[Ham-Computers] CPU Flavors...

[Hsu, Aaron (NBC Universal)]

OK...Let's re-hash this again.  I hope the mail and list server don't decide
to remove line-breaks again!  I've limited the list to Intel CPU's and added
a couple of missing ones.


Intel's x86 CPU history (from what I can remember)

8088/8086 - 4.77, 6, 8, 10MHz
80186 - ?
80286 - 6, 8, 10, 12MHz
80386DX - 16, 20, 25, 33MHz
80386SX (386DX with 16-bit data bus) - 16, 20, 25MHz
80486DX - 25, 33, 50MHz
80486SX (486DX with disabled math CP) - 25, 33, 50MHz
80486DX/2 & SX/2 (clock doubled)- 50, 66MHz
80486DX/4 (clock tripled) - 75, 100MHz
Pentium - 60, 66, 75, 90, 100, 120, 133MHz
Pentium Pro - 150, 166, 200MHz
Pentium MMX - 166, 200, 233MHz
Pentium II & Celeron (P2 core) - 233, 300, 333, 366, 400, 450, 500MHz
Pentium II Xeon - 400, 500MHz
Pentium III & Celeron (P3 core) - 450, 500, 550, 600, 667, 700, 733, 800,
866, 900MHz, 1GHz, 1.1GHz, 1.266GHz
Pentium III Xeon - 600, 667, 700, 866, 933MHz, 1GHz
Pentium 4, Xeon, & Celeron (P4 core) - 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0,
2.2, 2.4, 2.53, 2.66, 2.8, 3.0, 3.06, 3.2 GHz
Itanium - ?
Pentium IIIm, 4m - Mobile versions of Pentium III and 4 processors
Pentium "M" - multiple versions with multiple speeds.  Based on Pentium III
core.

Sorry, I never followed the Itanium series, so I don't know the clock
speeds.  Suffice it to say, it's following the same path as the Pentium Pro
CPU.  Both are/were outstanding CPU's, but never caught on as not enough
software was produced to take advantage of them (32-bit software for the
Pentium Pro, 64-bit software for the Itanium).

The main problem with the Pentium Pro processor was that it was fully
optimized for 32-bit operating systems and apps.  16-bit applications and op
systems actually ran slower on the Pentium Pro than on an equivalent speed
Pentium.  This and the lack of fully 32-bit apps was the downfall of the
Pentium Pro.  The Pro found good use in many servers, but soon, Intel
released the Pentium II (2) to overcome the 16-bit limitations and the Pro
faded away.  I have an old Compaq Prolaint 1500 server somewhere that was
upgraded from a 166MHz Pentium processor board to a dual 200MHz Pentium Pro
processor board (the PL1500 was upgradable).  It ran Novell Netware 4.11 as
a file server quite well and, as a file server, can still hold it's own (if
it was running).

The "Celeron" processors have changed in function quite a few times.  The
original Celeron was basically a Pentium II processor without the on-board
L2 cache.  Intel later added 128KB of L2 cache at full speed - contriversial
as the equivalent P2 at the time had a 1/2 speed L2 cache, but 256K in size.
Later Celerons were just Pentium III' or 4's, but with a smaller cache and
slower front side bus.

The "M" series processors are Pentium III (3) family processors, but
optimized for mobile use.  Better yet, Intel was able to squeeze more
performance out of the Pentium "M" processor compared to an equivalent
clockspeed Pentium 4 processor.  It's able to do this as the Pentium "M"
processor is able to process more instructions per cycle than the Pentium 4.
This is true for most operations, but in raw computational speed, the P4 is
faster - this is why the "M" hasn't replaced the P4 on the desktop.  Intel's
next generation will hopefully combine the best of both the P4 and the P-M -
the raw computing power of the P4 combined with the power and clock
efficiency of the "M".  Note: the "M" processor is not the same as the IIIm
or the Pentium-4m.  The IIIm and 4m are just mobile versions of the
equivilent Pentium III and 4.  The Pentium "M" is a whole different CPU.  If
you're buying an Intel based laptop computer, it's best to get something
with a Pentium "M" processor (and there are a whole bunch of different "M"
processors!).  I have an e-mail I sent out to co-workers a couple years ago
to try to explain the difference between the P4 and "M", especially since
the "newer" laptops were lower in MHz than the older ones.  If anyone is
interested, I can forward a copy.

Please correct me if I got anything wrong.  I'm typing off the top of my
head here and there may be details that I'm missing or crossed.  But I'm
pretty sure it's correct.  =)

73 all,

  - Aaron, NN6O