Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

The Pentium III Hits 1 GHz

Intel's 15 Most Unforgettable x86 CPUs
By

The Pentium III Coppermine was the first commercial x86 processor from Intel to attain a clock speed of 1 GHz; a 1.13 GHz version was even released, but was quickly taken off the market because it was unstable. This new version of the Pentium III improved the Level 2 cache—now on-die. It was faster than the 512 KB external cache on the first model and was touted as a feature able to speed up the Internet experience. It was released in three versions: server (Xeon), entry-level (Celeron), and mobile (with the first version of SpeedStep).

Intel Pentium III
Code name Coppermine
Date released 1999
Architecture 32 bits
Data bus 64 bits
Address bus 32 bits
Maximum memory 4 GB
L1 cache 16 KB + 16 KB
L2 cache internal, 256 KB (CPU frequency)
Clock frequency 500–1,133 MHz
FSB 100-133 MHz
FPU built in
SIMD MMX (SSE)
Fabrication process 180 nm
Number of transistors 28.1 million
Power consumption 25-35 W
Voltage 1.6 V, 1.8 V
Die surface area 106 mm²
Connector Slot 1-Socket 370 FCPGA

A slightly improved version (Tualatin), with more L2 cache (512 KB) and centering on a 130 nm process, was released in 2002. Essentially intended for servers (PIII-S) and mobile devices, it was less common in consumer-level machines.

Display all 82 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • -5 Hide
    Arkz , August 4, 2008 7:19 AM
    great article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)

    Looking forward to the AMD article.
  • 6 Hide
    aleluja , August 4, 2008 7:36 AM
    To correct you. Core 2 Duo has ONLY 2 cores, not more, not less.
    Core 2 Quad, has 4 cores and Core Solo has 1 core.
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , August 4, 2008 7:42 AM
    @Arkz

    Yes there is a singal core,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Single-Core_Mobile_processors

    Ok it is not under the same branding but it is part of the same microarchitecture
  • 1 Hide
    Yuka , August 4, 2008 7:45 AM
    I might be wrong, but i resemble that the Pentium 166 (32bits adress bus and all) had support for 4Gb of memory. I remember IBM sold it's top line (at that time) with 64Mb support (even with SDR PC100/66 support). Correct me if i'm wrong please.
  • -1 Hide
    neiroatopelcc , August 4, 2008 8:39 AM
    The core 2 does supply 1-4 cores - 2 cores per die, where one might be disabled, and one or two dies on a socket. It's no less right to call a core2duo a cpu with 1-4 cores, than it is to put the pentium d on the same page as a single core prescot, as it's the very same principle.
  • -1 Hide
    cangelini , August 4, 2008 9:18 AM
    Arkzgreat article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coree ... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)Looking forward to the AMD article.


    Thanks for the heads-up! I tweaked that passage to better represent the Core 2 architecture's available configurations!
  • 1 Hide
    randomizer , August 4, 2008 11:03 AM
    vosesterOk it is not under the same branding but it is part of the same microarchitecture

    Exactly. The article says:

    ArticleThere are many versions of the architecture, resulting in configurations with a different number of cores


    There is no mention of the branding, so there is no actual error there, just misinterpretation.
  • 0 Hide
    ImSpartacus , August 4, 2008 11:11 AM
    Arkzgreat article with only a few slight errors (like saying the core2duo has 1-4 cores... i don't think there's a 1 cored version lol)Looking forward to the AMD article.


    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116039

    Yes, it isn't called a "Core 2 Duo," but it uses the Core architecture and only has a single core enabled.

    But I will have to say, there aren't any 3 core models...
  • 4 Hide
    magicandy , August 4, 2008 11:32 AM
    Good to hear you're not only doing an AMD article, but an ATI one as well (in response to the Nvidia article you did earlier, assuming). A sign of class from the new Tom's is a welcome one.
  • 6 Hide
    harrycat88 , August 4, 2008 12:15 PM
    I wish they would get rid of those stupid SNAP Linkbubless and Inteltex misguiding links. Who ever invented those stupid annoying double lined text popups should have been burned at the stake
  • 0 Hide
    JonathanDeane , August 4, 2008 12:39 PM
    What Intelitext do you speak of ? lol (I use a good Hosts file from MVP) blocks most of that crud.

    Anyway great article was like a trip down memory lane for me, first Intel CPU I got to use was a 8086 and wow it was slow (I was a kid with ADD give me a break lol) well maybe it was not slow and it was the floppy drive that killed me... Either way best game on it was Qbasic uugghh I think I remember it having CGA with a mighty 4 colors !! I had some paint program for it too.
  • 0 Hide
    johnlove , August 4, 2008 1:13 PM
    Compared to Athlon, Pentium 4 is a big loser.
    So why is the Pentium 4 "unforgettable"?
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 4, 2008 1:38 PM
    My AMD machine (K6 233MHz) smoked all my college buddies Pentium 233s. MatLab, Visio, Quattro Pro, PSPICE, Duke Nukem - everything ran faster on my machine. And it cost me $400 less than the comparable Intel setup.
  • 0 Hide
    warezme , August 4, 2008 1:39 PM
    Just 15? I figure its anything with SX after it, anything Celeron and most of anything HT (hyperthreading heat trap)
  • 0 Hide
    warezme , August 4, 2008 1:41 PM
    oops, my dyslexia read the thing as Most Forgettable.., ignore post above. Maybe thats the next article
  • -1 Hide
    jimmysmitty , August 4, 2008 2:02 PM
    johnloveCompared to Athlon, Pentium 4 is a big loser. So why is the Pentium 4 "unforgettable"?


    Because it was a huge part of CPU history? IDK. Considering that it was not that bad until Prescott, which I am sad they didn't mention.

    But the Pentium 4 will always be remembered in my eyes thanks to the Blue Man Group. Them and their crazy stuff.

    theDagdaMy AMD machine (K6 233MHz) smoked all my college buddies Pentium 233s. MatLab, Visio, Quattro Pro, PSPICE, Duke Nukem - everything ran faster on my machine. And it cost me $400 less than the comparable Intel setup.


    Thats nice. Because this is obviously a competition.

    No wait its not. Its just a nice walk down memory lane and they are going to do AMD next so no need for that.

    I for one am suprised that they didn't include the Pentium 805. I remember reading how well that one OCed and when OCed it smoked the highest end available and it only cost $150 bucks.

    Seriously why bring AMD into this? Its just nice memories not a comparison.
  • 0 Hide
    ovaltineplease , August 4, 2008 2:41 PM
    Enjoyed the article, it was a nice walk down memory lane to my teenage nerdhood.
  • 0 Hide
    snarfies1 , August 4, 2008 2:47 PM
    jimmysmittyConsidering that it was not that bad until Prescott, which I am sad they didn't mention.


    If the best you can say about it is "that it was not that bad," that would seem to indicate it wasn't particularly worth remembering.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , August 4, 2008 2:51 PM
    You forgot the 486DX5 133. Allowed me to up a 486/50 to Pentium 75 performance with just a chip. Worked well till programs started to check for a true Pentium chip before running/installing.
  • 0 Hide
    theLaminator , August 4, 2008 3:20 PM
    I've got a working luch box with a 386 in it complete with network cards, Working pentium box, a PIII box, the laptop I still use is a P4 3.0Ghz (an hour and half battery life lol), and my new rig has A core 2 duo E8400 OC'd to 4.0Ghz. Good times for me with Intel
Display more comments