Intel's new roadmaps have been the talk of the town for the last few days due to the negative press swirling around cancelation of Tejas and Jayhawk (Pentium 4 successors). Fortunately, with the Intel Channel Conferences occurring right now, we were able to sneak a peak at some additional technology Intel has planned, as well as update our roadmaps for the new processors.

Intel's largest addition on the horizon? As the topic suggests, 1066FSB has been added to the Q3 roadmap, but for only two processors; the 3.46GHz P4EE and the 3.73GHz Prescott Pentium 4. The expected update on FSB has been long overdue; many 865PE and 875P solutions already claim support for 1GHz+ front side bus. Overclockers should be fairly familiar with this.

However, despite the suggestion that new 1066FSB processors are on the way from Intel, the next generation chipsets do not immediately support the new bus speed. ATI's roadmap for Intel already hints at 1GHz FSB, but SiS and others have been fairly quiet. Since it will be at least Q2'05 before the next Intel chipset debuts (Lakeport), Intel has added another chipset to its 2004 desktop lineup. This new chipset, dubbed 925XE, is exactly the same as the 925X chipset with the addition of 1066FSB support. It may be quite probable that 925X and 915P are overclockable to 1066FSB speeds, but as of today the 925XE is the only officially announced core logic.

Not only does the Prescott receive an extra boost in FSB, but Intel has slated a new increase in cache size for the Pentium 4 (not P4EE) family. The first new processor (Intel 720) will carry a 2MB L2 cache! Recall that Dothan (Pentium M) also incorporate 2MB L2 cache. With the longer pipelines on the Prescott and Dothan processors, the additional L2 cache has proven invaluable to keeping the processors competitve. The P4EE with 1066FSB will only have 2MB L3 cache, but the L2 cache has not been disclosed. Whether or not the newest P4EE is Prescott or Northwood based remains a mystery, but since most P4EEs have been based off the Gallitin (Xeon) cores in the past, it is probable that the processor is again Gallitin or Nocona based.

Pentium Roadmap (5xx)
CPU Manufacturing Process Front Side Bus L2 Cache Size Product Name
Pentium 4 EE 3.46GHz ??? 1066MHz ??? ???
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 3.6GHz 90nm 800MHz 1MB 560
Pentium 4 M3.6GHz 90nm 533MHz 1MB 558
Pentium 4 3.46GHz 90nm 800MHz 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

The only real addition to the mirange desktop roadmap is the P4EE.

Pentium Roadmap (7xx)
CPU Manufacturing Process Front Side Bus L2 Cache Size Product Name
Pentium M 2.13GHz 90nm 533MHz 2MB 770
Pentium M 2.0GHz 130nm 533MHz 2MB 760
Pentium M LV 1.50GHz 130nm 400MHz 2MB 758
Pentium M 2.0GHz 90nm 400MHz 2MB 755
Pentium M ULV 1.2GHz 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 LV 1.40GHz 90nm 400MHz 2MB 738
Pentium M 1.70GHz 90nm 400MHz 2MB 735
Pentium M ULV 1.10GHz 90nm 400MHz 2MB 733
Pentium M 1.60GHz 90nm 533MHz 2MB 730
Pentium M 1.60GHz 90nm 400MHz 2MB 725
Pentium 4 3.73GHz 90nm 1066MHz 2MB 720
Pentium M LV 1.30GHz 90nm 400MHz 1MB 718
Pentium M 1.50GHz 90nm 400MHz 2MB 715
Pentium M ULV 1.10GHz 90nm 400MHz 1MB 713

Notice there have been some significant naming changes since the last roadmap we published. It seems the Ultra Low Voltage (ULV) and Low Voltage (LV) naming convensions have flip flopped. The LV processors are now regarded as the "higher" numbered chips. Even though the product name is not supposed to denote performance, it seems the move to rate the LV processors higher than the ULV processors (a reversal on the original naming) seems to suggest otherwise.

You may notice the Intel 720 is listed in the 7xx family of processors and that these processors all share something in common; Banias or Dothan core.

Below are you can see our updated Celeron roadmap as well. Celeron D technically launches in June, but we have already seen multiple samples from retail merchants.

Celeron Roadmap (3xx)
CPU Manufacturing Process Front Side Bus L2 Cache Size Product Name
Celeron M ULV 1GHz 90nm 400MHz 512KB 373
Celeron M 1.5GHz 90nm 400MHz 1MB 370
Celeron M 1.4GHz 90nm 400MHz 1MB 360
Celeron M ULV 900MHz 130nm 400MHz 512KB 353
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 2.93GHz 90nm 533MHz 256KB 340
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


View All Comments

  • Chaotic42 - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    Hah! When I was 16, we used to joke about needing a 4GHz Pentium 5 with a 1GHz bus and 2GB of memory to run Quake I at 1024x768.

    How far we've come.
  • Falloutboy525 - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    I have a feeling intel is defenatly having scailing thier dumping out what were going to be the prescott equivelent of a Xeon as desktop chips to keep pace with AMD...This will proubly work in the short term but can they afford to do this wouldn't that make the die size really big?

    what I'm woundering is if amd current stagnation due to the fact that they feel they don't need to go any faster or they having issues also.
  • kamper - Tuesday, May 11, 2004 - link

    Marsumane, as you might have gathered from TrogdorJW's post: p4EE has 512kB L2 cache but 2MB L3 cache, which just wasn't listed. Reply
  • tfranzese - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    I must correct myself - it is not more than double. However, it is very difficult to compare mobile chips because of their mobile platforms. Not to mention it is hard to find detailed benchmarks that don't use lump programs to do a cumalitive comparison.

    Again, good chip but my guess is the A64 has the higher IPC. The matter will clear up next year hopefully when Intel finally ditches NetBurst.
  • tfranzese - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    "mhz per mhz, its even faster than the A64's in most apps"

    You must have a funny way of interpreting numbers. MHz/MHz the A64 is faster by far and only does the XP manage to be overtaken by the Pentium M. You need to check your numbers and also keep in mind there is also desktop counterparts that more than double the speed you see on a 1.6 GHz Pentium M compared to a Athlon 64 that is clocked a mere 400 MHz faster. The Pentium M is a good chip, and a good mobile chip at that, but Intel still can't touch AMD when it comes to raw IPC.
  • TrogdorJW - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    Just remember that for Intel's new naming scheme, the 7XX is the high-performance area, while 5XX is more mainstream and the 3XX are the "cheap" processors. Or maybe we should say that the 7XX are the most expensive? Anyway, with the Prescott running on a 533/1066 bus, it will almost certainly outperform many other Intel processors. It will also have 2 MB of L2 cache, which should make it even faster than the P4EE chips (L2 is generally faster than L3 cache). We also don't know yet what the P4EE chips are going to be called in the future. Maybe they'll remain as simply P4EE, maybe they'll be discontinued (not a bad option, since the Prescott + 2MB design should be cheaper to produce), or maybe they'll eventually get a 7XX name.

    Anyway, who's really excited about these processors and roadmaps anymore? If I had a P4, I would be okay with it on socket 478, but there's not a chance in hell that I would go out and buy a new P4 system using the 775 LGA sockets.
  • Pumpkinierre - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    They're bumping up the cache on that Prescott (that's if it is a Prescott)! A sure sign they are'nt going to make the 4Gig mark. All of this is weird!
  • Marsumane - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    Why are the EE's w/ only 512 cache!? What is intel doing? shorter pipelines or something? How are they getting what they are getting at such low Ghz? Reply
  • wassup4u2 - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    I assume the title for the Celeron roadmap table should read "Celeron Roadmap (3xx)", not (7xx). Reply
  • OCedHrt - Monday, May 10, 2004 - link

    Or maybe only numbers that end in the same digit can be compared. For example, all ending with a 3 such as XX3 are ULV. All ending with an 8 are LV, 5 is 400 fsb and 0 is 533 fsb. The 1 mb cache increase on the ULVs seem to justify it as the next step up and equiv to 100Mhz increase as the next step up. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now