Core 2 Duo

Basically, it handles multiple tasks at once better than a single core PC.
Thats not to say that single core cant do multiple tasks at once, Dual Core is just slightly faster (I think it was 30% faster)

My understanding of the question is that crantholz would like to know the benefit of Core 2 Duo compared to Core (1) Duo. Core 2 Duo refers to different CPUs, but I'm going to assume the mobile variant, Merom, since Apple doesn't use Conroe at all, and Xeon 5100 "Woodcrest", while closely related, isn't branded as such.

Merom, compared to Yonah (Core Solo and original Core Duo), is currently very similar. It has twice the cache, however, up from 2 MB to 4 MB, and has the EM64T 64-bit extensions, which are based off AMD's x86-64/AMD64 extensions. It also exists in higher CPU configurations, and there is no more single-core version (there is no Core 2 Solo). As currently measured, the average performance difference between otherwise fairly equal Yonah and Merom machines appears to be around 10%.

In early 2007, Merom will be upgraded to an 800 MHz FSB, from 667 in Yonah and earlier Merom, as part of the Santa Rosa platform, which will also bring several other changes in its chipset.

So, that's about it. For the normal person, nothing much, really. Just a little evolutionary step. When 10.5 Leopard hits and Core 2 Duo gets to benefit from 64-bit mode, you'll see another performance boost, especially in some special areas.

Merom is also a wider core... Yonah can process 3 non-SSE instructions per clock cycle per core (of which there are two), plus SSE instructions. Merom can process up to 5 instructions, per core, per clock and also has a superior, faster implementation of SSE that is much more like Altivec on the G4/G5.

If you put it in a PC, it overclocks crazily. A Core2Duo 2.something ghz can hit 3+ ghz on aftermarket air heatsinkfans. A Core2Duo 1.86ghz can hit 3ghz easy on aftermarket air heatsinkfans. If you're looking for great value for a PC setup, grab a Core2Duo 1.86ghz, a sweet heatsink, and Gigabyte motherboard, and 1066mhz RAM. Then dial that sucker up from 1.86ghz to 3.0ghz. Sweeet. Throw in a nice X1800GTO ATI for some great performance-per-dollar gaming. Bottom line: dualcore great value, extreme overclocking potential.

Note: Does not apply to Core2Duo "Merom" mobile version, only desktop "Conroe" and "Allendale" Core2Duos.

Put a Merom in a PC and it overclocks like crazy too

Aw, that's watercooled. I wonder how it overclocks on AIR only. 8)

Watercooled Conroes (Desktop Core2Duos) would be pretty darn good.

although the test on the following Link at PC Perspective are done on Windows, it should give a similar result when it's on a Mac OSX

For non-overclockers and people who don't buy enough Ram, the Core 2 Duos don't seem to make that much difference IMO. I benchmarked by brother's Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz iMac against my Core Duo 1.66GHz Mini, both with 1GB Ram. I rendered a scene in Shake where all the processors were used. I also tested it on a quad and G4 powerbook. The results were:

4x2.5GHz G5 Quad (4GB Ram): 15-20 minutes (didn't time it exactly)
1.5GHz G4 powerbook (512MB Ram): 4 hours 4 minutes
Intel Imac Core 2 Duo 2.16 (1GB Ram): 1 hour 11 minutes
1.66 Core Duo Mini (1GB Ram): 1 hour 15 minutes

Unfortunately, because it took so long, I only ran the tests once on everything except the quad so the results won't be 100% accurate.

Hmmm.. nice benchies. A Quad-Xeon in there would be a nice result to check out.

That difference of just four minutes for a Yonah 1.66ghz vs Merom 2.16ghz is disgraceful
As I said: Core2Duo: Great performance and a good price when overclocked past 3ghz.!!

Oh yeah, and Core 2 Duo has better memory prefetch algorithms too.

Woop-de-dooo...!

Actually, it's a huge deal. Making high clocking, multicore, 5-issue wide core processors with SIMD is the easy part... keeping them fed on high latency, slow memory busses is the hard part!

Ok, I did the benchmark with the Mini and the iMac again because I wasn't convinced that the difference should be so small given the 30% difference in clock speed alone. Bear in mind, this test doesn't use enough Ram to start paging so it's a CPU-only test.

The new results are far more favourable:

Mini Core Duo 1.66 (1GB Ram): 1 hour 15 minutes - exactly the same as before
iMac Core 2 Duo 2.16 (1GB Ram): 49 minutes

This is more like it because the dual 2.16 should have at least been near half the speed of the quad G5. The first test was just a trial run and the iMac was networked to an old machine at the time so something must have been running in the background to slow it down. This second test was set up correctly.

I'm still a bit disappointed in the Core 2 Duo though. The iMac is still only 36% faster than the Mini, which can pretty much be attributed to the clock speed difference alone. It also cost about £1300 whereas my Mini + display was £430. So that's £870 to get a 128MB X1600 GPU, bigger HD and a 20" LCD vs 17" CRT, superdrive and 36% faster CPU. Judging PC parts, you can get that GPU for about £50 or less, the HD for £100 or less, faster DVD-RW for £20 and better display (2ms response 19") for under £200. The difference shouldn't be more than £400 or £500 taking into consideration the faster chip.

Since I'm not a gamer, I don't need the GPU, my CRT looks better and supports higher resolutions than Apple's display (I sat them right beside each other and the difference was clear to see - the LCD also shows tearing when gaming with or without vsync) and I don't need the extra disk space. Overall, I'm pretty happy with my new Mini.

I'm so glad to get away from the G4. Anyone who is considering a G4 over an Intel Mini, don't unless it's solely for say Photoshop. Rosetta is starting to suck. Programs will hang and crash randomly.

That's looking like a nice bench. Yes if you don't play PC or Mac games and you're not doing heavy encoding type stuff then a Mac Mini Core Duo is just nice.

CRTs are for me though, ancient evil technology. Takes up huge amount of space, burns your retinas. Are you saying the iMac Core 2 Duo LCD is showing tearing during gaming?

For the past year I've been using Windoze and gaming on a 17" 1280x1024 Sony LCD. For watching videos and movies it is not that great because the blacks are not rich. Windows use it is very nice and usable browsing sites, pr0n, etc. 8) Gaming on it is a first class experience, rich colours, HDR in HalfLife 2+ looks awesome on it, and vSync and refresh rates are very solid.

I can't imagine the latest iMac Core2 Duo iMacs having crap LCDs?? \

LCD's don't show tearing with VSYNC on unless you had a buggy driver or game. Or were using windowed mode. Mac OS X tears like crazy in windowed OpenGL regardless of your display type.

I'm afraid so. Even from a normal viewing distance, I was able to see a colored speckle pattern over the display - I've seen 2 Intel iMacs and they look the same so it's designed that way. This may be just how LCDs are. My CRT shows very uniform color.

I agree that LCDs are not so good for video because of the lack of richness in the blacks, which is why it surprises me that they have taken off so much in the video market.

As for the tearing, it was very noticeable to me and I am not a gamer by any stretch of the imagination. Playing Doom 3 and Quake 4, certain parts of the game showed pretty bad tearing. I tried playing with various options but nothing helped. It also lacks decent resolution support in games. This was the same in a few games that even said they supported widescreen. The highest resolution the iMac would accept was 1024x768, which by todays standards is pretty meagre given that I can play UT2k4 on my Mini at 1280x1024. This also leaves huge black bars on the sides.

I would love to switch to LCD but I have tried loads and I hate all of them because of poor color reproduction, which is view-dependent and aliasing, way too expensive, harder to clean, possibility of dead pixels, low resolution support.

I think I might just skip out LCD altogether but I'm hoping this technology:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/08/s...-and-personal/

will come into reasonably cheap computer displays. Launch date should be some time towards the end of 2007 though and prices won't be down for years after that.

Quick technical question relating to Core Duo vs Core 2 Duo. Dad is thinking of waiting for a Core 2 Duo powered MacBook, but all he does is Wordprocessing, and internet basically, and with the intel macs possibly running windows XP. Would the Core Duo surfice or should he wait for the Core 2 Duo?

Core Duo will be more than enough for your father's needs.

Dude, totally. SED is the bomb. Hm, "PlayStation 3 on my SED" has a nice sound to it, no? AWESOME.

Yeah, I know what you say, I can't believe too that LCD big widescreens have taken off sooo much. Plasmas had such an intangible, soft, rich, velvety quality to it. Get a good 1280x720p Plasma, 30inches or something, and sit back with a bit of HalfLife2:Episode1. Now that's real viewing pleasure.

Nonetheless, you obviously are very used to your CRT. I had 3 dead pixels on my Sony, my mum badgered the service centre people until they caved in and got a new panel part shipped in from Japan. Took two months, but now the 17" Sony LCD is dead-pixel free, and like I said, PC games are rich, exciting, smooth and crisp. The latest PC games increasingly have better support for higher definition pictures like 1600x1200 and widescreen support as well, AFAIK. One has to check on a game-by-game basis though what the support is like. I'm happy the games I like have excellent smoothness and responsive quality at 2xAA 16xAF 1280x1024. And HDR+AA, as implemented brilliantly (pun intended!) by Valve's HalfLife2:Episode1. As I've said many a time, on my AMD64 Venice OC'ed 6600GT OC'ed.

If the size or curvature of the CRT doesn't bug you, then certainly, hang on to it, and enjoy your CRT until SED shows up. Or maybe there are some delicious 720p plasmas out there but not in the 19" range though \