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

  • KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, March 31, 2004 - link

    I was told the 533 and 800 at 2.8 will have the same product number. However, i think there is also some debate as to whether or not both will actual show up.

    Cramitpal: Pentium M is by far the better notebook chip. It is clocked slower, but puts out a better punch per MHz. Its also generally cooler- but just a little more expensive. Pick your battles wisely.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • CRAMITPAL - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    It's all a con game to defraud consumers. Even the mainstream media has FINALLY realized Intel has obsolete product now that A64/Opteron is availabe in the laptop-desktop-server segments.

    Intel has an over-heating, over-priced, under-performing piece of crap they have applied more bandaids to that can't compete. Anyone with a clue would recognize PressedCrap as a defective design that should have been scrapped years ago. Maybe after another large Class Action Suit Intel will stop peddling this crap to naive consumers without a clue??? In the meantime, Intel can make the buying process really dishonest and confusing by giving HUGE financial incentives to talking heads, sales staff (sic) at big box stores, using buy-offs to enterprise, etc. This is the ONLY means Intel has to sell their non-competitive and defective CPU designs that don't even do 64 bit or improve on prior model designs.
    Reply
  • TrogdorJW - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    I immediately see something that I really don't like in Intel's names (assuming that AT has them correct: Notice that there are *two* 520 parts, but one has 533 FSB and the other has 800 FSB? I seem to recall the bump in FSB speed resulting in about a 10% performance increase for the P4 platform. At least before we have "2.8B" and "2.8C"; now we just have stupid names.

    I suppose that Intel is just learning from AMD on this one. When Intel released 3.0C and 3.2C which were *clearly* superior to any Athlon XP processor, what did AMD do? Oh, we'll just take the 2.08 GHz 2800+, change the multiplier and FSB speed, get it up to 2.1 GHz, and call it a 3000+! And for the 3200+, we'll raise the CPU speed to an astounding 2.2 GHz. If 100 MHz equals 200+ in PR rating, shouldn't the 2.2 GHz XP be a 4400+? But it really didn't matter - it was all marketing.

    So now, if AMD releases their socket 939 chips with dual-channel RAM and they can ramp up to 3 GHz (4800+?), it won't even matter. Intel can just claim that the new 780 CPU is the fastest chip out there. Benchmarks will tell the truth, but for the people that don't care much, they'll just buy whatever they can afford and assume it's a good CPU. That's their problem, though. :)
    Reply
  • ZapZilla - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    dragonfx:

    This naming scheme is not for the "tech user", who has deep understanding, but for the "average Joe" who would easily understand your first scentence, but be "dazzed and confused" by the techno-jargon of the rest of your post.

    There are so many types of processors and processor capabilities these days--simplification is needed for the marketplace.

    Moreover, a bench mark on a processor alone is near useless, other factors are seriously important in determining system performance, such as, memory type and speed, memory controller type and buss speed, GPU type and graphics memory type and buss speed, hard drive type and speed, mother board capabilities and BIOS controls, and many other ancillary components, such as DVD/CDROM type and speed, etc...

    The complexities of the CPU with the complexities of the other system components is just too overwhelming for the average Joe.

    Indeed, if one equates processors to car engines it is simple to compare horsepower, RPM, and gas mileage, but who buys a car based soley on its engine disregarding the rest of the chassis?

    It is now the same with processors and a computer system.
    Reply
  • tfranzese - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    I like how they label their 533 and 800 FSB processors the same, because there's no difference between the two chips performance. :/ Reply
  • mkruer - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    I think one of the more valid points that it brought up is the right now as it stands there are certain high-end 500’s that out perform the lower 700’s. Now I don’t know about you, but I would find this confusing. The first digit has nothing to do with performance, but rather, its all blue crystals Reply
  • SKiller - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    Am I the only one doesn't see a problem with the number progression?
    2.8 - 520
    3.0 - 530
    3.2 - 540
    3.4 - 550
    3.6 - 560
    3.8 - 570
    4.0 - 580
    4.2 - 590
    4.4 - 600
    4.6 - 610
    4.8 - 620
    5.0 - 630

    etc... who says they *have* to stop at 600?
    Reply
  • dragonfx - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    Looks like Intel is following BMW's naming system: 3-series, 5-series and 7-series for low range, mid range and high range respectively!

    Note to ceefka: I bet you're the only one on earth that calculated 760-550=210! They are just names, not numbers for use in mathematics! And Intel name the EE a higher number than Prescott because benchmarks simply showed that EE is perfoming better than an equally clocked Prescott, regardless of how many nm is the fabrication process! Who knows, maybe the next 790 is a 90nm part? It doesn't matter, as long as the performance is relative to the name! Remember AMD's Palomino 1700+ and Thoroughbred 1700+? The have the same clockspeed (1.47GHz) but different fabrication process (Palomino is 180nm while Tbred is 130nm); however their performance are almost the same so they share the same name! (but their not the same when you use them; Tbred 1700+ runs much cooler than Palomino 1700+ at the same speed; and most important, Tbred 1700+ can easily be overclocked to 2++GHz while Palomino 1700+ will cook you a nice pancake if you ever try to do so...) The same principle will apply to current and future Intel processors as well.

    Note to ZapZilla: it is difficult to define and compare the "absolute performance" of cars, but for CPUs we have something called benchmark to judge the "absolute performance"! Generally, a comparison of the average for ALL "tested" benchmarks will tell that one CPU is better than another (unless the average performance of two CPU is so close that we can say these two CPUs is on par with each other).
    Reply
  • ZapZilla - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    The politics of naming.

    The logic in this name game is to provide the average Joe with a way to easily compare processors within a company's product line, while, making it much harder to compare processors between companies.

    This has the effect of moving away from "absolute performance" and moving to "relative performance".

    Yet, relative to what?

    The car industry offers a good model for comparison.

    Consumer decision #1: Should one buy Luxury, Mid, or Economy class?

    Consumer decision #2: What will the main use be: Off-road, City, or Highway? (Games, Buisness, or Net surfing?)

    Consumer decision #3: What company suits one's style: Rolles-Royce, Hummer, or Kia? (Intel, AMD, or Transmeta?)

    Defining and comparing the "absolute performance" of processors is more and more like defining and comparing the "absolute performance" of cars -- very difficult and subjective.

    It is a good way to simplify the ever growing number of options and choices.
    Reply
  • ZapZilla - Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - link

    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now