Introduction

Update: 8/27/04 - The charts have all been revised. Thanks go out to all the people that posted corrections in the comments section as well as sending them via email. In addition to the corrections, some further information and commentary has been added to the pages. For anyone that actually comes back to this article for reference information, enjoy the changes!

Foreword by Kristopher Kubicki:
From time to time we stumble upon some truly gifted and patient people here at AnandTech. Some weeks ago I wrote a CPU codename cheatsheet as just something to do in an airport terminal to kill time. Very soon after, an extremely diligent Jarred Walton showed me his rendition of the CPU family tree that he was keeping just for fun!? Knowing I was bested, I offered Jarred a chance at writing a pilot for AT, and here it is! Please enjoy the second, extremely thorough CPU Cheatsheet 2.0.


But loud! what lurks in yonder chassis, hot?
A CPU, my programs it will run!
O Pentium, Pentium! wherefore art thou Pentium?
Obscure thy benchmarks and refuse thy name.
What's in a name? that which we call a chip
By any other name would run as fast.

My sincere apologies to Shakespeare, but that mangled version of Romeo and Juliet is an apt description of the world of computer processors. Once upon a time, we dealt with part numbers and megahertz. Larger numbers meant you had a faster computer. 80286 was faster than 8088 and 8086, and the 80386 was faster still, with the 80486 being the king of performance. Life was simple, and life was good. But that is the distant past; welcome to the present.

Where once we had a relatively small number of processor parts to choose from, we are now inundated with product names, model numbers, code names, and features. Keeping track of what each one means is becoming a rather daunting task. Sure, you can always try Googling the information, but sometimes you'll get conflicting information, or unrelated web sites, or only small tidbits of what you're trying to find out. So, why not put together a clear, concise document that contains all of the relevant information? Easier said than done; however, that is exactly what is attempted in this article.

In order to keep things even remotely concise, the cutoff line has been arbitrarily set to the Pentium II and later Intel processors, and the Athlon and later AMD processors. Anything before that might be interesting for those looking at the history of processors, but for all practical purposes, CPUs that old are no longer worth using. Also absent will be figures for power draw and heat dissipation, mainly because I'm not overly concerned with those values, not to mention that AMD and Intel have very different ways of reporting this information. Besides, Intel and AMD design and test their CPUs with a variety of heatsinks, motherboards, and other components to ensure that everything runs properly, so if you use the proper components, you should be fine.

So what will be included? For this first installment, details on clock frequencies, bus speeds, cache sizes, transistor counts, code names, and a few other items has been compiled. The use of model numbers with processors is also something people will likely have trouble keeping straight, so the details of processors for all Athlon XP and later AMD chips and Pentium 4 and later Intel chips will follow. The code names and features will be presented first, with individual processor specifics listed on the later pages. As a whole, it should be a useful quick reference - or cheat sheet, if you prefer - for anyone trying to find details on a modern x86 processor.

With that said, on to the AMD processors. Why AMD first? Because someone has to be first, and AMD comes before Intel in the alphabet.

AMD Processors
Comments Locked

74 Comments

View All Comments

  • mlittl3 - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    I have one problem with this article.

    The bus speeds for all AMD processors are given at their actual bus speed (100, 133, 166, etc.) instead of double the speed as given by marketers. That way, when you multiply the bus speed by the multiplier in the next column, you get the right overall speed of the processor.

    However, the bus speeds for alll Intel processors are listed as their marketing bus speeds (400, 533, 800, etc.). When you multiply this number by the multiplier in the next column, you get four times the actual overall speed (the 3.80 Ghz would be calculated as 15.2 Ghz and I don't think Intel could cool that processor very well).

    Why do Intel processors have their bus speeds listed by their quad-pumped rating and the AMD processors don't have the "DDR" rating of their bus speeds?

    Other than a few typos, great article.
  • ThelvynD - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    You don't have the Socket 604 1.6Ghz Xeons listed in this article that I'm sure alot of folks bought from this thread. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=...
  • LocutusX - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Also, doesn't the A64's ALU have a 12-stage pipeline already?
  • LocutusX - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    No Socket 754 Newcastle? Then what the heck's in my computer? ;)

    (not to mention, "what the heck were those earlier AT articles about?")
  • mostlyprudent - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    The P4 Willamete 478 is listed at 1500-2000 - I believe that should be 2400. I have the 2200!
  • Jalf - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Athlon 64's do have longer pipelines than Athlon XP.
    And a year or so ago, they talked about adding a few more stages (I think it was supposed to be in the Winchester core)
    There's also a lot more to the Athlon 64's good performance than "purely the memory controller".

    Apart from that, cool article. :)
  • appu - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    One of the best articles I've ever seen on AT - up there with the likes of the Memory Holy Grail series and such. Amazingly thorough and researched. I just can't wait for the GPU cheat sheet now! You have that coming as well, don't you? Also, as mentioned by Crassus, it'd be really nice to have the quarter of year information in the tables.
  • Myrandex - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Deschutes P II Slot 1 266-333 512K 7.5 + 37.2 250 118 + L2 100 1-2

    that should be 66 and not 100 for FSB. Other than that, sweet article. I think there is an AthlonXP-M for S754 w/ the 64bit disabled, but still has an integrated memory controller and stuff like that. I think Compaq and HP sell notebooks with that.
    Jason
  • Crassus - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    Great article. If you happen to have some time more I think it would be nice if you could add the years to the the tables of when each processor was officially sold/produced.
  • Rellik - Monday, August 23, 2004 - link

    The 2600+ AMD XP and MP at 266FSB (Thoroughbred B)
    are 2133 Mhz, not 2083. That is the Speed of the first 333FSB Barton 2600+

    Nitpickmode off :-)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now