frank wrote:Go for the core 2 duo. The same clock speed core 2 duo should be faster than a core duo.
While core 2 is faster than its predecessor the difference is by no means as dramatic as one might at first expect. Most benchmark (f.ex
Anandtech) show an impovement of 10-20% depending on the application
Mr. Kernel wrote:I am planning to buy a future proof laptop. At least for 5 yrs from now!!!
In that case it should probably also be mentioned that core duo is still a 32 bit processor while core 2 duo already supports Intel's 64 bit extension. This might make a core 2 duo based system more future-proof, althought it's of course hard to tell how important that difference will really be in a few years time
JAAman wrote:A lot of people make an incorrect connection between core(1) and the P3 architecture
From all that I know core duo (yonah) is rather closely related to the pentium m design, which in turn took some inspiration from pentium 3 and the original p6 architecture. While some rather major changes might have been made on every generation of processors the development as a whole still remains rather evolutional without any drastic breaks
In my opinion the comparision is fine as long as it's not taken too seriously: It's nothing but a rough categorization that is meant to stress that the pentium m and core duo design has much more in common with the p6 family than with the netburst architecture
JAAman wrote:core 2 duo has no relation to either core duo or prescott, and is a dual core version of the core 2 -- a much more advanced system designed for desktops, but easily modified for notebook efficiency
While I was searching for the benchmarks at Anadtech I stumbled across an article that in my opinion sums it up quite well:
Intel marketing states that Core is a blend of P-M techniques and NetBurst architecture. However, Core is clearly a descendant of the Pentium Pro, or the P6 architecture. It is very hard to find anything "Pentium 4" or "NetBurst" in the Core architecture. While talking to Jack Doweck, it became clear that only the prefetching was inspired by experiences with the Pentium 4. Everything else is an evolution of "Yonah" (Core Duo), which was itself an improvement of Dothan and Banias. Those CPUs inherited the bus of the Pentium 4, but are still clearly children of the hugely successful P6 architecture. In a sense, you could call Core the "P8" architecture, with Banias/Dothan being based on the "P7" architecture. (Note that the architecture of Banias/Dothan was never given an official name, so we will refer to it as "P-M" for simplicity's sake.)
Of course this doesn't mean that Intel's engineers just bolted a few functional units and a few decoders on Yonah and called it a day. Jack told us that Woodcrest/Conroe/Merom are indeed based on Yonah, but that almost 80% of both the architecture and circuit design had to be redone.
regards,
gaf
