Weeks ago we found a little info going around that Intel plans to rename their upcoming Socket T/Socket 478 processors to reflect a new naming convention.
Update April 8, 2004: After receiving more information and confirmation, we have updated our roadmaps.

You can read more about Intel's naming conventions on their site, here.

Without further ado:

2004 Pentium 4 Roadmap (5xx)
CPU
Manufacturing Process
Bus Speed
L2 Cache Size
Product Name
Pentium 4 EE 3.4GHz
130nm
800MHz
512KB
???
Pentium 4 EE 3.2GHz
130nm
800MHz
512KB
???
Pentium 4 4.0GHz
90nm
800MHz
1MB
580
Pentium 4 3.8GHz
90nm
800MHz
1MB
570
Pentium 4 M 3.6GHz
90nm
533MHz
1MB
558
Pentium 4 3.6GHz
90nm
800MHz
1MB
560
Pentium 4 M 3.46GHz
90nm
533MHz
1MB
552
Pentium 4 3.4GHz
90nm
800MHz
1MB
550
Pentium 4 3.2GHz
90nm
800MHz
1MB
540
Pentium 4 M 3.2GHz
90nm
533MHz
1MB
538
Pentium 4 M 3.06GHz
90nm
533MHz
1MB
532
Pentium 4 3.0GHz
90nm
800MHz
1MB
530
Pentium 4 2.8GHz
90nm
800MHz
1MB
520
Pentium 4 M 2.8GHz
90nm
533MHz
1MB
518

2004 Celeron Roadmap (3xx)
CPU
Manufacturing Process
Bus Speed
L2 Cache Size
Product Name
Celeron M 1.5GHz
90nm
400MHz
1MB
370
Celeron M 1.4GHz
90nm
400MHz
1MB
360
Celeron M ULV 1.0GHz
90nm
400MHz
512KB
358
Celeron M 1.3GHz
90nm
400MHz
1MB
350
Celeron 3.2GHz
90nm
533MHz
256KB
350
Celeron 3.06GHz
90nm
533MHz
256KB
345
Celeron M 1.5GHz
130nm
400MHz
512KB
340
Celeron 2.93Gz
90nm
533MHz
256KB
340
Celeron M ULV 900MHz
90nm
400MHz
512KB
338
Celeron 2.8GHz
90nm
533MHz
256KB
335
Celeron M 1.4GHz
130nm
400MHz
512KB
330
Celeron 2.66GHz
90nm
533MHz
256KB
330
Celeron 2.53GHz
90nm
533MHz
256KB
325
Celeron M 1.3GHz
130nm
400MHz
512KB
320

The new 90nm Celerons based on the Prescott core have bee dubbed "Celeron D." Note the suffix "LV" denotes "Low Voltage," while "ULV" denotes "Ultra Low Voltage." There is an unusual amount of overlap in the Celeron roadmaps, which may become confusing to consumers in the long run.

Finally, we have an update on the Pentium M naming convensions.

2004 Pentium M Roadmap (7xx)
CPU
Manufacturing Process
Bus Speed
L2 Cache Size
Product Name
Pentium M 2.13GHz
90nm
533MHz
2MB
770
Pentium M 2.0GHz
90nm
533MHz
2MB
760
Pentium M ULV 1.20GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
758
Pentium M 2.0GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
755
Pentium M LV 1.5GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
753
Pentium M 1.86GHz
90nm
533MHz
2MB
750
Pentium M 1.8GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
745
Pentium M 1.73GHz
90nm
533MHz
2MB
740
Pentium M ULV 1.10GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
738
Pentium M 1.70GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
735
Pentium M LV 1.40GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
733
Pentium M 1.60GHz
90nm
533MHz
2MB
730
Pentium M 1.60GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
725
Pentium M ULV 1.10GHz
130nm
400MHz
1MB
718
Pentium M 1.50GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
715
Pentium M 1.30GHz
90nm
400MHz
2MB
713

There are also several updates on the Nocona roadmaps. In particular, the Nocona (Xeon) launch has moved from Q2'03 to Q3'03. Expect to wait a little longer to run an x86-64 compatible Xeon.

POST A COMMENT

33 Comments

View All Comments

  • ViRGE - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link

    Someone mind telling me what's going on with the Pentium-M ULV chips? They're giving the 1.1ghz/1MB PM-ULV a rating of 718, putting it ahead of the 1.5ghz/2MB PM, puting the 1.4ghz/2MB PM-LV ahead of the 1.6ghz/2MB PM, and other wierd things. The last digit makes sense(8=ULV, 3=LV, 0/5=normal), but the whole PM rankings seem sketchy at best. Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link

    Pumpkinierre, latency will suffer but thats the plan. The FSB is definitely 800MHz with DDR2-533 and DDR2-667 eventually.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link

    On the new naming posting:

    The Pentium 3.8 and 4.0 are still 800 MHz. But these are supposed to be socket T with new mobos supporting DDR2. The only production DDR2 I've heard of is 533 which if run synchronously would quad pump at 1066MHz. So if the table is true, you'll have to underclock the DDR2 at DDR400 or asynchronously-not the best for performance. Else, socket T/Grantsdale/Alderwood is all a myth and Intel is sticking to Sckt478/i8x5.
    Reply
  • amdfanboy - Thursday, April 01, 2004 - link

    All I can say is why ? Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Thursday, April 01, 2004 - link

    Am I the only one who's noticed the peculiar gap in the Celeron lineup - i.e. where's the 2.93GHz part? I think Intel skipped that one because nobody wants to buy something that's "just under" 3GHz :) Reply
  • THEonlyRightguard - Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - link

    well ,instead of the xp 2800+, will they say the athlon xp 760+ ? it seems to me its a way to try and discredit comparison between amd and intel. Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - link

    16 - But do you actually trust the sales people to know what they're talking about? I figure the chance of getting an honest, intelligent salesperson is about 50-50 these days, and only 25-75 if you go to a large store like Frys, CompUSA, Best Buy, etc. With these model numbers from both camps, computer salespeople are likely to become as bad as car salespeople. They'll just say whatever it takes to close the deal. :p

    Sure, technophiles like most of the AT readers (looking away from CRAM) can be trusted to know what's good and what's not. For the common man, though, I don't know that it really matters. Computer performance really only matters now if you want to play games, do 3D modelling, or work on video content. For almost everything else, 2 GHz is currently fast enough and will remain so for the next two years at least. For businesses, even 1 GHz is usually fast enough.

    Ignorance is bliss, they say, and I think there are a lot of people out there that prefer ignorance when it comes to computers.
    Reply
  • Pumpkinierre - Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - link

    The sales people are just going to quote the actual megahertz speed anyway, no matter the name or model no., as they do now for a-64/XP often at the buyer's request.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - link

    SDA: A man can dream,... :-p

    Check out what i wrote a few weeks ago:
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1994

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • SDA - Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - link

    Heh, "pick your battles wisely," says KristopherKubicki to CRAMITPAL. Sorry, Kris, but I don't think this is one you can take down with logic.

    What's AMD going to do about this, I wonder...? There'll be nothing to have Joe Consumer compare the XXXX+ to!
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now