Core Duo vs Daul-core

[bossman5501]

What is the man difference between these two processors
1.6GHz Intel Core Duo and 1.6GHz AMD Turion 64 X2 Dual-Core Processor. Which would perform better.

 

[Ploper001]

Core 2 Duo is just the name of Intel's new dual core CPUs. X2 is the name of AMD's dual core CPUs.

In general, similarly priced AMD and Intel CPUs perform about the same (although Intel's high-end range is currently faster than AMD's) - e.g. the AMD 64-Bit X2 4600+ performs about the same as an Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 and both are ~£120.

So I'd say get whichever you prefer, whichever is cheaper, or whichever you can get a better motherboard for.

The only thing I will say is that Intel have more experience with Mobile CPUs. However, I do not know if this comes off in terms of battery power or performance tests. A google search for "mobile cpu benchmarks" should yeild some nice information for you

 

[Ploper001]

Sorry, that 4600+ should say 4200+. The 4600+ is about £140, not £120.

 

[bossman5501]

So a core 2 duo is the same as the x2 dual core. One is Intel and one is AMD. However a core duo is different then a core 2 duo...right. How does a core duo compare to an x2 dual core?

Is there a big difference between the 32 and 64 bit?

 

[Ploper001]

Core Duo is Intel's older dual core architecture. If you're going to get a dual core system, you should get an AMD X2 or an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU.

If you have a 64-Bit CPU you can run (normal) 32-Bit Windows XP/Vista OR 64-Bit Windows XP/Vista. If you have a 32-Bit CPU you can run only 32-Bit XP/Vista. If you're buying a CPU right now, it seems silly not to get 64-Bit since it's fully backwards compatible. Even if you choose to go for the faster 64-Bit version of Windows XP/Vista, most 32-Bit applications should still work fine.

 

[wahnula]

So a core 2 duo is the same as the x2 dual core

Not according to recent reviews. AMD socket AM2 x 2 is bested by Core 2 Duo in almost every benchmark and real-world test. E6300 or 6400 can smoke an FX-62 with some tweaking. That's the beauty of the Core2 Duo, you don't need top-of-the-line Extreme, entry level still kicks a$$.

Core Duo is the older Intel tech based on the Yonah core I believe. Still an amazing processor, probably comparable to AMD x2.

I am not an Intel fanboy, I own equal numbers of Intel & AMD PCs. Best tech at the time (and for my budget) is my motto.

Tony

 

[Ploper001]

I wasn't aware of the overclocking abilities...but I've seen at least two benchmarks that say, stock, the 4200+ and the E6300 perform similarly.

 

[kmcferrin]

Let the flames begin. The old Intel Core Duo CPUs aren't that good, especially compared to AMD's X2 CPUs. They basically jammed two Pentium 4 CPUs into a single package, whereas AMD's were designed from the ground up to be a dual core CPU. This results in lower power, less heat, greater efficiency, etc. Then you have to take into account that the single core Athlon 64 totally smoked the single core Pentium 4 CPUs, so the Core Duo also got beat pretty soundly by the AMD X2 CPUs.

Now Intel's modern Core 2 Duo CPUs are designed from the ground up to be dual core. They also added some more power efficient technology from the Pentium M, and re-arranged the architecture to get a higher number of instructions processed per clock cycle. So nowdays on a clock for clock basis, the Core 2 Duo is faster than an X2 CPU. It used to be that Intel's midrange Core 2 Duo was faster than AMD's fastest X2, but AMD has come out with several new X2 models of the X2 line that have narrowed the gap. At equal price points, performance should be fairly close with Intel still leading in many benchmarks.

 

[Ploper001]

Remember that this is only possible because AMD slashed prices when the Core 2 Duo came out - which is WHY equivalent prices now = equivalent performance in this market.

Intel's best CPU being twice as expensive as AMD's shows they have faster ones though lol...

I can't wait to see what AMD has up their sleeve

 

[cdogg]

One of the things I seem to remember AMD fanboys touted a lot back in the day was "overclockability". Well now it's time to praise the fact that the lean is once again on Intel's side. The E6400 Core 2 Duo is a good example. You can take that puppy up to a blazing 3GHz on the stock cooler! Essentially no effort required!! Imagine what you can do with better cooling...

Where's the love?


~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Ploper001]

*gives the love*

I've never tried overclocking a newer AMD CPU. On my home PC, which is old but has survived with upgrades, I still have SD100 RAM, meaning my Athlon 2000+ has to run at 1500+ speeds with a lower FSB. I did overclock it to 1800+ speeds by bumping the FSB up to 108MHz, but one day last year there was a split-second power cut, and the PC started beeping loads. I cleared the CMOS, and it has worked fine from then on....apart from the fact that now it completely ignores any and all instructions to overclock in the BIOS

Having your main PC have an Athlon 1500+ Thoroughbred (amazing CPUs as they WERE) is not good, lol....at least I have my laptop *hugs laptop*

 

[cdogg]

bossman5501,
Back to the laptop CPU question for a second...the following article shows you a comparison between the older Core Duo and the newer Turion 64 X2:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/22/amd_dual_core_laptops_have_arrived/

Both are essentially neck and neck, but the Core Duo wins out overall.

The newer Core 2 Duo is another notch above both. The amount of difference depends on the type of applications you are using. I'd search on the net. There is a ton of benchmarks (check out Anandtech) and other info (check out Wikipedia.org).

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[bossman5501]

Thank you CDOGG that answers my question.

 

[ArizonaGeek]

Bossman5501 don't forget to give cdogg a star if he helped you.

Just to throw in my two cents, I just upgraded my PC to a Intel Core 2 2.4ghz from one of the first P4's (it was like 5 years old) and I am telling you this thing screams. I am very happy with it. I have a friend with an AMD Dual Core and he loves it although I know mine is a bit faster. I am not sure the caching on an AMD, I've been an Intel guy since I bought my PII way back when but my Core 2 has a 4mb cache and that goes a long way.

Cheers
Rob

 

[Ploper001]

Caching varies greatly between CPUs, but AMD's major advantage is the on-board memory controller which is supposed to increase memory access speeds fairly significantly. I have never seen one in action though.

The only reason I "prefer" AMD is because my laptop, which was bought in May, is the first PC I've ever had with an Intel chip, and it's not blazingly fast (original Dual Core, plus obviously it's a laptop). My first PC (486 100MHz, 518MB HDD, 8MB of RAM...) was an AMD (just happened to be the one my dad bought), and the next three times I've built a PC, AMD was the leader at the time.

If I was going to buy/build one right now, there is a high chance that I'd choose Intel.

 

[cdogg]

Bossman,
The main benefit of awarding stars, in my opinion, isn't for the person who answered your question. Instead, it's for others who are looking for an answer to the same question you asked. Giving someone a star shows in the title of the thread, letting someone who's searching know where to look first.

Thanks Rob for pointing that out, because after being here for so long I don't really notice them anymore
[tab]...though I have to admit I still like getting 'em!



~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884