<b>Updated</b> CPU Cheatsheet - Seven Years of Covert CPU Operations
by Jarred Walton on August 28, 2004 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Introduction
Update: 8/27/04 - The charts have all been revised. Thanks go out to all the people that posted corrections in the comments section as well as sending them via email. In addition to the corrections, some further information and commentary has been added to the pages. For anyone that actually comes back to this article for reference information, enjoy the changes!
Foreword by Kristopher Kubicki:
From time to time we stumble upon some truly gifted and patient people here at
AnandTech. Some weeks ago I wrote a
CPU codename cheatsheet
as just something to do in an airport terminal to kill time. Very soon after,
an extremely diligent Jarred Walton showed me his rendition of the CPU family
tree that he was keeping just for fun!? Knowing I was bested, I offered Jarred
a chance at writing a pilot for AT, and here it is! Please enjoy the second,
extremely thorough CPU Cheatsheet 2.0.
But loud! what lurks in yonder chassis, hot?
A CPU, my programs it will run!
O Pentium, Pentium! wherefore art thou Pentium?
Obscure thy benchmarks and refuse thy name.
What's in a name? that which we call a chip
By any other name would run as fast.
My sincere apologies to Shakespeare, but that mangled version of Romeo and Juliet is an apt description of the world of computer processors. Once upon a time, we dealt with part numbers and megahertz. Larger numbers meant you had a faster computer. 80286 was faster than 8088 and 8086, and the 80386 was faster still, with the 80486 being the king of performance. Life was simple, and life was good. But that is the distant past; welcome to the present.
Where once we had a relatively small number of processor parts to choose from, we are now inundated with product names, model numbers, code names, and features. Keeping track of what each one means is becoming a rather daunting task. Sure, you can always try Googling the information, but sometimes you'll get conflicting information, or unrelated web sites, or only small tidbits of what you're trying to find out. So, why not put together a clear, concise document that contains all of the relevant information? Easier said than done; however, that is exactly what is attempted in this article.
In order to keep things even remotely concise, the cutoff line has been arbitrarily set to the Pentium II and later Intel processors, and the Athlon and later AMD processors. Anything before that might be interesting for those looking at the history of processors, but for all practical purposes, CPUs that old are no longer worth using. Also absent will be figures for power draw and heat dissipation, mainly because I'm not overly concerned with those values, not to mention that AMD and Intel have very different ways of reporting this information. Besides, Intel and AMD design and test their CPUs with a variety of heatsinks, motherboards, and other components to ensure that everything runs properly, so if you use the proper components, you should be fine.
So what will be included? For this first installment, details on clock frequencies, bus speeds, cache sizes, transistor counts, code names, and a few other items has been compiled. The use of model numbers with processors is also something people will likely have trouble keeping straight, so the details of processors for all Athlon XP and later AMD chips and Pentium 4 and later Intel chips will follow. The code names and features will be presented first, with individual processor specifics listed on the later pages. As a whole, it should be a useful quick reference - or cheat sheet, if you prefer - for anyone trying to find details on a modern x86 processor.
With that said, on to the AMD processors. Why AMD first? Because someone has to be first, and AMD comes before Intel in the alphabet.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
74 Comments
View All Comments
TrogdorJW - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
No problem, Dave - I'm not offended by any means. It's "distributed research" as far as I'm concerned. It's SMP for writers (as long as they're computer geeks, at least).I of course have only personally dealt with a small fraction of the total number of CPUs, since I have never worked for AMD or Intel. I'm sure there are some employees from those two companies that could provide many missing details if they chose to do so. I have to be honest that I reached the point where I just wasn't seeing any mistakes or ommissions because I had been looking at the charts and data for far too long.
At some point in the coming months, I may look at addressing some of the remaining gaps (i.e. no P3, P2, Duron, or early Athlon CPUs are listed). Until then, I'll simply work on updating the current charts.
One final note: I'm amazed (shocked, even) that there hasn't even been one flame about my terrible Shakespeare parody in the introduction. I did it sort of as a joke, but when my wife looked at it, she groaned in pain. You can thank Kris for removing the Timbuk-3 quote from the conclusion. Hahaha... :D
I've got a busy night (elsewhere), so you'll probably have to wait until after 1 AM PST before I get any real updates to the pages done.
KristopherKubicki - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
The mobile athlons are better refered to as Mobile Athlon 4,Kristopher
johnsonx - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
Jarred,I totally agree with your 'aside note'. I hope you didn't take my corrections/addendums as criticism of your effort; if there is to be a 'CPU Cheatsheet', it should be as correct as possible which takes outside input.
BTW, I kept my comments to the desktop/server arena because notebooks often use otherwise unknown variants of chips. If mobile chips are included here, then they should be listed as such. For example, it is true that 133/266 FSB Bartons do exist as Mobile AthlonXP's (and the AthlonMP 2800+ as well), but not as regular AthlonXP's. I've seen other odd variants in notebooks; probably chips meant to satisfy a particular OEM's requirements (like I could swear I've seen a notebook with Mobile AthlonXP 1000+). Then of course if you get into Mobile AXP's, then you've got that tiny uPGA socket-563 to deal with as well. What a mess...
Regarding the 512k Clawhammer vs. Newcastle: I've now gotten the impression that the original OEM 2800+ was (and maybe still is) a Clawhammer, while all the retail ones are Newcastle. My evidence for this theory is that all 3000+ chips are 2.0Ghz, 512k cache; the original ones were 512k Clawhammers and in retail carried the part number ADA3000BOX. The newer ones are Newcastles, and carry the retail part number ADA3000AXBOX. However, the retail 2800+, which came out well after the OEM 2800+, did and still does carry the part number ADA2800BOX. This leads me to conclude that AMD adds the 'AX' when they change cores in the same model number, and further that the retail 2800+ started with the Newcastle core, as the AX has not been added to denote a core change (since I think we all agree that the retail 2800's you can buy today are indeed Newcastles).
Regards,
Dave
silentsnow - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
#25, #26There is a general consensus that all 4AP and 4AR OPN's are 512K ClawHammers. All Rev CG 512KB Athlon's are therefore Newcastle based.
JarredWalton - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
The pipeline stages for Opteron and A64 are indeed 12/17 - that has been corrected, thanks! I had heard that before, but there were quite a few sites that listed it as 10/15 still. I'll have to wait on the other bits (slightly incorrect MHz ranges) until I have a bit more time to spare.25/26: Yes, there is a socket 754 Newcastle now. AMD is being a little unclear on a lot of the updates, but apparently they can switch the memory controller quite easily in the core, or else the original memory controller was fully capable of dual-channel support but they somehow just turned it off. Anyway, the original 2800+ and 3000+ chips that showed up were, in all likelihood, downgraded Claw Hammer cores.
As an aside note, the power of the Internet is rather impressive. It took a whole lot of time (as I'm sure most of you are aware) to research all the data for this article. Of course, there are bound to be mistakes (as JohnsonX and others have pointed out), but the chance of finding those alone is slim to none. It's like writing a modern software application that doesn't have any bugs! Throw something out on the Internet, however, and with thousands of eyes looking at it, your mistakes are sure to be found. :)
I'll work on verifying and correcting some of the more greivous errors/omissions in the coming day or two. Of course, I'm also working on that little GPU chart... just don't expect die sizes or transistor counts on the chips, as they're very difficult to find. (Not so much the transistor counts, though.)
NinjaPirate - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
On the Intel Cheat Sheet, the Coppermine Celerons are marked as SMP capable, but it is the Mendocino Celerons who are SMP capable. As far as I know, nobody could get Celeron II to run SMP. Anyway, it's a very good article.AkumaX - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
4. There were no 133Mhz FSB AthlonXP Bartons.Note that my comments are confined to the desktop arena. The mobile arena tends to get alot more odd variants.
hehe, trying to keep it to the desktop, i see
also, the Sempron seems to come in Tbred B and Thorton, and the lowest Sempron i've seen is a 2200+ (1.5ghz @ 166mhz fsb)
wassup4u2 - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
I was under the impression that the K7 had a 10-stage int pipeline and a 15 stage fp pipeline, and the one of the changes worked in the K8 was an increase to 12/17 stages, effective starting with the first K8 chip, Sledge Hammer.LocutusX - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
#25:"8. The 512k Clawhammer core was only sold at 2.0 and 2.2Ghz. The 1.8 and 2.4's were true Newcastles right from the start. (ok, this one I'm less than 100% sure of, but I think I'm correct)."
You're 98% right, I believe. The 512k Claw was only sold @ 2.0ghz, and were the "defective" 3200's remarked as 3000+. These were the ones being reviewed around December/January. Most of the new 3000+'s being sold *today*, are of course "true Newcastle". -- AFAIK!
johnsonx - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link
Perhaps these are ticky-tack, but if you want it to be correct:1. The AthlonXP Palomino was never sold at speeds below 1333Mhz (AthlonXP 1500+).
2. The AthlonMP Palomino was never sold at speeds below 1200Mhz (AthlonMP 1200).
3. The Thoroughbred 'A' core never reached a speed above 1833Mhz (AthlonXP 2200+). To break beyond that, AMD had to switch to the 'B' core.
4. There were no 133Mhz FSB AthlonXP Bartons.
5. The AthlonMP Barton had an FSB of 133, not 166. The only MP chipset, the AMD 760MP/MPX, can only do 133 FSB.
6. The Thoroughbred 'B' core used for the Semprons is the exact same as those used for AthlonXP's, and thus has the same die size, 84mm^2.
7. The Socket-939 AthlonFX is a ClawHammer, not a SledgeHammer. The 'Sledge' requires Registered memory and socket-940.
8. The 512k Clawhammer core was only sold at 2.0 and 2.2Ghz. The 1.8 and 2.4's were true Newcastles right from the start. (ok, this one I'm less than 100% sure of, but I think I'm correct).
9. You left out the Socket-754 variant of the NewCastle. The Newcastle core starts at 1.8Ghz (S754 2800+), and so far goes up to 2.4Ghz (S754-3400+ and S939-3800+).
Note that my comments are confined to the desktop arena. The mobile arena tends to get alot more odd variants.