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.

AMD Processors
Comments Locked

74 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anemone - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Isn't the Athlon 64 3700 the Odessa or what was supposed to be Odessa in the original code names?

    Just checking, love this article sorting through all the would be's and once were's, back in time.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    plewis - Rosewood is correct in stating that *all* Athlon 64 processors have an integrated memory controller. That means that all S754, S939, and S940 motherboards do not have a memory controller, so any other chips made for those boards (i.e. Sempron 3100+) also have to have an integrated memory controller. I believe there are some benchmarks on AT that show how the 1.8 GHz Sempron 3100+ compares to the Athlon XP chips. Basically, it beats them in almost all cases.

    Rosewood - Regarding the 250 nm 233-333 processors, they definitely existed in at least a couple of the processors, late in the PII lifetime. I personally purchased a Pentium II 300 batch SL2W8 - there was a big deal made over many of these being downmarked PII 450 chips at the time. It overclocked to 450 MHz like a champ! :)

    How many of these were made? I don't think there were very many. After all, it wasn't too long after the introduction of the 100 MHz bus PII chips that the 66 MHz bus chips were discontinued by Intel. (At least, that's how I remember it.) However, I don't know if they only released 250 nm versions inthe 300 and 333 models, or if they were also in some 233 and 266 models. I do know that *some* of the chips at least exist.
  • rosewood - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    plewis00 - unless im on crack, I think all the A64s have had the memory controller on chip and not on the NB, including the 754s.
  • plewis00 - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Can I ask, I am not that well informed on AMD processors, but if the Sempron 3100+ is an S754 chip, then how can it have an integrated memory controller, because I thought on all S754 boards, the memory controller is in the Northbridge? Am I right?
  • rosewood - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Great article - good history. Two things

    Klamath P II Slot 1 233-333 512K 7.5 + 37.2 350/250 203 + L2 66

    Are we sure that there were 250 parts of this line? I beleive ya but a bro says thats not right so ... yea?

    2)
    Can you include the A64 Mobiles as they are a bit different. IIRC, I have a 3000+ in my laptop and its 1.8ghz but 1meg L2 Cache.

    3) I said two? Well, I just thought of this one :P Could you add pictures of the stuff if possible as well as model # guides / how to tell. I was recently given a tray of CPUs and if I try I can probably noodle through which is which but it would be nice to just look here and say "Ah yes, this 2200+ is a barton because the core looks like this ..."

    But seriously, AWESOME article.
  • Holobits - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Good Job Jarred!! Reading your article started bringing me back memory of my pentium 2 and 2 3dFX Voodoo 2s in SLI:) Your article is very informative and I look forward to seeing another.
  • JarredWalton - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    srg - They're with the Pentium 3 and early Celeron processors. :) If people are really interested in getting the list of Slot A and Slot 1 processors for AMD and Intel, I can work on compiling that. Initially, I just felt they were old enough that it wasn't worth the effort.
  • MAME - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    ha, whoops

    anyway, nice article!
  • MAME - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

  • srg - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    What about the Slot A Thunderbirds? OK, their basically 'B' types but still.

    srg

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now