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.

POST A COMMENT

15 Comments

View All Comments

  • rdennison - Monday, August 09, 2004 - link

    Hey - where's that chipset cheat sheet you guys are promising?

    This is a great tool!
    Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - link

    According to Intel's roadmaps, it doesnt either! but ive fixed it.

    Kristopher
    Reply
  • 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!! Reply
  • 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. Reply
  • 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?
    Reply
  • 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
    Reply
  • 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? :)
    Reply
  • 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........... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now