron 870HE server chip and of course hotter than a Turion.

 

You are really pro-amd!

Despite your sensationalism, another source in the inquirer of today confirms the same thing....

I really don´t like the tone of this guys that wright these reviews, they look too much against intel, this for me compromise their partiality, although they might be right.

 

...so it's slower than a desktop cpu, and hotter than a single core laptop cpu? how did it stack up performance wise against the opteron and the turion?

you sure have a lot of dislike for the core duo, but this is a garbage post. how about posting all of the measureables for every chip, and not just the select tidbits that support your hate? jeez, a link or two to documentation would sure be nice too.

 

Can we ban this guy already? I hate when groupies flood forums. If one wants to bash the hell out of someone and praise the pants off their competitors (and it doesn't matter one bit whether there is truth to his claims or not), he is free to start a website or a blog and do it there, but he should not come to a public forum and start "educational" threads when no one asked him to.

 

Please visit Anandtech for full review and make up your own mind.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=14

 

I most always take the time to provide facts and links that backup my words which are not anymore outrageous than the truth. It is not accepted well, because most people here own Intel based laptops and thus don't want to feel like there could have been a better product for their money.

Show me the lies or mistruths that I have spoken and I will ban myself. The groupies that you speak of are all of the Intel groupies on this board. The general consensus one this board is so pro Intel that my voice is crucial to the newbies getting both sides and facts to every story.

 

An independent voice would have posted the links to Anandtech's review, not picked out the AMD advantages and left out the Intel advantages.

 

Tell me, where are the intel groupies posting bias links from random blogs about how fantastic Intel is? I've yet to see an intel groupy like your catagorizing. I'm counting down how much longer until someone snaps when reading this junk.

 

Will you please stop talking.

Of course it's not as strong as an AMD X2. This is a NOTEBOOK processor.

And about the battery life... we have seen with the Dell E1705 that it gets about the same battery time as the 9300. So even if it is using "twice the power of a Pentium M", they made up for it somewhere else.

 

Agreed - this is a ridiculous arguement. It's a laptop processor, which consumes very little power, vs a full blown desktop processor.

To keep this from getting out of control, and from upsetting and confusing users, I am closing this thread.

ALSO - the 70% performance increase is over the Pentium M, not the Athlon 64.