![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/24/dual_core_intel_processors_for_low/page26.html
Sorry, Intel lied. Proof. Clams are bull now arn't they? Tom's hardware gets to the truth. It failed failed failed. This is shocking, no????????????????????????????
Core Duo is Intel's first step towards a new microarchitecture that will debut in Q3 2006. Its cornerstones are a wider instruction pipeline, larger cache, intelligent memory access, and a fusion of micro operations, macro operations and SSE enhancements (128 bit single cycle SSE). Intel claims to be able to outperform its competitor by 20% on a clock-to-clock basis, which initial benchmark results underscore. However, the performance numbers that can be found on the web are all based on Intel-assembled machines that could have been optimized: hybrid hard drive, tweaked memory options, and so on.
As we can see benches are not even close to 20% of a performance gane. More like 1% if none at all. Other benches show AMD does better overall.
Sorry, Intel lied. Proof. Clams are bull now arn't they? Tom's hardware gets to the truth. It failed failed failed. This is shocking, no????????????????????????????
Core Duo is Intel's first step towards a new microarchitecture that will debut in Q3 2006. Its cornerstones are a wider instruction pipeline, larger cache, intelligent memory access, and a fusion of micro operations, macro operations and SSE enhancements (128 bit single cycle SSE). Intel claims to be able to outperform its competitor by 20% on a clock-to-clock basis, which initial benchmark results underscore. However, the performance numbers that can be found on the web are all based on Intel-assembled machines that could have been optimized: hybrid hard drive, tweaked memory options, and so on.
As we can see benches are not even close to 20% of a performance gane. More like 1% if none at all. Other benches show AMD does better overall.
