Intel's Core 2 Extreme Mobile Chips: A New Speed King

How do you define "Extreme"? How about as a high-velocity, quad-core processor packed into a mobile platform? That's what Intel announced this afternoon at the Intel Developers Forum. Heretofore known as Core 2 Extreme, the cat (or chips) are now officially out of the bag.

In July, the first Core 2 Duo Extreme Mobile X9100--a Penryn dual-core CPU--to show up at our labs debuted inside Micro Express's JFL9290 laptop. The PC World Test Center is still putting that machine through its paces (you can check out our assessment of its little brother, the Micro Express JFL9226, in the meantime), but the initial numbers are impressive. It dominated our WorldBench 6 tests, notching a score of 115 and posting decent frame rates in Doom 3 (47 frames per second at 1024 by 768 resolution, with antialiasing) courtesy of a 256MB nVidia GeForce 9600M GT GPU. The real speed king, though, is the QX9300 (a Penryn Quad Core)--and it's now out the door, launching this week.

View: the full story @ PCWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft to buy up to $100M in SUSE Linux support vouchers

Next Story

Photosynth released

15 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So you need an ultra-expensive mobile CPU to be able to play an old game at a below-average resolution with a decent frame rate? I think what mobile gamers really need is better graphics solution.

If you have big bucks, you can get SLI cards in laptops. I know some laptops that come with 8800M GTX's in SLI. There's also nothing wrong with the mobile line of Core 2, they are very powerful. Granted, gaming laptops ruin the battery life, but they are mobile, if you have an AC adapter at all times.

(Lasker said @ #4.2)
Best laptop for the money: MacBook Pro

Is it Tablet PC?
Does it have Core 2 Duo dual-core Penryn T8300 processr? 3 Gb RAM? 250 Gb HDD? Radeon HD 2300 video card? Normal weight. Long battery work time....
Does it have the cost of $1099? Like Gateway C-142XL.

Nice to think about, but I'm sure battery life will suck, at least compared to the dual core variants. Still interested to see how these play out though, since my Inspiron 9300 is starting to crap out (need to replace the motherboard due to a power circuit issue, and I don't want to spend $300+ on a new board for a nearly 3yr old laptop). Still though, it'd be nice to be able to have that kind of processing power on the go.

I'm with you man. My XPS Gen 2's screen has a bunch of vertical lines on it. It won't last much longer. It's $200 to replace the screen, and I see $550 17" laptop at the Dell Outlet. What to do?

(IceBreakerG said @ #2)
Nice to think about, but I'm sure battery life will suck, at least compared to the dual core variants. Still interested to see how these play out though, since my Inspiron 9300 is starting to crap out (need to replace the motherboard due to a power circuit issue, and I don't want to spend $300+ on a new board for a nearly 3yr old laptop). Still though, it'd be nice to be able to have that kind of processing power on the go.

im not so sure bud, my q6600 uses no more power than my old p4D 3.4ghz cpu did @800fsb. So id imagine comparable power requirements as the mobile core 2 duos.

to ec4912 if its out of warranty check your copper heatpipe cooler, had a M-1330 mobo swapped today at work, under the heatsink ontop of the nvidia gpu chip was a german shift key between gpu and heatpipe!

guy still swapped the motherboard anyway :P

(Mando said @ #2.2)
im not so sure bud, my q6600 uses no more power than my old p4D 3.4ghz cpu did @800fsb. So id imagine comparable power requirements as the mobile core 2 duos.

CPUs are not comparable between generations. The Pentium4 was a terrible architecture in terms of power efficiency. It was designed for one thing only: high clock speed. Its hyperpipeline wastes tons of processing time on branch mispredictions, a common occurrence in x86 code. The Core(1,2) architectures are much more power efficient, derived from the Pentium3 instead of the P4. No surprise that a dual-core Core chip consumes about as much as a single-core P4 if you factor in power efficiency differences. That said, a quad-core Core chip will most certainly suck down more power than a dual-core Core chip (same generation). The reduced transistor size will offer some power savings but not enough to compensate for twice the number of transistors.