A few days ago we reported on dual core LGA775 processors but we held back on some other information until we could get better sources for confirmation. Before we get to the real juice this week, here are a couple tidbits to soak up and put things in perspective.

First, it looks like we are going to see our first 1066FSB processor for third week in October. The 2MB L3, 3.4GHz Pentium 4 Extreme Edition will be quickly followed by a 3.73GHz 2MB Prescott based CPU with XD stack protection before the end of the year. Intel's enterprise division labels 2MB L2 Prescott processors as "Iriwindale" cores, and it is probably safe to say that the 3.73GHz P4EE is little more than an overclocked Iriwindale anyway. The 925XE chipset, which will launch as the only chipset capable of 1066FSB, should at least paper launch by the second week of October.

Of course the larger news here is the under the table announcement of EM64T Prescott "F" CPUs. These Pentium 4s are not labeled as 5xx or 7xx series CPUs, but rather relying on the old MHz naming again. As you can see below, the 3.60F Pentium 4 already has been penciled in Intel's Q3'04 timeslot. Unusually, back in April we noticed Intel was going to ship workstation Pentium 4s with EM64T capabilities (along with 5xx product nomenclature), but we constantly overlooked it as it was but a footnote in an 80 page document. Perhaps more interesting is Intel's decision to bypass its Model Number name scheme for workstation Pentium 4s in favor of the MHz Model again.

All Pentium 4 "F" processors have the E-0 stepping which makes them capable of the execute disable (XD) bit. The new "F" series Pentium 4s are already shipping in discreet channels.

Don't be surprised if 64-bit enabled Cranford (Nocona with 8MB L3 cache) shows up by Q1 of 2005 as well. The Copper River successor, "Mukilteo", has also been scheduled for Q3'05 and has been labeled as a Pentium 4 workstation CPU; it appears NetBurst is still here to stay for a while.



View All Comments

  • bhtooefr - Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - link

    Here's what it REALLY is:

    7xx: P4 Extreme Edition
    5xx: P4
    3xx: Celeron

    7xx: Pentium M
    5xx: Mobile P4, P4-M (they ARE two different things - the Mobile P4 is essentially what AMD calls a DTR chip, and the P4-M is essentially what AMD calls a Mobile chip)
    3xx: Mobile Celeron (based on the P4), Celeron M
  • KristopherKubicki - Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - link

    danidentity: Yes there will be a 3.2 all the way to 3.8. Somewhere it was mentioned that the 4.0F was removed from the roadmap, but i would not be surprised if it reappears.

  • bcoupland - Sunday, August 15, 2004 - link

    As of late, I have found Intel's naming system very confusing. Seems it is just getting worse Reply
  • danidentity - Monday, August 9, 2004 - link

    Thanks Kris, that makes a little more sense. Is there just going to be a 3.6F? Or will there be 3.4F's, 3.2F's, etc.? Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link

    #3, I think Intel uses these numbers in two different contexts, one for the mobile line and the other for the desktops. So in the desktop segment 7xx,5xx,3xx stand for P4F,P4E,CeleronD and in the mobile segment they stand for PM(Dothan),P4-M,CeleronM. At least that's what I've gathered. Reply
  • KristopherKubicki - Sunday, August 8, 2004 - link

    >Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 3.6F GHz will be
    >the first E0 stepping chip, and it will ship Q3'04?

    I believe there are two different versions of the E0 stepping. The 550 "J" processors are slightly different than the 3.6 "F" processors since the MHz labeled CPUs support EM64T.

  • danidentity - Saturday, August 7, 2004 - link

    Your article is a little confusing.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 3.6F GHz will be the first E0 stepping chip, and it will ship Q3'04?

    Which will be the first 1066MHz FSB chip supported by the 925XE chipset? The 3.73? And why is the 3.73 an Extreme Edition? I was under the impression Intel was moving to 3.73 after 3.6GHz, but it wasn't going to be an Extreme Edition.
  • retrospooty - Saturday, August 7, 2004 - link

    "Think these new ones can be faster than a 200 dollar AMD chip? "

    LOL , prolly not
  • Galvin - Friday, August 6, 2004 - link

    Think these new ones can be faster than a 200 dollar AMD chip?
  • Anemone - Thursday, August 5, 2004 - link

    I wish they would just go back to the old way, with ghz and a letter code, like 3.2E, etc.

    Kind of concerned that even the new 925XE might have limited use or no use on Smithfield. Only listing Smithfield as working on Lakeport spells doom to me for the 915/925X we have now.

    More AMD opportunities?


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now