Pentium M: Laptops Flex Their Muscles
In 2003 the market for portable PCs was booming and Intel had only two processors for them: the aging Pentium III Tualatin and the Pentium 4, whose high power consumption made it unsuitable. But a savior was to arrive from Israel: the Banias (alias Pentium M). This processor, based on the P6 architecture (the same as the Pentium Pro) had high performance and low power consumption. It even beat the Pentium 4, while consuming a lot less power. This was the processor used in the Centrino platform and it was quickly followed (in 2004) by the (faster) Dothan model. The Pentium M left its mark on the world of mobility, and the Stealey (A100) still uses the Dothan architecture (with lower frequencies and TDP).
| Code name | Banias | Dothan |
| Date released | 2003 | 2004 |
| Architecture | 32 bits | 32 bits |
| Data bus | 64 bits | 64 bits |
| Address bus | 32 bits | 32 bits |
| Maximum memory | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| L1 cache | 32 KB + 32 KB | 32 KB + 32 KB |
| L2 cache | 1,024 KB | 2,048 KB |
| Clock frequency | 0.9–1.7 GHz | 1–2.13 GHz |
| FSB | 400 MHz | 400, 533 MHz |
| SIMD | MMX, SSE, SSE2 | MMX, SSE, SSE2 |
| SMT/SMP | no | no |
| Fabrication process | 130 nm | 90 nm |
| Number of transistors | 77 million | 140 million |
| Power consumption | 9-30 W | 6-35 W |
| Voltage | 0.9–1.5 V | 0.9–1.4 V |
| Die surface area | 82 mm² | 87 mm² |
| Connector | Socket 479 | Socket 479 |
As with the Pentium 4, the FSB actually operated at a quarter of the nominal frequency (QDR). The connector used, the Socket 479, actually had 478 pins, but they were arranged differently from the Pentium 4 Socket 478 (though adapters were made).
Wasn’t one of the key features of the Pentium Pro line of processors the increase in IRQs to 256 rather than the 16 of the previous generations?
In the days of virtual IRQs assigned by windows it's easy to forget the headache of trying to install multiple interface cards without running out of resources.
am I mistaken? or the Maximum memory figures are wrong? 4096MB or is it KB on 386, 486 and Pentium MMX class CPU's. and 64MB on P-II and so on.
Modern Intel CPU: P1-> P3 -> P4M -> C2D -> C2Q
Modern AMD CPU: P1(Intel) -> P3(Intel) -> K8 -> K10
Next gen CPU: Modified P1
The Pentium 1 & 3 are possibly the most widely base processor in modern computing. Even AMD's chips are based on them.
Hmm....
Interesting...AMD chips based on P3... EHEHEHEHHEHEHE
I think you need a...khhmmm...LIFE
cheers
Nice article that made me a little bit misty-eyed and nostalgic (being of the original 8086 generation)
Did a bit of a clear-out of my parts boxes not so long ago and found a couple of PPro's, a 486DX2/66, a 386SX and a 386DX. Threw them out but perhaps should have built a little shrine? ;p
Cheers.
There are some errors in the article, Pentium M Dothan had a 2.26GHz model which is not mentioned there, they had a VCore of 1.356V and a TDP of 27W, not 36W like stated here, also it's die size is 88mm2, not 87mm2, it also came as a socket 478 which was incompatible with the Pentium 4 socket 478 due to it's electrical differences.
I remember using such hardware well, mainly in the field of CAE (Computer-Aided Engineering). Despite their speed these devices never really made it into the home until the competition started heating up. Having a faster, smaller, cheaper CPU every few months was simply unheard of and mission-critical .
The operating systems relying on this hardware were also cumbersome..look at Windows 3.11 compared to say, the Mac or Amiga operating system (which not only had a WIMP interface but also had pre-emptive multi-tasking that could utilise it's custom chipset). I still remember using an Amiga to do stuff that was way ahead of the PC's capabilities..and that was in 1987. Happy days.
Alas, Wintel won and continues to hold most of the x86 market, for the same reason VHS won over Betamax: regardless of whether or not it's technically inferior, enough people were buying it. I'd say AMD has done more to further the development of x86-based hardware than Intel in recent years, which has greatly improved competition and created some innovative hardware.
I remember using such hardware well, mainly in the field of CAE (Computer-Aided Engineering). Despite their speed these devices never really made it into the home until the competition started heating up. Having a faster, smaller, cheaper CPU every few months was simply unheard of. Mission-critical environments would often rely on alternatives such as those offered by Motorola.
The operating systems relying on this hardware were also cumbersome..look at Windows 3.11 compared to say, the Mac or Amiga operating system (which not only had a WIMP interface but also had pre-emptive multi-tasking that could utilise it's custom chipset). I still remember using an Amiga to do stuff that was way ahead of the PC's capabilities..and that was in 1987. Happy days.
Alas, Wintel won and continues to hold most of the x86 market, for the same reason VHS won over Betamax: regardless of whether or not it's technically inferior, enough people were buying it. I'd say AMD has done more to further the development of x86-based hardware than Intel in recent years, which has greatly improved competition and created some innovative hardware.