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

  • stephenbrooks - Friday, April 16, 2004 - link

    1. Ah! The missing 2.93GHz part I complained about in a previous post has appeared as a lovely "2.93Gz", errr...

    2. ---Sorry, the rest of this post includes opinion, paranoia, speculation and a rant---

    3. I hate to say this, but this looks a lot like a 'confusion tactic' just for Intel to protect their sales until they have a chance to catch up with AMD in performance again. Yes, the numbers are vaguely in line with increasing performance, but notice most of the families are near the top of their ranges (of 100) already. An optimist would say they've got something new in the labs which will displace the current generation of stuff, and they're just giving the old stuff these numbers to shift it.

    4. Regardless, can anyone tell my why this isn't stupid?:

    Celeron M 1.3GHz 90nm 400MHz 1MB = 350
    Celeron 3.2GHz 90nm 533MHz 256KB = 350

    What ARE they playing at? Surely one of them could at least be labelled '351' or '350A' to stop people having to figure out why two identically-named parts have totally different performance characteristics?!
    Reply
  • AtaStrumf - Friday, April 09, 2004 - link

    I've always liked BMW's naming system and I think Intel could have done worse than this.

    It clearly separates the different classes, which is the part that I like, but inside those classes is a preety big mess.

    I'd have to agree that Intel needs to drop a few products if it really wants to dumb things down, because this is gonna get preety hard to decipher, even for us. Almost as bad as it is now with sSpec numbers.

    I guess the price will be the last part of the puzzle that will help people decide what PCU to take home.
    Reply
  • fezzik1620 - Friday, April 09, 2004 - link

    Thank you for your gentle reproof, DoubleParadoxx. Yes, I mispoke. Reply
  • DoubleParadoxx - Friday, April 09, 2004 - link

    "The people who don't know what a Gigahert is and quite frankly don't care."

    Clearly you dont know. Hertz is the unit for 1 cycle/second, there is no such thing as a hert.
    Reply
  • fezzik1620 - Friday, April 09, 2004 - link

    Enough whining already. No, really, stop it. It seems like almost all of the comments on this move by Intel have been a bunch of babys crying because somebody took away their empty bottle and gave them a different one. This is not odd, nonsensical, crap, etc. It makes perfect sense. Intel has ridden the more MHz (or GHz) equals a faster processor myth for far too long now. I work for a major computer retailer and trust me this makes perfect sense.

    Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. Say your grandmother walks into the store (assuming she's not already dead and knows about as much about computers as my grandmother), how are going to quickly and easily explain to her that a P4 2.6 GHz is 10-25% faster than a Celeron 2.6 GHz processor. Now imagine that instead of someone like your grandmother who will take you at your word when it comes to anything computer related it is instead a complete stranger. This has not hurt Intel too much in the past since the prevailing thought among the general public is that there is something seriously wrong with Celeron processors, but now they have thrown the Pentium M into the mix. Try telling someone you've never met who knows nothing about computers, except that more MHz/GHz = a faster machine, that a 1.6 GHz Pentium M is as fast or faster than a 50% higher clocked 2.4 GHz P4 and that you think it is worth their money to pay top dollar for the thing too. Good luck.

    So, quit your whining. This is not a bad/dumb move on Intel's part. Your not seeing it for what it is. It is an intentional dumbing down. It is not for you, the enthusiast. Intel knows good and well that when you, the enthusiast, go to buy a P4, PM, or recommend a Celeron for a friend that you are going to still be looking at clock speed, bus speed, and cache. This move is for the 90% of people who are the "everybody else." Where the real money is. The people who don't know what a Gigahert is and quite frankly don't care.
    Reply
  • bhtooefr - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link

    This is just fscking odd... BTW, if the Pentium Ms are being labelled this way, it could mean desktop P-M (it, and the AMD K8 will kill NetBurst, IMNSHO (not so humble)). BTW, where are Celeron-M numbers?

    This makes me want to find some CPU where they don't give you this crap, though. Intel CPUs (except for XScales, which aren't x86) are now all screwed up, AMD uses performance ratings (why not logos saying THIS AMD PROCESSOR BEAT THIS INTEL PROCESSOR IN THIS MAGAZINE/SITE'S REVIEW?), Transmeta boards are almost non-existant, and VIA C3s aren't very good performers (1GHz is it for clock, and the only good part is performance per watt).
    Reply
  • Praeludium - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link

    I'm confused.

    Understatement is a trillion times more effective than exaggeration, too. :P

    I went to their site on the naming conventions, and that only served to heighten the confusion. It seems as if it'd be easier if Intel just went ahead and discontinued all their 533 MHz bus speeds, phased out anything under 1 MB of cache, and just stuck with their GHz markings.
    Reply
  • Jeff7181 - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link

    This is the most retarded naming system I could imagine... hell, I couldn't have even imagined this... it's so off the wall... there's no order to any of it.
    Intel may start using the model numbers... but you can bet enthusiasts will call a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 800 Mhz bus just that... not a Pentium 4 560.
    Reply
  • Icewind - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link

    I have a SERIOUS problem of Intel not indicating the difference between the 533hmhz and 800 speed FSB models, when it has been PROVEN that their is a performance difference.

    Im so ashamed to be running a p4 now, the sooner AMD brings out the 939pin Athlons, the happier me and many other tech heads will be.
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Thursday, April 08, 2004 - link


    Virge, I dont think 8=ULV and 3=LV . Look at the pentium Ms.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now