The First Mobile Dual-Core
In 2006, Intel announced the Core Duo. The first dual-core processor for portable PCs boasted excellent performance—much better than the Pentium 4. It was also one of the first x86 processors to be truly dual-core. The cache, for example, is shared (whereas the Pentium D was more like an assembly of two processors in the same package). This processor was part of the Centrino Duo platform and was a huge success. The only drawback was that it was still a 32-bit processor, unlike the Pentium 4.
| Code name | Yonah |
| Date released | 2006 |
| Architecture | 32 bits |
| Data bus | 64 bits |
| Address bus | 32 bits |
| Maximum memory | 4 GB |
| L1 cache | 32 KB + 32 KB |
| L2 cache | 2,048 KB shared |
| Clock frequency | 1.06–2.33 GHz |
| FSB | 667 MHz |
| SIMD | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3 |
| SMT/SMP | Dual core |
| Fabrication process | 65 nm |
| Number of transistors | 151 million |
| TDP | 9-31 W |
| Voltage | 0.9–1.3 V |
| Die surface area | 91 mm² |
| Connector | Socket 479 |
A Core Solo version with one core was also made available, and the low-power-consumption versions used a 533 MHz bus (133 MHz QDR) instead of 667 MHz. This processor was used in servers (code name Sossaman), which was a first for a processor originally intended for the mobile world. Note that this processor didn’t officially use the Core architecture of the Core 2 Duo, and it was quickly replaced by the Core 2 Duo (Merom) in portable PCs. Also, the Yonah’s Socket 479 is different from the Socket 479 of other Pentium M processors.
Related Stories :
- Intel Reports Best Quarter Ever in 42-year History
- Return To Castle Intel: 16 Years Of Motherboard History
- Intel Core i7-4930MX Mobile CPU Unofficially Benchmarked
- Intel Developing the Efficient Ivy Bridge Pentium 2127U CPU
- Report: Intel Haswell CPU Pricing Possibly Leaked
- Lenovo Announces Yoga 11S, Packs Intel CPU, Windows 8
- CPU Charts 2012: 86 Processors From AMD And Intel, Tested
- Intel's Haswell May Be Last Interchangeable Desktop CPU?
- AMD FX-4170 Vs. Intel Core i3-3220: Which ~$125 CPU Should You Buy?
- Motorola Announces RARZi with 2GHz Intel CPU in the UK
great article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)
Looking forward to the AMD article.
To correct you. Core 2 Duo has ONLY 2 cores, not more, not less.
Core 2 Quad, has 4 cores and Core Solo has 1 core.
@Arkz
Yes there is a singal core,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ [...] processors
Ok it is not under the same branding but it is part of the same microarchitecture
I might be wrong, but i resemble that the Pentium 166 (32bits adress bus and all) had support for 4Gb of memory. I remember IBM sold it's top line (at that time) with 64Mb support (even with SDR PC100/66 support). Correct me if i'm wrong please.
The core 2 does supply 1-4 cores - 2 cores per die, where one might be disabled, and one or two dies on a socket. It's no less right to call a core2duo a cpu with 1-4 cores, than it is to put the pentium d on the same page as a single core prescot, as it's the very same principle.
great article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coree ... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)Looking forward to the AMD article.
Thanks for the heads-up! I tweaked that passage to better represent the Core 2 architecture's available configurations!
Ok it is not under the same branding but it is part of the same microarchitecture
Exactly. The article says:
There are many versions of the architecture, resulting in configurations with a different number of cores
There is no mention of the branding, so there is no actual error there, just misinterpretation.
great article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)Looking forward to the AMD article.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6819116039
Yes, it isn't called a "Core 2 Duo," but it uses the Core architecture and only has a single core enabled.
But I will have to say, there aren't any 3 core models...
Good to hear you're not only doing an AMD article, but an ATI one as well (in response to the Nvidia article you did earlier, assuming). A sign of class from the new Tom's is a welcome one.
I wish they would get rid of those stupid SNAP Linkbubless and Inteltex misguiding links. Who ever invented those stupid annoying double lined text popups should have been burned at the stake
What Intelitext do you speak of ? lol (I use a good Hosts file from MVP) blocks most of that crud.
Anyway great article was like a trip down memory lane for me, first Intel CPU I got to use was a 8086 and wow it was slow (I was a kid with ADD give me a break lol) well maybe it was not slow and it was the floppy drive that killed me... Either way best game on it was Qbasic uugghh I think I remember it having CGA with a mighty 4 colors !! I had some paint program for it too.
Compared to Athlon, Pentium 4 is a big loser.
So why is the Pentium 4 "unforgettable"?
My AMD machine (K6 233MHz) smoked all my college buddies Pentium 233s. MatLab, Visio, Quattro Pro, PSPICE, Duke Nukem - everything ran faster on my machine. And it cost me $400 less than the comparable Intel setup.
Just 15? I figure its anything with SX after it, anything Celeron and most of anything HT (hyperthreading heat trap)
oops, my dyslexia read the thing as Most Forgettable.., ignore post above. Maybe thats the next article
Compared to Athlon, Pentium 4 is a big loser. So why is the Pentium 4 "unforgettable"?
Because it was a huge part of CPU history? IDK. Considering that it was not that bad until Prescott, which I am sad they didn't mention.
But the Pentium 4 will always be remembered in my eyes thanks to the Blue Man Group. Them and their crazy stuff.
My AMD machine (K6 233MHz) smoked all my college buddies Pentium 233s. MatLab, Visio, Quattro Pro, PSPICE, Duke Nukem - everything ran faster on my machine. And it cost me $400 less than the comparable Intel setup.
Thats nice. Because this is obviously a competition.
No wait its not. Its just a nice walk down memory lane and they are going to do AMD next so no need for that.
I for one am suprised that they didn't include the Pentium 805. I remember reading how well that one OCed and when OCed it smoked the highest end available and it only cost $150 bucks.
Seriously why bring AMD into this? Its just nice memories not a comparison.
Enjoyed the article, it was a nice walk down memory lane to my teenage nerdhood.
Considering that it was not that bad until Prescott, which I am sad they didn't mention.
If the best you can say about it is "that it was not that bad," that would seem to indicate it wasn't particularly worth remembering.
You forgot the 486DX5 133. Allowed me to up a 486/50 to Pentium 75 performance with just a chip. Worked well till programs started to check for a true Pentium chip before running/installing.