Apple chose well: Anandtech – Intel Core 2 Duo ‘the fastest desktop processor we’ve ever tested’

“The architecture is called Core, processor family is Core 2, the product names are Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme. In the past we’ve talked about its architecture and even previewed its performance, but today is the real deal. We’ve all been waiting for this day, the day Intel lifts the last remaining curtain on the chip that is designed to re-take the performance crown from AMD, to return Intel to its days of glory,” Anand Lal Shimpi reports for AnandTech.

“What you see before you is not the power hungry, poor performing, non-competitive garbage (sorry guys, it’s the truth) that Intel has been shoving down our throats for the greater part of the past 5 years. No, you’re instead looking at the most impressive piece of silicon the world has ever seen, at the fastest desktop processor we’ve ever tested. What you’re looking at is Conroe and today is its birthday,” Lal Shimpi reports.

“Intel’s new Core 2 lineup has basically made all previous Intel processors worthless. The performance of the new Core 2 CPUs is so much greater, with much lower power consumption, that owners of NetBurst based processors may want to dust off the old drill bits and make some neat looking keychains,” Lal Shimpi reports.

Lal Shimpi reports, “AMD won’t have an architectural update of the Athlon 64 X2 until sometime in 2007 or 2008, thus its only response to Intel’s Core 2 lineup today is to also reduce pricing.”

“Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X6800 didn’t lose a single benchmark in our comparison; not a single one. In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel’s previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. In one day, Intel has made its entire Pentium D lineup of processors obsolete,” Lal Shimpi reports. “Compared to AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn’t stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD’s FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Is anyone still questioning whether Apple picked the right horse?

Related articles:
RUMOR: Intel’s Woodcrest to power Apple’s next-gen high-performance Mac Pro desktops – July 11, 2006
Intel aims for 32 cores by 2010 – July 10, 2006
PC Mag: ‘Top Ten’ list of things to know about Intel’s new Core 2 Duo processors – July 07, 2006
RUMOR: Apple to unveil ‘Mac Pro’ with new enclosure design, Intel Core 2 Duo at WWDC next month – July 03, 2006
Report: Dell signs deal with AMD for millions of chips for full range of desktops, notebooks – June 26, 2006
Independent benchmarks: Intel Core 2 Duo (Conroe) 2.67 GHz – June 22, 2006
Apple chose well: Intel poised to take massive lead across the board over AMD – June 07, 2006

32 Comments

  1. Trevor,

    AMD has no answer for the foreseeable future and even the answers they hope to have are weak.

    No wonder Dell signed with AMD: Cut-rate Dell cares more about their price per chip than performance for their misinformed customers.

  2. All i know is that I am still using my Powerbook 1.67 for a little while longer. By the time I am ready for a Macbook Pro they will be so fast and power efficient, and hopefully will have Blue-ray as well =P It will be worth the wait thats for sure.

  3. I can’t get my hands on one of these for at least a year, maybe two … unless I win the lottery. “My” first MacIntel is likely o be my wife’s iMac upgrade (from a G4). And, after that, our G4 iBook to a 13″ MacBook (I’ve only been touting that screen size for two or three years now). Maybe THEN I’ll be able to justify updating my tower – which will still be more computer than I need – even then. (Drool … Slobber) I wants. I WANTS!

  4. It’s also gratifying for me to see the older Intel processors called crappy. The PowerPC chips are good chips overall– too bad they have been seemingly abandoned for Cell. Boy, does it look like that was a really bad decision…

  5. Let’s not forget that Apple had quite a bit of technology and design input into the PowerPC family, technology that Apple kept when it started working with Intel. I’m sure Intel pursued Apple so hard because Intel needed Apple’s technology to create fast, low-power chips, and Apple needed Intel’s dedicated desktop/laptop production capabilities.

    Intel is benefiting from Apple’s processor technology, and Apple is benefiting from Intel’s production dedication to desktop/laptop computers. While some may not like the fact that it’s Intel, the reality is that there isn’t a better match for Apple out there.

  6. Loyal is as loyal does.

    The facts are:

    If Apple was still PowerPC, we would have received rev’s to the lineup, but over the past year, since Intel was announced, Apple quit rev-ing any PPC products.

    Let us assume IBM had produced for Apple another generation of Power chips, call it a “G6.”

    What would we Mac folks be saying about Intel? We’d be saying “Oh that’s nice, AMD and Intel are battling it out for second place. When Intel and AMD get a real challenger for AltiVech I’ll start listening, bla, bla, bla…”

    This is the kind of commentary we would be seeing today.

    Due to Apple and IBM no longer continuing development together on a kick butt desktop/server solution, the current G5 is languishing, and yes the Conroe processor now takes first place – for native application use.

    But Conroe is not for the Mac Pro. Expect Apple to go right to the top with Woodcrest for its upcoming Mac Pro lineup.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.