Ten Year Anniversary of Core 2 Duo and Conroe

[NTMBK]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10525...onroe-moores-law-is-dead-long-live-moores-law

Wow, 10 years. Crazy that there's been so little progress since then:

Not even a doubling in single-thread performance in 10 years, and only a 4-fold improvement in multithreaded. For comparison, 10 years before Conroe, we were still at 200MHz Pentium Pro- imagine if the last 10 years had seen as much improvement as the 10 before!

 

[frozentundra123456]

Eventually though, pretty much every type of performance plateaus out. One cannot expect the rapid gains seen during the inital phases of a technology to continue indefinitely. That said, I do believe intel could have done more to improve performance, the obvious things being adding a hex core to the mainstream and making more use of edram.

In addition, whether we like it or not, the performance emphasis has shifted from absolute cpu performance to igpu performance and performance per watt. Obviously, igpu performance has increased immensely, going from none at all to pretty decent for normal use. It would also be interesting to compare preformance per watt between something like a core 2 duo and a skylake core M.

 

[Sheep221]

In terms of computer evolution, more was done during the previous decade, by the time core 2 was released, it relied on old LGA 775 socket and P6 architecture, there was no change in operating systems and no change in multithreading or multi-core computing or in other hardware either. It definitely brought more performance and less heat to the table, but it didn't really change how we use computers at all. What I wanted to say is that C2D was not something that fell from the sky on one sunny day in the middle of 2006.

 

[SpaceBeer]

It is interesting to see Celeron G1620 with 25% higher frequency to be "only" 35% faster. After 7 years and several architetures this is not so large "IPC" improvement. Though it is 3 times cheaper than E6400. And I don't even know what to say to these Bulldozer (based) CPUs results .

But it is nice to see how great this architecture is, and how hard is to make good CPU

 

[SAAA]

Well you said it yourself: 200MHz vs over 2GHz in ten years, architecture aside that was the deal back then.
Every gen almost doubled clockspeed, it's easy to get more performance that way... now ten years laters clock doubled at most, IPC got ~50%ish higher depending on the case but that's it.

We are missing a large portion of the multithreaded cake though, once servers didn't have an advantage as today: dual cpus vs single platform maybe, hardly like modern quads vs 24-cores with several chips...

 

[Phynaz]

Not even a doubling in single-thread performance in 10 years, and only a 4-fold improvement in multithreaded.

Using 10 year old code. The vast increase in computing performance comes from new instructions.

 

[TheELF]

3d particle movement and image viewing....the exact and only things consumers care about...not!

 

[poofyhairguy]

Now compared GPUs:

X1950 XTX (top 2006 AMD GPU) - 375 GFLOPs

Fury X (technically a 2015 card) - 8600 GFLOPs (almost 23x increase)

Its obvious where the emphasis is now.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Now compared GPUs:

X1950 XTX (top 2006 AMD GPU) - 375 GFLOPs

Fury X (technically a 2015 card) - 8600 GFLOPs (almost 23x increase)

Its obvious where the emphasis is now.

The difference in iGPUs is even more startling.

GMA 4500 = ~27 Gflops
Iris Pro 580 ~ 1152 Gflops

A 42x increase in raw compute alone, not looking at other factors such as geometry, fill rate, bandwidth, etc.

My cell phone has more than 5x the GPU power of my old C2D laptop...

 

[jhu]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10525...onroe-moores-law-is-dead-long-live-moores-law

Wow, 10 years. Crazy that there's been so little progress since then:

Not even a doubling in single-thread performance in 10 years, and only a 4-fold improvement in multithreaded. For comparison, 10 years before Conroe, we were still at 200MHz Pentium Pro- imagine if the last 10 years had seen as much improvement as the 10 before!

Relevant:

 

[BigDaveX]

There's been a lot more progress on the server/workstation side than client. Ten years ago Intel's top-end multiprocessor chip was a dual-core Woodcrest Xeon on a platform that was, in all honesty, total sh*t. Now we've got 22-core Broadwell Xeons (24-core if you count the EX models) on a much more advanced platform.

 

[VirtualLarry]

FWIW, I'm currently on my G4400 (non-OC) on my ASRock DeskMini (H110 chipset), my new toy.

I installed Win10 Pro 64-bit. Just installed CoreTemp 1.1 for S&G, and it's showing my "Power:" usage, at idle at 3.6W, and has gone as high as 15W browsing this site.

Can you imagine the wattage that a C2D would have, doing the same thing, even if it could muster as much CPU grunt as this G4400?

Overall performance hasn't improved hugely (though it has improved), but performance/watt has increased by leaps and bounds.

 

[Eug]

I've always thought that Core 2 Duo was the great equalizer. All of a sudden, everyone had CPUs that could do most mainstream stuff well. This was in stark contrast to years prior where consumers had to pay $$$ to get CPUs that did even basic stuff well.

This is not just because of raw speed, but also because 64-bit became mainstream, and it would be easy to go beyond 3 or 4 GB at that point.

Moreover, as discussed in the other Core 2 thread, even today it continues to do well with much of the mainstream stuff.

FWIW, I'm currently on my G4400 (non-OC) on my ASRock DeskMini (H110 chipset), my new toy.

I installed Win10 Pro 64-bit. Just installed CoreTemp 1.1 for S&G, and it's showing my "Power:" usage, at idle at 3.6W, and has gone as high as 15W browsing this site.

Can you imagine the wattage that a C2D would have, doing the same thing, even if it could muster as much CPU grunt as this G4400?

Overall performance hasn't improved hugely (though it has improved), but performance/watt has increased by leaps and bounds.

It's interesting to see Core M designs now competing with 25 W Core 2 Duo designs from back then. Compute speed here hasn't grown hugely, but the laptop designs have become, much, much sexier, and battery life is way longer too.

However, I'm currently typing on a Pentium G840. It's 2.8 GHz, 5 years old, and 65 W TDP, as compared to your 1 year-old 3.3 GHz 54W G4400. It should be noted that a 2008 Core 2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz with the same 65 W TDP is roughly in the same performance ballpark as my aforementioned Pentium G840, which comes from the Core i era.

 

[Erithan13]

Techspot did a comparison last year, still absolutely relevant:

Yeah you can find the odd benchmark or game that's 'only' twice as fast on the newer CPUs, but anything that hits the CPU hard will have Core 2 crumbling to pieces while the i7s breeze on effortlessly. You want to talk disappointment start speculating on the future of CPU improvements in the next 5 years given how Sandy Bridge to Skylake has went.

 

[Eug]

Techspot did a comparison last year, still absolutely relevant:

Yeah you can find the odd benchmark or game that's 'only' twice as fast on the newer CPUs, but anything that hits the CPU hard will have Core 2 crumbling to pieces while the i7s breeze on effortlessly. You want to talk disappointment start speculating on the future of CPU improvements in the next 5 years given how Sandy Bridge to Skylake has went.

But as I alluded to earlier is that there is a difference in the experience now for the mainstream. Just look at the E8600 that I was talking about. With enough RAM it is more than fine for most mainstream basic usage, even today. What this means is that a lowly Pentium is fine for most mainstream users in 2016. Only heavier users really need Core i7.

However, back 15 years ago, getting a low end CPU meant everything was slow, even basic usage.

BTW, it seems from those graphs my 7 year-old Core i7 870 is still doing pretty well.

 

[poofyhairguy]

There's been a lot more progress on the server/workstation side than client. Ten years ago Intel's top-end multiprocessor chip was a dual-core Woodcrest Xeon on a platform that was, in all honesty, total sh*t. Now we've got 22-core Broadwell Xeons (24-core if you count the EX models) on a much more advanced platform.

That makes me mad for some reason I can't explain.

 

[frozentundra123456]

That makes me mad for some reason I can't explain.

Well, intel was "kind" enough to let some of their server rejects filter down to us as the HEDT platform at semi-decent to outrageous prices, depending on the chip. A 6950X would probably be, what, 5 to 10 times faster in MT than a core 2 duo?

But I agree, it is frustrating to see so much progress on the server side, and so little on the consumer side. OTOH, there is no killer app in the consumer space for "moar cores". In fact, it seems the consumer side is going the opposite direction. "Apps" (I hate that term for some reason, especially in win 10 when real honest to god programs are renamed as "apps". Want to do something that windows used to do for you? Go to the Windows Store and download an app. @$@$%^%^ you MS) are being dumbed down to run on mobile phones. (End of old fart rant).

 

[bigboxes]

Takes me down memory lane. I couldn't afford a new Intel platform and just upgraded my Athlon 64 3200+ to the X2 4400+. Went all out on that build. Even sleeved all my wiring, including the PSU.

Found my old write up (on another site) of my build. Here's a pic of the beast. Loved that box! I have that processor sitting on my desktop to this day. Memories! :whiste:

 

[poofyhairguy]

Well, intel was "kind" enough to let some of their server rejects filter down to us as the HEDT platform at semi-decent to outrageous prices, depending on the chip. A 6950X would probably be, what, 5 to 10 times faster in MT than a core 2 duo?

But I agree, it is frustrating to see so much progress on the server side, and so little on the consumer side. OTOH, there is no killer app in the consumer space for "moar cores". In fact, it seems the consumer side is going the opposite direction. "Apps" (I hate that term for some reason, especially in win 10 when real honest to god programs are renamed as "apps". Want to do something that windows used to do for you? Go to the Windows Store and download an app. @$@$%^%^ you MS) are being dumbed down to run on mobile phones. (End of old fart rant).

I don't know. It feel like in a few years GPU upgrades won't matter as much because both midrange and high end is CPU limited unless you overclock or pay out the ass for X. The gameplay gap between the 1080 and 1070 is scary to me, it should be larger but the CPU is holding the 1080 back.

 

[StinkyPinky]

The way things are going, the ten year anniversary for Sandy Bridge will be even more depressing.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...it-finally-time-to-upgrade-your-core-i5-2500k

Might be cheaper to just get faster ram going by those benchmarks.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Maybe DX12 will eliminate some of the cpu bottlenecks though.

 

[XavierMace]

At least AMD can finally say they are faster than a C2D.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Is that 3DPM beta 2, or the buggy old version?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38156222&postcount=167

 

[StrangerGuy]

It's interesting to see Core M designs now competing with 25 W Core 2 Duo designs from back then. Compute speed here hasn't grown hugely, but the laptop designs have become, much, much sexier, and battery life is way longer too.

However, I'm currently typing on a Pentium G840. It's 2.8 GHz, 5 years old, and 65 W TDP, as compared to your 1 year-old 3.3 GHz 54W G4400. It should be noted that a 2008 Core 2 Duo E8600 3.3 GHz with the same 65 W TDP is roughly in the same performance ballpark as my aforementioned Pentium G840, which comes from the Core i era.

A E8600 system was already drawing 150W in idle, while SB and later are doing it at <50W, while Haswell/Skylake i7 doesn't break 140W at load even with an extra 2 cores and 6 threads. A 2C/2T G3258 slaughters the E8600 in performance and power draw: 50% faster ST at 1/3 the system load power. The delta grows even bigger if we are doing apples-to-apples on mobile and server chips.

Saying there isn't any much progress since 2006 is a load of crock. It's just aimed at the 95% of users in mind.

 

[SPBHM]

A E8600 system was already drawing 150W in idle, while SB and later are doing it at <50W, while Haswell/Skylake i7 doesn't break 140W at load even with an extra 2 cored and 6 threads. The delta grows even bigger if we are doing apples-to-apples on mobile and server chips.

Saying there isn't any much progress since 2006 is a load of crock. It's just aimed at the 95% of users in mind.

the actual power draw from the e8600 is very low
you are probably using numbers from inefficient motherboards + power hungry VGAs.
my E5420 (45nm C2Q 2.5GHz) + G31 motherboard uses under 45W idle for the whole PC... adding something like an HD 4870 would make it jump to around 100W idle...