Computer Reviews and Computer Products – Computer Shopper
Computer Shopper > Reviews > Miscellaneous Editorial Content


Search:
Go!


Alpha Blog: CNET's gadget & tech news and opinions blogged by our editors
August 28, 2006, 8:04 AM PDT
Intel releases Core 2 Duo for laptops
Posted by: Michelle Thatcher

Intel's Core 2 Duo processor
The Intel Core 2 Duo processor gives a modest performance boost
[+] Enlarge photo
Editors' note: The MobileMark performance and battery life scores in this post are currently being reevaluated by CNET Labs. Results will be updated here as needed.

As promised at last month's launch event, this morning saw the release of the laptop versions of Intel's Core 2 Duo processors. The laptop chips boast the same architectural improvements as their desktop brethren; the laptop versions are simply clocked slower and feature a slower frontside bus (667MHz). Intel claims you'll see a 20 percent performance boost over previous-generation Core Duo chips. In addition, the laptop processors feature a few power-saving enhancements, which our early tests show don't do a whole lot to extend battery life. The line comprises five chips at a range of prices:

  • Intel Core 2 Duo T7600 (2.33GHz): $637
  • Intel Core 2 Duo T7400 (2.16GHz): $423
  • Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 (2.00GHz): $294
  • Intel Core 2 Duo T5600 (1.83GHz): $241
  • Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 (1.66GHz): $209

    We were able to run both a Core Duo and a Core 2 Duo chip through CNET Labs' suite of performance benchmarks to see if the new processors lived up to Intel's claims. To be sure the platforms were identical, we tested both chips in the same Intel-provided whitebook; the comparison isn't strictly apples-to-apples, though, because we tested a top-of-the-line 2.33GHz Core 2 Duo processor against a slightly slower 2.16GHz Core Duo processor. Nevertheless, the Core 2 Duo chip ran 27 percent faster than the Core Duo chip on our iTunes encoding test, which almost exclusively measures a laptop's CPU capabilities. The other subsystems--chipset, memory, hard drive--play a larger role in our new multitasking and Photoshop tests; the Core 2 Duo laptop ran between 13 percent and 14 percent faster on those two tests than the Core Duo reference system, respectively.

    Application tests
    (Shorter bars indicate better performance)
    Multitasking test
    iTunes test
    Photoshop CS2 test
    Intel Core Duo
    272
    219
    387
    Intel Core 2 Duo
    234
    172
    336
    Note: In seconds

    Games tests
    (Longer bars indicate better performance)
    Quake 4
    F.E.A.R.
    Intel Core Duo
    37
    18
    Intel Core 2 Duo
    36
    18
    Note: In frames per second

    BAPCo MobileMark2005 performance rating
    (Longer bars indicate better performance)
    Intel Core Duo
    268
    Intel Core 2 Duo
    254
    Note: In mobile marks

    BAPCo MobileMark2005 battery life minutes
    (Longer bars indicate better performance)
    Intel Core Duo
    132
    Intel Core 2 Duo
    120
    Note: In minutes

    System configurations:

    Intel Core Duo
    Windows XP Media Center; 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo T2600; 1GB DDR2 SDRAM PC5300 666MHz; ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 512MB; Hitachi Travelstar 7K100 100GB 7,200rpm

    Intel Core 2 Duo
    Windows XP Media Center; 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T7600; 1GB DDR2 SDRAM PC5300 666MHz; ATI Mobility Radeon x1600 512MB; Hitachi Travelstar 7K100 100GB 7,200rpm

    In short, initial results from CNET Labs indicate that Core 2 Duo chips are showing some modest improvements over previous-generation Intel processors, but so far it's not looking to be a dominant victory. Battery life remained essentially unchanged, which is more or less what Intel promised one month ago.

    We are working to get our hands on the four other members of Intel's Core 2 Duo line of laptop processors, and we'll report back as soon as we've put them through the paces. Meanwhile, CNET is kicking off our mobile Core 2 Duo coverage with reviews of the Dell XPS M1710 and Gateway M255E; reviews of systems from Alienware and bargain manufacturer PC Club, as well as other vendors, will post throughout the week. Keep an eye on our Core 2 Duo page for the latest about the new processor from CNET News and Reviews.

  • TalkBack
    6 messages

    This is such a poor and inaccruate test

    CNET needs to get their act together. Toms Hardware (the Authoratative, Non-Biased Source) shows tons of benchmarks proving this one a total sham.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/index.html

    CNET, Please quit wasting people time and giving inaccruate reviews.
    by baurd (See profile) - September 29, 2006 7:41 PM PDT

    This is such a poor and inaccruate test

    CNET needs to get their act together. Toms Hardware (the Authoratative, Non-Biased Source) shows tons of benchmarks proving this one a total sham.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/index.html

    CNET, Please quit wasting people time and giving inaccruate reviews.
    by baurd (See profile) - September 29, 2006 7:41 PM PDT
    5 out of 5 users found this comment helpful

    Graphs are showing core 2 duo perfoming worse!?

    In the game and BAPco tests the graphs are saying Core 2 Duo is performing worse but the article says better. Is there a mistake? At any rate, even a small decrease in battery life is unacceptable for a next generation "20%" more power saving chip, isn't it?
    by silvervein (See profile) - August 29, 2006 4:45 AM PDT
    15 out of 15 users found this comment helpful | 1 comment

    Will upgrade for 64-bit, possibly... eventually

    I'm under the assumption that the Core 2 Duo chips are 64-bit? I own an HP dv2050us notebook, with a 1.73 CoreDuo at 533FSB. I want to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo at the same time I upgrade to Vista one day (probably a year or two down the road). I asked HP if I could upgrade to a Core 2 Duo, which is 667FSB, and they said NO, because my board won't support 667FSB. Then they proceeded to recommend CoreDuo upgrade chips -- some of which were 667FSB.

    I fully believe they are wrong, or just misinformed by their techies at this point. The mobo can and does support 667FSB chips in the dv2000 series, and bios is the same for all. The Intel chipset checks out for this, as well.

    Hopefully, by next year, HP will figure this out, and make any bios upgrades available, if they are even needed at all.

    I am waiting around to see how important 64-bit (and Vista) will be in the future.
    by dfichtner (See profile) - August 28, 2006 6:25 PM PDT
    0 out of 10 users found this comment helpful

    Not Worth The Upgrade

    From the charts shown here, Core 2 Duo portable does not even have an advantage. A slower Core Duo processor actually beat it in a few tests. I have the Core Duo M1710(2.0 ghz) and there is no reason I should even look to upgrade. Sure the Core 2 Duo are great processors(I have an E6700 in my desktop) but I don't think that people should rush out and buy the portable versions. Save your money and wait for Intel and AMD's next line of mobile chips. Also, wait for programs and games to take advantage of multiple threads to think about upgrading to a Dual Core processor.
    by thefox84 (See profile) - August 28, 2006 12:42 PM PDT
    10 out of 10 users found this comment helpful

    August 2006 archive

    S M Tu W Th F S
        1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 10 11 12
    13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    20 21 22 23 24 25 26
    27 28 29 30 31

    for Alpha.CNET.com

    1x1
     

    advertisement
    Click Here

    Popular on CBS sites: Fantasy Football | Miley Cyrus | MLB | Wii | GPS | Recipes | Mock Draft


    © 2008 CNET Networks, Inc., a CBS Company. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use