Laptops, wait for Intel Centrino Core Duo?

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 12, 2006.

  1. Does anyone know when these new laptops may come out? From what I've
    read so far, the chips are going to be priced about the same as the
    current Pentium-M chips.

    I was about to buy a laptop but now it seems to make sense to wait.

    Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Doh! I saw the E1705 but I assumed it was a power-hungry dual
    processor. It's actually the new "Pentium-M". I'm not buying until
    other laptops have them standard.

    Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Kevin K. Fosler

    Quaoar Guest

    Most vendors have announced their initial Core Duo notebooks. Dell has
    the i9400. Sony, Lenovo have announced theirs. Anandtech has reviewed
    the Core Duo, if you are interested. These should be shipping very soon.

    Quaoar, Feb 13, 2006
  4. That's great. I wonder if all notebooks will be Core Duo in the near
    future, or if Pentium-M's will continue.

    Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 13, 2006
  5. William P.N. Smith, Feb 13, 2006
  6. Kevin K. Fosler

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    You would be better served waiting for laptops with AMD Turion64 X2. Intel
    chips are not true dual core; they are two separate chips fused together.
    and they cannot see or communicate with each other on the die. They can
    only communicate by going outside the die through the Northbridge chipset,
    and only one CPU can do so per clock cycle. Add to that they do not have an
    on-die memory controller, are tied to a 667-MHz FSB (as opposed to 2GHz on
    the Turion), no direct connect architecture and no Hypertransport bus. They
    are simply the same old chip dress up in a new package, but they are not
    really new.

    NoNoBadDog!, Feb 13, 2006
  7. I got the Dell 9400 last week. It's an amazing machine! I'm still
    installing stuff, but everything has worked perfectly. The 1920x1200
    screen is great, although I'd rather have a laptop with a 19" screen
    and built-in wheels :^)

    The one catch is that, like the MacBooks, there's no Cardbus slot -
    just the new ExpressCard. The bad news is that I can't find any cards
    for sale yet from any company. The good news is that I don't really
    need anything, at the moment, since there's built in 802.11a/b/g and
    Bluetooth. Also the 9400 can take the ExpressCard/54 cards, while the
    MacBooks can only take the smaller ExpressCard/34 cards.

    unfrostedpoptart, Feb 13, 2006
  8. Hi David, did you notice anything that is improved by Core Duo, such
    as multitasking, compared to past laptops you may have had?

    Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 13, 2006
  9. Will the Turion have the battery life advantages similar to Intel's

    Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 13, 2006
  10. Kevin K. Fosler

    User N Guest

    How ironic that you say this in a Core Duo thread.
    User N, Feb 13, 2006
  11. Kevin K. Fosler

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Not ironic...but it is true. Intel "Core DUO" chips are not true dual core.
    they are two cores fused together, and are multi-core, but *ARE NOT* dual
    core in the classic sense, hence the change to "Core Duo". Those that do
    their research instead of falling prey to the spin from Intel will already
    know this.

    NoNoBadDog!, Feb 14, 2006
  12. Kevin K. Fosler

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Intel has no power advantage...the Core Duo uses *significantly* more power
    than its single core brethren. AMD Turion X2 will have the same TDP and
    thermal envelope as the single core, so it will be *superior* to Intels Core

    NoNoBadDog!, Feb 14, 2006
  13. I saw a detailed report, I think by PC Magazine, that shows the Core
    Duo equal to or better than the Pentium-M for power.

    If I can find the link I'll post it.

    I'll definitely learn more about AMD Turion. One problem is that I
    like Dell laptops and Dell doesn't use AMD as far as I know.

    Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 14, 2006
  14. Kevin K. Fosler

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Power usage on the Core Duo increases by 13 watts! Add to that the USB
    power leak issue, and you have very short batter times.

    Here is a link to get you started....

    NoNoBadDog!, Feb 14, 2006
  15. Kevin K. Fosler

    Gabriel Guest

    Don't be misled by the AMD fanboy. The fact is that AMD does NOT have a dual
    core processor for notebooks. You would have a single-core 90nm Turion 64 as
    opposed to a multi-core (to use the fanboy's terminology) 65nm part. The
    Turion 64 also uses slower and less efficient DDR memory while the Core Duo
    uses DDR2. AMD has the best desktop and server CPUs, but they're behind with
    laptops. That is not to say that the Turion 64 is isn't. It
    compares favorably with the Pentium M, but does not surpass it. And it's
    single core.
    Gabriel, Feb 14, 2006
  16. Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it. I appreciate
    information, so I'm not looking for a debate, I have seen info. that
    says the battery life of the Core Duo is the same or better than
    current Pentium-M's.

    Here's a pretty comprehensive article:

    Like I said though, I'll take a look at your link, which will help me
    make a more informed decision.

    As far as buying a laptop, I'm going to keep my eye open for coupons.
    I'm leaning towards the XPS 140 or Inspiron 630 which I think (someone
    please correct me if I'm wrong) are the same laptops.

    Small business doesn't get the $750 off coupons as far as I know, so
    based on how that laptop is placed I can't expect too much.

    I really want the extra battery life and bright screen. I got a taste
    of the keyboard when I had the defective 6000, and I like it.

    Kevin K. Fosler, Feb 14, 2006
  17. Kevin K. Fosler

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    Are you planning to stay on this planet for any length of time?
    If so, you should seriously consider getting a better source of

    Memory Response: AMD has an on die memory controller that communicates with
    RAM at 1600MHz or above using *DDR* RAM...Intel laptops use the Northbridge
    chipset at 400 MHz to handle transactions between CPU and RAM. In addition,
    the Hypertransport bus allows a nominal 2000MHz I/O to the system
    resources....Intel does not have it. AMD processors, because of on-die
    memory controller, Direct Connect Architecture, and Hypertransport already
    have bandwidth exceeding DDR2 on an Intel with *today's* RAM.

    You really need to get your facts straight before jumping into a thread.

    I am not an AMD fanboy...I am just someone who takes the time to do research
    and has the mental capacity not to fall prey to the spin miesters at Intel.

    NoNoBadDog!, Feb 14, 2006
  18. Kevin K. Fosler

    User N Guest

    If you are implying that the phrase "dual core" is widely misused and
    misunderstood, I agree. One one side you have people with a very narrow
    opinion, which is by definition "what AMD has". I've not only heard people
    suggest that it isn't a "dual core" unless it there are two cores on the same die
    connected by a crossbar switch, but even go so far to say that it isn't "dual
    core" unless it has that AND an on die memory controller. On the other side
    you have people with a very broad definition, which would include all cases
    where there are two cores in the same physical package. In between there
    are more camps... some who require both cores to be on one piece of silicon,
    some who require that there be a single bus load, some who require that both
    cores be able to access the same data without going to main memory every
    time, some who require combinations of the above, etc, etc. A similar thing
    can be said for multi-core. So I personally consider both phrases largely
    worthless when they aren't qualified.

    You first said Intel chips "are two separate chips fused together". Now you
    say they are "two cores fused together". Neither is specific enough to be
    helpfull IMO, and in a way they are contradictory. If Core Duo doesn't
    meet your definition of a "true dual core" or "classic dual core" or whatever,
    I'd suggest you explain why in very specific terms.

    FWIW, many people take issue with Intel calling the likes of Smithfield
    a dual core, because it is basically just two separate processors laid down
    on a single piece of silicon. Many take issue with Presler being called a
    dual core because it is a multi-chip module. Core Duo... being two
    processor elements and a shared cache behind a single bus interface on
    a single piece of silicon... seems to widely meet peoples' definition of a
    dual core.
    User N, Feb 14, 2006
  19. Kevin K. Fosler

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    By definition, a dual core processor requires a crossbar switch *AND* a
    system request interface, neither of which Intel has. Intel does indeed
    join two single cores on a single connector; I have no preference over the
    use of chips or cores, as they signify the same thing. AMD X2 cores are
    built as dual cores, Intel chips are not.
    It's really quite elementary.

    I am not partial to either one, but base my choices on which chips are most
    powerful, efficient and cost-effective. The current crop of AMD processors
    wins in all of those categories.

    Intel has not made a new chip in nearly 7 years. Now matter how many time
    they change the name, or change the logo, Intel chips are still P4 based,
    and bring nothing new to the table. They are not the same 64 bit
    specification as is AMD (Intel uses EM64T). Intel does not have consumer
    level dual core chips, but multi-core dies. Even if Intel were to make true
    dual core, they would be wasted on Intel motherboards, going through a
    Northbridge chipset because there is no on-die memory controller.

    Intel has one single advantage over AMD; tons of money to throw into
    advertising making the general public think things like ViiV and the new
    "Core Duo" are new technologies. I once heard someone use an axiom that
    describes the current Intel lineup very well...the gentleman said something
    along the lines of "no matter what color you may paint it, a pig is still a
    pig". Those of us who are willing to research, to read the testing done on
    numerous websites, know that Intel is not in the same league today as is
    AMD. Whether or not this will change in a couple of years remains to be
    seen. In the interim, AMD makes a better product, and has done something no
    other company has done before...beat Intel in the marketplace and on the
    motherboard. I wish AMD all the luck in the world. Do I wish bad for
    Intel? of course not. I just wish them luck and God Speed in catching up.

    NoNoBadDog!, Feb 14, 2006
  20. As it so happens, an interesting comparison between the Turion ML-44 &
    the Intel 760 made the front page of slashdot today. The review [1] was
    quite interesting, and shows the strengths of both processors. Of
    interest to this topic is page 3, "Memory Comparison" where you see AMD
    win the memory latency (as expected by the on-die controller) & the P-M
    win the bandwith (again, to be expected with the faster RAM & more
    cache). The review is worth a read; I find it humorous that P-M
    actually beats AMD in every gaming benchmark when pared with a 6600GT
    (they use the same card for both processors).
    I disagree (and I'm not alone [2]), every post I have ever seen you make
    to this board has either been to bash Intel or to boaster AMD.
    Furthermore, on numerous occasions [3] I have asked you for a comparison
    between the P-M and the Turion, and you've never posted a link to one.

    Nicholas Andrade, Feb 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.