core 2 duo

will the release of core 2 duo affect laptop prices?
Is it a good time to buy a laptop right now considering the relase of core 2 duo might drop laptop prices by next week?

or am I getting it all wrong and that core 2 duo for mainstream laptop will not be released till sept. or oct.

[quote5d5971053d="GCY"]will the release of core 2 duo affect laptop prices?
Is it a good time to buy a laptop right now considering the relase of core 2 duo might drop laptop prices by next week?

or am I getting it all wrong and that core 2 duo for mainstream laptop will not be released till sept. or oct.[/quote5d5971053d]
I've seen some good laptop prices lately. Not sure if Core 2 Duo will lower them more or not shrug

Are you speaking of the current "Conroe" Core Duo or the "Merom" processors set to come out soon?

The ones out right now are like... "top of the line". From what I heard, the second-generation of Core Duo (64-bit processors) are actually going to be a hush-in for the holiday season with the "real" 64-bit Core Duo processors coming out around April-May of 2007.

I think he is talking about Conroe. I want the E6700 )

screw e6700
with the overclocking capabilities of the e6400, it'll whoop the rest of core2's even when they overclock because they dont overclock as good

can't wait to get mine's with a tuniq tower and some as5.... powah!

/me waits for money to get one (

But 2x2MB L2 cache on the 6600 and 6700...

Hm in that case, I say yes. Core Duo processors are currently like "top of the line" so anything that doesn't offer it should see some price dropping. However, the technology is relatively "new" so I wouldn't expect earth-shattering, jaw-dropping price changes this early.

just so u know, anything not programmed to make use of multiple cores will not run faster, and in fact will run more slowly because the individual speed of each core is typically lower than that of a high-end single core processor

[quote94800a07ef="kyks17"]just so u know, anything not programmed to make use of multiple cores will not run faster, and in fact will run more slowly because the individual speed of each core is typically lower than that of a high-end single core processor[/quote94800a07ef]

Yeah but the new core 2 duos are actually faster then single cpu processors. Also they have a shared L2 cache so this is not as bad as if there was 2 differant l2 caches. I still need to see some evidence to say for sure if you will get higher performance if you run 2 programs that are both programmed for a single core processor if you will get a performance boost because you are on a dual core processor. I know windows vista will take full advantage of dual core programming so we should see a big improvement when that finally comes out (whenever that is).

NERD FIGHT!!!

oh i don't know anything about how fast the new ones are gonna be. just know that i don't think much of the current ones. they're sharing the L2 cache? in my computer architecture class, i was taught that they should have a shared L3 cache...and my teacher was the guy who invented hyperthreading heh.

[quote60d6b1df50="kyks17"]oh i don't know anything about how fast the new ones are gonna be. just know that i don't think much of the current ones. they're sharing the L2 cache? in my computer architecture class, i was taught that they should have a shared L3 cache...[b60d6b1df50]and my teacher was the guy who invented hyperthreading heh.[/b60d6b1df50][/quote60d6b1df50]
dance

hehe heck yeah. he (dean tullsen) was brilliant and my nicest prof in all of college.

Shared L2 is NOT the way to go, that's why X2's beat pre-Conroe Pentium D's so badly. Shared cache incurs latency due to concurrency constraints that are required to prevent one core from stepping on another core's cache data. That's why Intel's 2MB shared L2 was still slower than AMD's dual 1MB L2's.

I thought Conroe fixed that and went to dedicated L2's? As good as Conroe is, if they're still running shared L2 then they're crippling themselves -- imagine how much better they could be with dedicated cache and a crossbar controller ala AMD! I don't see Intel staying on top of the CPU performance chart if they keep that up, AMD is almost certainly to leapfrog them again soon -- and from what I've heard, that's exactly what will happen with the next-gen AMD proc, since AM2 was a major letdown and Conroe thoroughly slapped AMD after about 10 years of unsuccessful attempts. AMD is probably gearing up to regain the title and, while Intel has temporarily (and finally) won a battle with Conroe, I question whether they still understand what it takes to win the long-term war.

[quote49974ec5d0="dmorris68"]Shared L2 is NOT the way to go, that's why X2's beat pre-Conroe Pentium D's so badly. Shared cache incurs latency due to concurrency constraints that are required to prevent one core from stepping on another core's cache data. That's why Intel's 2MB shared L2 was still slower than AMD's dual 1MB L2's.

I thought Conroe fixed that and went to dedicated L2's? As good as Conroe is, if they're still running shared L2 then they're crippling themselves -- imagine how much better they could be with dedicated cache and a crossbar controller ala AMD! I don't see Intel staying on top of the CPU performance chart if they keep that up, AMD is almost certainly to leapfrog them again soon -- and from what I've heard, that's exactly what will happen with the next-gen AMD proc, since AM2 was a major letdown and Conroe thoroughly slapped AMD after about 10 years of unsuccessful attempts. AMD is probably gearing up to regain the title and, while Intel has temporarily (and finally) won a battle with Conroe, I question whether they still understand what it takes to win the long-term war.[/quote49974ec5d0]

I wonder why they are continuing to do the shared L2s because they are shared on the core 2 duos and not dedicated. I have not heard anything about the new AMDs it seems like there is going to be a little wait until we can see the new AMD processors (.

I thought Conroe has separate L2 no? I thought that was one of the big improvements...

[quoted24bdb34c0="gafdpc"]I thought Conroe has separate L2 no? I thought that was one of the big improvements...[/quoted24bdb34c0]
I had thought so too, hence my comment, however I just checked the Intel datasheet and sure enough, Core Duo 2 has shared L2.

[quote7936f21469="Wolfeman"]But 2x2MB L2 cache on the 6600 and 6700...[/quote7936f21469]

only gain that extra 2mb provides is between 3-5%, and many other benchmarks point out that the cache size does not affect performance if at the same clock

not a worthy performance gain to talk about, checkout the research and benchmarks it's on a couple of those websites like anandtech etc