The SL5QW year is definitely off in my file, should indeed be 2001. I think I remember that I had a hard time finding reliable and consistant information on release dates when I set up this file and gave up on that aspect. Better not take the year info too seriously.

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-20, 08:23:

The SL5QW year is definitely off in my file, should indeed be 2001.

Good, at lest one fixed. I mainly added the years to SIV as I started with i486, the table in https://www.ardent-tool.com/CPU/486_Step.html, and that has years. Given it's 25 years ago I can live with ± a year

This German site has release + production info with many of their sample photos:
http://www.cpu-collection.de/?tn=0&l0=co&l1=Intel
They also have info on cpu brands that I have never even heard of 😀.

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-19, 21:18:

With luck we should soon have proof that the CPUID of SL55R is 0686, just like all the other Stepping C0 + cC0 CPUs.

Yes, we do 😀

Was actually worried that it wouldn't work with all those chips (no pun intended) in its surface.

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-20, 10:11:

They also have info on cpu brands that I have never even heard of 😀.

Yes, in the 486 days there were many more makes and there were also more architectures.

I have been looking at the Tualatin dates, you gave several tA1/A0 as 2002 and tB1/B1 as 2001, I suspect they are the other way around as tB1 came after tA1.

H3nrik V! wrote on 2025-05-20, 19:19:

Was actually worried that it wouldn't work with all those chips (no pun intended) in its surface.

A true survivor...

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-20, 21:16:

I have been looking at the Tualatin dates, you gave several tA1/A0 as 2002 and tB1/B1 as 2001, I suspect they are the other way around as tB1 came after tA1.

Yes, as said: the year column contains inconsistent info - I think this came from WIKI; they put a single date on chips with the same frequency thus disregarding stepping order. If I were you I would delete the whole lot and just use a generic indication like [2001-2002].

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-17, 14:01:

That's your call, by definition if it's cDo it will be CPUID 068A

Last week we discussed filling in missing steppings based on CPUID or vice versa. That should work for all of them except SL533. I have been unable to find stepping or CPUID for it but it was once on the Intel ordering list.

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-21, 11:47:

That should work for all of them except SL533. I have been unable to find stepping or CPUID for it but it was once on the Intel ordering list.

Yes, I feel we will "just have to live with it", looking around not even the keen collectors seem to have SL533, I wonder, is it an error in the ordering list?

Once/if you update your database please may I have a new .TSV file so I can check our level of agreement?

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-21, 12:44:

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-21, 11:47:

That should work for all of them except SL533. I have been unable to find stepping or CPUID for it but it was once on the Intel ordering list.

Yes, I feel we will "just have to live with it", looking around not even the keen collectors seem to have SL533, I wonder, is it an error in the ordering list?
Once/if you update your database please may I have a new .TSV file so I can check our level of agreement?

The original listing in my file came from the ARK Intel website and was also listed at WIKI so I took it for granted.

If it was dismissed or remarked (533 would be confusing for a 633 MHz piece I think) we could only see if it was ever listed on an early spec update. Lucky for us there are still a dozen or so commercial websites who offer it for sale (but I would not bet on delivery 😀

I deleted a number of [year] entries and I updated some of the [Part nr] column but the latter is trivial imo because nobody is ever going to need/use that info. Will send an update later.

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-21, 13:13:

Lucky for us there are still a dozen or so commercial websites who offer it for sale (but I would not bet on delivery 😀

I suspect those sites also offer for sale such as "money trees" !

This should work:

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-21, 14:22:

This should work:

Thank you and basically yes, I had to get SIV to deal with xCeleron + xDeschutes + xTualatin (what does the x indicate?) and after doing this I I got:

The SL3US must be CPUID 0680 as the A2/cA2 are CPUID 0681. If you changed that there would just be 25 date issues. Such as SL4CD cC0 @ 1999 when SL43H cB0 is mar 2000 does not add up.

Why don't you add SL66D + SL6HC + SL69K + SL6QU ?

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-21, 15:09:

Thank you and basically yes, I had to get SIV to deal with xCeleron + xDeschutes + xTualatin (what does the x indicate?) and after doing this I I got:

The SL3US must be CPUID 0680 as the A2/cA2 are CPUID 0681. If you changed that there would just be 25 date issues. Such as SL4CD cC0 @ 1999 when SL43H cB0 is mar 2000 does not add up.

Why don't you add SL66D + SL6HC + SL69K + SL6QU ?

The x's are for my own convenience - it makes sorting the table a lot easier. They occur with the 23 'issue' entries with a [-] in front that I have given up on.
I gave up on -SL3US [xCoppermine slot 1] because I do not believe it exists/existed in the wild.

I deleted the 1999 date for SL4CD.

SL66D + SL6HC + SL69K + SL6QU are mobile cpu's. Maybe one fine day....

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-21, 15:09:

and after doing this I I got: https://www.vogons.org/download/file.php?id=219802 If you changed that there would just be 25 date […]
Show full quote

and after doing this I I got:

If you changed that there would just be 25 date issues.

The second entry >SL52X occurs currently on Ebay and CPUW with photos - both are marked '00
https://www.ebay.com/itm/383882980816
https://www.cpu-world.com/sspec/SL/SL52X.html … google_vignette
Not sure why you expect 2001 for a cpu like that ?

I have adjusted some numbers and am now down to three issues. I can't convince myself to accept your years.

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-21, 15:55:

I deleted the 1999 date for SL4CD.

SL66D + SL6HC + SL69K + SL6QU are mobile cpu's. Maybe one fine day....

For SL4CD it's 2000, as long as 1999 isn't there I don't care.

If SL3US exists it will be CPUID 0680 and if not having CPUID 0680 is harmless.

It would take less time to add them than justify not adding them, I would buy this if I was asking you to add the missing 100 Pentium II/III Xeons, but...

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-21, 18:16:

It would take less time to add them than justify not adding them, I would buy this if I was asking you to add the missing 100 Pentium II/III Xeons, but...

Ok, mobiles next time.
Xeons like so ?

Yes, there are not many P-II Xeons, there are way more P-III Xeons

Notice that all at A0 stepping's have a CPUID ending with 0

red-ray wrote on 2025-05-21, 20:59:

Yes, there are not many P-II Xeons, there are way more P-III Xeons
Notice that all at A0 stepping's have a CPUID ending with 0

I have no affinity with Xeons so anything you say is above my head. Here is the rest:

PARKE wrote on 2025-05-21, 21:56:

I have no affinity with Xeons so anything you say is above my head. Here is the rest:

All these are Xeon (Pentium 4) rather than Pentium !!! Xeon