Know your Processor Cores: Codename Cheatsheet
by Kristopher Kubicki on July 12, 2004 2:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
In our world we deal with code names constantly. Nocona this, Alderwood that; RS480, NV40, Toledo, Tejas, etc...
Since Anand and I find ourselves constantly flipping around the internet searching for the correct code names of things, we thought we ought to post a quarterly update on product code names, and basic information. As always, you can search our site and find more in depth coverage about all of the technologies covered. Below are the more common Intel processor names.
| Code Name | Socket | Process | L2 | L3 | Max Freq | FSB |
| Pentium | ||||||
| Northwood | mPGA478 | 130nm | 512KB | 0MB | 3.4GHz | 800MHz |
| Prescott | LGA775 | 90nm | 1MB | 0MB | >4.0GHz | 800MHz |
| Prescott 2M | LGA775 | 90nm | 2MB | 0MB | >3.73GHz | 1066MHz |
| Dothan | 90nm | 2MB | 0MB | >2.0GHz | 533MHz | |
| Xeon | ||||||
| Gallatin | mPGA603 | 130nm | 512KB | 4MB | 3.2GHz | 400MHz |
| Cranford | mPGA604 | 90nm | 1MB | 0MB | 3.66GHz | 667MHz |
| Potomac | mPGA604 | 90nm | 1MB | 8MB | >3.5GHz | 667MHz |
| Prestonia | mPGA604 | 130nm | 512KB | 2MB | 3.2GHz | 533MHz |
| Nocona | mPGA604 | 90nm | 1MB | 0MB | 4.0GHz | 800MHz |
| Irindale | mPGA604 | 90nm | 2MB | 0MB | >3.8GHz | 800MHz |
| Itanium | ||||||
| Madison 9M | mPGA700 | 130nm | 1MB | 9MB | 1.7GHz | 667MHz |
| Fanwood | mPGA700 | 130nm | 1MB | 4MB | 1.7GHz | 533MHz |
| LV Fanwood | mPGA700 | 130nm | 1MB | 3MB | 1.3GHz | 400MHz |
| Montecito | mPGA700 | 90nm | 1MB | 24MB | ??? | 400MHz |
| Milington | mPGA700 | 90nm | ??? | ??? | ??? | 533MHz |
| LV Milington | mPGA700 | 90nm | ??? | ??? | ??? | 400MHz |
Absent are Tejas and other experimental processor cores (from which we hear are not dead, just renamed). Of course we will add moreas we learn them! Below are AMD's code names.
| Code Name | Socket | Process | L2 | Max Freq | FSB | |
| Sempron | ||||||
| Thoroughbred | mPGA462 | 130nm | 256KB | >1.8GHz | 333MHz | |
| Paris | mPGA754 | 130nm SOI | 256KB | ??? | ??? | |
| Palermo | mPGA754 | 90nm SOI | 256KB | ??? | ??? | |
| Athlon 64 | ||||||
| Clawhammer | mPGA754 | 130nm SOI | 1MB | >2.6GHz | 1600HT | |
| Newcastle | mPGA939 | 130nm SOI | 512KB | >2.6GHz | 2000HT | |
| Winchester | mPGA939 | 90nm SOI | 512KB | ??? | ??? | |
| Athlon FX | ||||||
| San Diego | mPGA939 | 90nm SOI | 1MB | ??? | ??? | |
| Toledo | mPGA939 | Dual Core 90nm SOI | ??? | ??? | ??? | |
Stay tuned next week when we follow up this cheat sheet with a chipset one.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
View All Comments
rdennison - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link
Hey - where's that chipset cheat sheet you guys are promising?This is a great tool!
FiberOptik - Monday, July 19, 2004 - link
This is a great idea, it'd be helpful in the future if we could also get a chart that displayed all the processor model #'s and their respective speeds in MHz. I still get confused when looking at a Pentium 755 and then wondering how fast it is. AMD's are starting to get the same way.balzi - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - link
Ok if we are only talking about new cores that's alright... but could we have a seperate page with descriptions.. actually while you're at it - here's something i seem to need once a week looking at what to get in my machines, work machines, friends machines -- What does each model represent.ie.
Athlon XP 2600+ = Barton Core 333FSB ??Mhz 512kB cache
OR Thoroughbred Core 333FSB 2083Mhz[12.5x] 256kB cache.
Athlon64 3200+ ? = 2000/2200Mhz? 512/1024kB cache L2..
that sort of stuff.
I am extremely confused on those two points in particular.
and the Athon64 is only the S754 variety.. once you throw in 939 and 940.. well I challenge you to come up will a sensible table..
I have searched for a good simple table including all the above type info.
Haven't found it yet.. I end up googling for "Athlon 2600+ Barton clock speed" and only getting that piece of data..
PLEASE OH plEASE do this for me.. I will love you and send you flowers.. oh wait.. KrisTOPHER, that's a guys name.. well I'll love you send you food.
thanks
KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - link
According to Intel's roadmaps, it doesnt either! but ive fixed it.Kristopher
Margalus - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - link
I wonder where my 3.2ghz p4 Gallatin with 512kb l2 and 2mb l3 130nm fits in there? According that chart it doesn't exist!!Bloodshedder - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - link
I think it would be a good idea to include release dates, both past and projected, for each of these entries.johnsonx - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - link
Are we sure the Socket-A Sempron will use the Thoroughbred core? I thought the Tbred was dead and is being replaced by the Thorton core, which in turn is the 256k cache version of the Barton. Yes, I realize a 256k Thorton and a 256k Thoroughbred sound like the same thing, and perform exactly the same, but they are in fact laid out a little differently.I'll admit I could be wrong of course... Thorton might be just a Barton with 1/2 the cache disabled and/or defective. I've not personally looked at a Thorton. If that's the case, then AMD would either go back to TBred for 256k cache chips, or evolve the Barton/Thorton to a true 256k design.
Anyone know for sure on this point?
KristopherKubicki - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link
Trogdor, will do.Yonah/Jonah whatever it is called this week is kind of getting moved around. I think its just getting called something else. The israeli half of intel's operation is much harder to keep up with than the rest of the corp.
Kristopher
TrogdorJW - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link
#5 - I think the idea is that they're only including processors for which we are still getting updates. Barton and Palamino are "dead" now, as is Duron. Thoroughbred lives on in the Sempron Socket A chip.On a different note, we're missing some of the future Intel products that we still have names for, I think. I mean, you have Millington, which I doubt any of us will ever own, while you neglect mentioning Jonah. Maybe some mention of what is (will be) and isn't (won't be) included might be nice?
This is a great idea, though - I would love a one-page reference for all future and past Intel and AMD processors with their code names. Hell, can we get a similar page for chipsets as well? :)
EddNog - Monday, July 12, 2004 - link
Toledao Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo Toledo...........