Core2due nearly same as i5

[Guest]

Hello,ive did some tests on 2 pcs the first one with intel core2due 2.53ghz
and the second is core i5 430m
and they are nearly similar
to eachother
so i think intel core i5 is devolepd frome core2duo
and core i3 devolepd from dual core
and i7 devolepd from core2quad

 

[logainofhades]

Sorry but all the ix series are a new architecture.

 

[FALC0N]

Hello,ive did some tests on 2 pcs the first one with intel core2due 2.53ghz
and the second is core i5 430m
and they are nearly similar
to eachother
so i think intel core i5 is devolepd frome core2duo
and core i3 devolepd from dual core
and i7 devolepd from core2quad

Yes, pretty much. Thats how it works. They evolve a little at a time.

The dual core I5 are basically core 2 duos with an on die memory controller and a few special instructions, like hyperthreading.

The I7/I5 quads add the same improvements but add full integration of all 4 cores as the C2Q were 2 C2D on the same die that talked through the FSB.

 

[LePhuronn]

Um, Nehalem is totally different architecture to Core 2.

 

[FALC0N]

Um, Nehalem is totally different architecture to Core 2.

No its not. It just has an upgraded uncore.

 

[logainofhades]

Might want to do some reading there. Nehalem is a new architecture.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-i7-nehalem-cpu,2041.html

 

[ches111]

Oh my where to start on this one! Have these forums gotten this bad? I hope this is not a representative sample.

You really need to look at the info provided by Logain.. The implementation of Hyperthreading alone would have classified it as a new processor.

Branch Prediction, L3 shared cache and a number of other changes...

Just read please. ^^^^

 

[FALC0N]

Might want to do some reading there. Nehalem is a new architecture.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/Intel-i7-nehalem-cpu,2041.html

No actually I don't. I don't guess when I post, unless I say I'm guessing. The I7 IS based on the core 2.

 

[FALC0N]

To your philosophy, the Core is simply an "upgraded" Pentium 3(P6), which in turn an "reworked" Pentium (P5)...

Wow, so the i5 is just an updated higher clocked multicore version of the original Pentium YAY"

No. The I7 is an upgraded version of the core 2 architecture. Core 2 was Pentium M based. The Pentium M traces is lineage to the P6. Netburst was not a direct descendant of P6

 

[FALC0N]

Oh my where to start on this one! Have these forums gotten this bad? I hope this is not a representative sample.

You really need to look at the info provided by Logain.. The implementation of Hyperthreading alone would have classified it as a new processor.

Branch Prediction, L3 shared cache and a number of other changes...

Just read please. ^^^^

Im not saying that its the same architecture. Its just based on core 2.

And L3 cache is UNCORE. Branch prediction and hyperthreading are just tweaks, not a new core.

 

[FALC0N]

And just to drive this point home so that somebody else doesn't come in and tell me im wrong when im not.......

From Hardware Secrets:

"Pentium M is based on Intel’s 6th generation architecture, a.k.a. P6, the same used by Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III and early Celeron CPUs and not on Pentium 4’s as you may think, being originally targeted to mobile computers. You may think of Pentium M as an enhanced Pentium III. Thus you may think of Core microarchitecture as an enhanced Pentium M."


http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/313/1
------------------------------------------------------------

From Anandtech:

"The execution engine of Nehalem is largely unchanged from Penryn"

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2594/6
-----------------------------------------------------

 

[notty22]

Yes they both use transistors, don't you people get it ?


Falcon, why don't you troll Aanand with this its not a new architecture every time, someone brings this up discussing cpus, because your in your own little world.

I swear this is the longest it’s taken for an Intel architecture to penetrate the market. We first met Nehalem on November 3rd, 2008. It came to us as a high end quad-core processor and took a full year to make it to more affordable motherboards in the form of Lynnfield. Even with P55 motherboard prices down at the magical $99 marker, Intel relinquished control of the $100 - $200 CPU market without a Nehalem to compete down there. Instead we were left with a choice between Penryn, the update to Intel’s 2006 Conroe architecture, or Phenom II, AMD’s low-cost Nehalem competitor. The choice was simple.
Technically Clarkdale isn’t Nehalem, it’s Westmere. Take Nehalem, use 32nm transistors, add in some new instructions for accelerating encryption/decryption, and you’ve got the makings of Westmere.

Clarkdale uses a dual-core Westmere and sticks it next to a 45nm Intel GMA die. That’s right, meet the first (er, second) Intel CPU with on-chip graphics. Next year we’ll see Sandy Bridge bring the graphics on-die, but until then we have Intel’s tried and true multi-chip-package to tide us over. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901

 

[notty22]

And just to drive this point home so that somebody else doesn't come in and tell me im wrong when im not.......

From Hardware Secrets:

"Pentium M is based on Intel’s 6th generation architecture, a.k.a. P6, the same used by Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III and early Celeron CPUs and not on Pentium 4’s as you may think, being originally targeted to mobile computers. You may think of Pentium M as an enhanced Pentium III. Thus you may think of Core microarchitecture as an enhanced Pentium M."


http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/313/1
------------------------------------------------------------

From Anandtech:

"The execution engine of Nehalem is largely unchanged from Penryn"

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2594/6
-----------------------------------------------------

From Your anand link : Nehalem - Everything You Need to Know about Intel's New Architecture

 

[FALC0N]

Yes they both use transistors, don't you people get it ?
[/quote]

Yes, and a lot better than you do. Which is why I said "based on core" which is commonly accepted. This is not a secret or something I made up. Don't get mad at me because I have a better understanding of the issue.

 

[FALC0N]

From Your anand link : Nehalem - Everything You Need to Know about Intel's New Architecture

OK lets try this again:

From Anandtech:

"The execution engine of Nehalem is largely unchanged from Penryn"

This is THE most importan part of the processor. If this was a P4 execution engine. Nehalem would suck despite the other improvements.

Yes, its a new architecture, mostly because of the uncore improvements, and yes its based on core 2.

 

[ares1214]

+1^...notty22, why is it that you always argue with the people that are right?

 

[notty22]

+1^...notty22, why is it that you always argue with the people that are right?

Please, the amd is nice boy.

 

[ares1214]

hey, in my personal opinion, amd CURRENTLY provides a better upgrade path, budget sector, and pricing, making them CURRENTLY more user friendly to buy from. nice was a bad word, but i didnt want the title to be "amd vs intel, who provides a more user friendly buying experience, even though both are corporations out for the maximum profits"... and how cant we be cheering for amd, even if you are an intel fanboy, amd gives intel competition, driving their prices down. if there was no amd, intel would have a monopoly, and intel is one of the last companies i want to have a monopoly...

 

[FALC0N]

Honey, the core 2's architecture is called "Core"

Thank you. But I was aware of this. I was trying to avoid confusion with the Core I7.

 

[FALC0N]

Sorry if I got a little edgy here. Its really not that important a topic.