You sure there is an 120 MHz with old tech? (0.6um)
I believe 0.35 was introduced with the 120.

PD2JK wrote on 2024-01-03, 07:05:

You sure there is an 120 MHz with old tech? (0.6um)
I believe 0.35 was introduced with the 120.

i am not sure, just according to cpu-world.com and some other online info. afaik, it seems that P54C(0.6um) include P75/90/100/120, and then intel introduced P54CQS(0.35um) with new P120, and 0.35um P120 is the ONLY one using P54CQS code name. thereafter, intel switched to P54CS(also 0.35um) with P133/150/166/200.

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process.
Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, the 350 nm version has a TDP of 10,2W.

Also a 1995 produced Pentium 133 has the 600nm! process, with a TDP of 14W (11.2W for a 133 P54CS): https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-60.html
This 133 stepping SK098 (C2) CPU in the link was produced in week 32/1995, but the P54CQS was later introduced.

For example here a earlier stepping of the 350 nm process from week 42/1995, the cB1 Pentium 133 SK106: https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-35.html

I think all P120s use 0.35 for the core but other parts use the old package 0.6um.
I have an SX994 early C2 stepping, 1995 week 25. It overclocks to 166mhz, on default STD 3.3V, not even using VRE 3.45V.
I haven't tried higher yet but I doubt it would work at 166 if it was 0.6um.

Riikcakirds wrote on 2024-01-03, 15:16:

I think all P120s use 0.35 for the core but other parts use the old package 0.6um.
I have an SX994 early C2 stepping, 1995 week 25. It overclocks to 166mhz, on default STD 3.3V, not even using VRE 3.45V.
I haven't tried higher yet but I doubt it would work at 166 if it was 0.6um.

Which means, that the 600nm process was well developed at this time (25. week=June 1995, the June was the release mount of the Pentium 133) and I think, that the 120 and 133 600nm versions are all from the wafer middle. A 166MHz overclock is very nice for a week 25/1995 produced 120 CPU in 600nm, because the 166 version was first published in January 1996!

NostalgicAslinger wrote on 2024-01-03, 15:40:

Riikcakirds wrote on 2024-01-03, 15:16:

I think all P120s use 0.35 for the core but other parts use the old package 0.6um.
I have an SX994 early C2 stepping, 1995 week 25. It overclocks to 166mhz, on default STD 3.3V, not even using VRE 3.45V.
I haven't tried higher yet but I doubt it would work at 166 if it was 0.6um.

Which means, that the 600nm process was well developed at this time (25. week=June 1995, the June was the release mount of the Pentium 133) and I think, that the 120 and 133 600nm versions are all from the wafer middle. A 166MHz overclock is very nice for a week 25/1995 produced 120 CPU in 600nm, because the 166 version was first published in January 1996!

In the pdf you attached it says "P120 combines the P54C pad ring with the core circuitry optically reduced to 0.35"
"By retaining the old pad ring, Intel can continue touse the same packaging and wire-bonding machines it
uses for the current parts. The smaller transistors run faster, however, allowing the higher clock speed."

So it appears all P120s use 350 nm process for the core (transistors) but kept the existing pad-ring of the P54c.
i.e all P120's are P54CQ, and all P133 to 200 were P54CS(use a smaller pad pitch to reduce the size of the pad ring but
the core is still 350nm like the P120).

I just tried the p120 at 66.6x3 @200mhz on an MS5120 motherboard. I ran a "timedemo demo1" in Quake 1 DOS @640x480 a few times. Just a quick 10 minute test, it runs fine but I bumped the voltage up to VRE 3.45V from 3,3v.

There were 3 versions of Intel Pentium 120 desktop processors:

P54C - 0.6 um, die size 150 mm2:
CPUID 0524 (B5 stepping): Engineering Samples
CPUID 0525 (C2 stepping), January 1995 : SK086, SX994, SU033, SK084(???)
CPUID 0526 (E0 stepping), March 1996 : SY033, SU100

P54CQS - 0.35 um, die size 150 mm2 (same as P54C):
CPUID 052B (cB1 stepping), August 1995 : SK110

P54CS - 0.35 um, die size 91 mm2:
CPUID 052C (cC0 stepping), September 1996 : SY062, SL22M, SL25J

thanks to all, very helpful!

NostalgicAslinger wrote on 2024-01-03, 14:57:

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process. Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, […]
Show full quote

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process.
Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, the 350 nm version has a TDP of 10,2W.

Also a 1995 produced Pentium 133 has the 600nm! process, with a TDP of 14W (11.2W for a 133 P54CS): https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-60.html
This 133 stepping SK098 (C2) CPU in the link was produced in week 32/1995, but the P54CQS was later introduced.

For example here a earlier stepping of the 350 nm process from week 42/1995, the cB1 Pentium 133 SK106: https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-35.html

so can i say P54CQS was a transitional product between P54C & P54CS, which used a 0.35um core+old pad ring (causing big die size )? but why after P54CQS's debut in Aug 1995, intel still produced P54C P120(E0 stepping) in Mar 1996? it seems three versions of P120(P54C E0, P54CQS cB1, P54CS cC0) coexisted in the market of Q1-Q2 1996?

azuretears wrote on 2024-01-04, 09:25:

NostalgicAslinger wrote on 2024-01-03, 14:57:

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process. Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, […]
Show full quote

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process.
Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, the 350 nm version has a TDP of 10,2W.

Also a 1995 produced Pentium 133 has the 600nm! process, with a TDP of 14W (11.2W for a 133 P54CS): https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-60.html
This 133 stepping SK098 (C2) CPU in the link was produced in week 32/1995, but the P54CQS was later introduced.

For example here a earlier stepping of the 350 nm process from week 42/1995, the cB1 Pentium 133 SK106: https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-35.html

so can i say P54CQS was a transitional product between P54C & P54CS, which used a 0.35um core+old pad ring (causing big die size )? but why after P54CQS's debut in Aug 1995, intel still produced P54C P120(E0 stepping) in Mar 1996? it seems three versions of P120(P54C E0, P54CQS cB1, P54CS cC0) coexisted in the market of Q1-Q2 1996?

Yes, as I see it too, the P54CQS was a transistional product. However if the pad ring was actually changed or not in the P54CS, I am not aware ...

NostalgicAslinger wrote on 2024-01-03, 14:57:

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process. Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, […]
Show full quote

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process.
Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, the 350 nm version has a TDP of 10,2W.

Also a 1995 produced Pentium 133 has the 600nm! process, with a TDP of 14W (11.2W for a 133 P54CS): https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-60.html
This 133 stepping SK098 (C2) CPU in the link was produced in week 32/1995, but the P54CQS was later introduced.

For example here a earlier stepping of the 350 nm process from week 42/1995, the cB1 Pentium 133 SK106: https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-35.html

Noooo! I didn't know that the 133 was made in a P54 too ... That's one I don't have ... 🤣

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-01-04, 14:12:

NostalgicAslinger wrote on 2024-01-03, 14:57:

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process. Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, […]
Show full quote

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process.
Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, the 350 nm version has a TDP of 10,2W.

Also a 1995 produced Pentium 133 has the 600nm! process, with a TDP of 14W (11.2W for a 133 P54CS): https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-60.html
This 133 stepping SK098 (C2) CPU in the link was produced in week 32/1995, but the P54CQS was later introduced.

For example here a earlier stepping of the 350 nm process from week 42/1995, the cB1 Pentium 133 SK106: https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-35.html

Noooo! I didn't know that the 133 was made in a P54 too ... That's one I don't have ... 🤣

i don't believe it actually was, note the page mentioning a supposed march 1994 release date for SK098. can't find it anymore but there is an pentium 133 announcement from intel out there, from summer 1995, and most sources agree anyway that p133 always has the P54CS core.

this article from the time perhaps expains the situation well, but still seems to have an error - pretty sure the size diagram for the 350nm pentium should say P54CQS instead of P54CS, with these names supposedly standing for "quick shrink" and "shrink", respectively.

auron wrote on 2024-01-04, 23:30:

H3nrik V! wrote on 2024-01-04, 14:12:

NostalgicAslinger wrote on 2024-01-03, 14:57:

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process. Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, […]
Show full quote

cB1 and cC has the new 350 nm process (3,3V). B5, C2 and E0 is the 600 nm process.
Pentium 120 with 600 nm has a TDP of 12.81W, the 350 nm version has a TDP of 10,2W.

Also a 1995 produced Pentium 133 has the 600nm! process, with a TDP of 14W (11.2W for a 133 P54CS): https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-60.html
This 133 stepping SK098 (C2) CPU in the link was produced in week 32/1995, but the P54CQS was later introduced.

For example here a earlier stepping of the 350 nm process from week 42/1995, the cB1 Pentium 133 SK106: https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-35.html

Noooo! I didn't know that the 133 was made in a P54 too ... That's one I don't have ... 🤣

i don't believe it actually was, note the page mentioning a supposed march 1994 release date for SK098. can't find it anymore but there is an pentium 133 announcement from intel out there, from summer 1995, and most sources agree anyway that p133 always has the P54CS core.

this article from the time perhaps expains the situation well, but still seems to have an error - pretty sure the size diagram for the 350nm pentium should say P54CQS instead of P54CS, with these names supposedly standing for "quick shrink" and "shrink", respectively.

i agree, P133's debut was June 1995, but the link of sk098 marks it as "07.03.1994" https://www.cpu-galerie.de/html/intelpentiump54-a133-60.html, obviously a clerical error i think.

azuretears wrote on 2024-01-04, 09:25:

but why after P54CQS's debut in Aug 1995, intel still produced P54C P120(E0 stepping) in Mar 1996? it seems three versions of P120(P54C E0, P54CQS cB1, P54CS cC0) coexisted in the market of Q1-Q2 1996?

Intel had multiple fabs/packaging plants, not all were immediately upgraded because its very expensive, stops the fab and they still made plenty of legacy products working fine on larger node.

Oldest known SK098 according to https://content.cvdsoftware.nl/pentiumtimelin … rouped-mmx.html is from 1995, week 22 ...

How to find out if it's a P54C or CS (or CQS) ...?

a2kkv wrote on 2024-01-03, 22:29:

There were 3 versions of Intel Pentium 120 desktop processors: […]
Show full quote

There were 3 versions of Intel Pentium 120 desktop processors:

P54C - 0.6 um, die size 150 mm2:
CPUID 0524 (B5 stepping): Engineering Samples
CPUID 0525 (C2 stepping), January 1995 : SK086, SX994, SU033, SK084(???)
CPUID 0526 (E0 stepping), March 1996 : SY033, SU100

P54CQS - 0.35 um, die size 150 mm2 (same as P54C):
CPUID 052B (cB1 stepping), August 1995 : SK110

P54CS - 0.35 um, die size 91 mm2:
CPUID 052C (cC0 stepping), September 1996 : SY062, SL22M, SL25J

Umm, how about SY027? Another 052C I presume?

appiah4 wrote on 2024-01-05, 13:53:

Umm, how about SY027? Another 052C I presume?

SY027 mobile version. CPUID 052C mcC0