Intel's 15 Most Unforgettable x86 CPUs

Today's Hotness: The Core 2 Duo

In 2006, Intel released a processor that quickly became a best-seller: the Core 2 Duo. Derived from work done on the Pentium M, this processor uses a new Core architecture. Before, Intel had two lines of processors—the Pentium 4 for desktops, Pentium M for mobiles, and both lines for servers. In contrast, Intel now has a single micro-architecture on which all of its product lines draw. The 64-bit Core 2 Duo is represented from the low end to the high end, for desktop computers, portables and servers.

There are many versions of the architecture, resulting in configurations with a different number of cores (one to four, yielding everything from Solos to Quads), cache memory (512 KB to 12 MB), and the FSB (between 400 and 1600 MHz). The model shown here is the original Core 2 Duo, but faster versions (at 45 nm) exist.

Intel Core 2 Duo
Code name Conroe
Date released 2006
Architecture 64 bits
Data bus 64 bits
Address bus 64 (actual 36) bits
Maximum memory 64 GB
L1 cache 32 KB + 32 KB
L2 cache 2,048 KB shared
Clock frequency 1.8-3 GHz
FSB 800-1066-1333 MHz
SIMD MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3
SMT/SMP Dual core
Fabrication process 65 nm
Number of transistors 291 million
TDP 65 W
Voltage 1.5 V
Die surface area 143 mm²
Connector LGA 775

The mobile versions (Merom) are basically identical (but not as fast, with a slower FSB) whereas the Extreme Edition versions are faster. The Core 2 Duo also exists in a four-core version, which was, in fact, two Conroes in the same package. The 45 nm version of the Core 2 Duo (Penryn) has a larger cache and generates less heat, but is still fundamentally similar to this model.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
82 comments
    Your comment
  • Arkz
    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.
    -4
  • aleluja
    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.
    7
  • Anonymous
    @Arkz

    Yes there is a singal core,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Single-Core_Mobile_processors

    Ok it is not under the same branding but it is part of the same microarchitecture
    3
  • Yuka
    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.
    1
  • neiroatopelcc
    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.
    -1
  • cangelini
    Arkzgreat 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!
    -1
  • randomizer
    vosesterOk it is not under the same branding but it is part of the same microarchitecture

    Exactly. The article says:

    ArticleThere 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.
    1
  • ImSpartacus
    Arkzgreat 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/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116039

    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...
    0
  • magicandy
    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.
    4
  • harrycat88
    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
    6
  • JonathanDeane
    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.
    0
  • johnlove
    Compared to Athlon, Pentium 4 is a big loser.
    So why is the Pentium 4 "unforgettable"?
    0
  • Anonymous
    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.
    0
  • warezme
    Just 15? I figure its anything with SX after it, anything Celeron and most of anything HT (hyperthreading heat trap)
    0
  • warezme
    oops, my dyslexia read the thing as Most Forgettable.., ignore post above. Maybe thats the next article
    0
  • jimmysmitty
    johnloveCompared 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.

    theDagdaMy 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.
    -1
  • ovaltineplease
    Enjoyed the article, it was a nice walk down memory lane to my teenage nerdhood.
    0
  • snarfies1
    jimmysmittyConsidering 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.
    0
  • Anonymous
    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.
    0
  • theLaminator
    I've got a working luch box with a 386 in it complete with network cards, Working pentium box, a PIII box, the laptop I still use is a P4 3.0Ghz (an hour and half battery life lol), and my new rig has A core 2 duo E8400 OC'd to 4.0Ghz. Good times for me with Intel
    0