Talk:Conroe

"Intel P8" should redirect to Conroe

The Intel P8 article should be put into Conroe to conform to the standard of articles on microprocessor architectures in Wikipedia. Intel processor microarchitectures are referred to by their code names in Wikipedia, not by their generation number. For example, Intel P7 directs the viewer to Netburst, and Intel P5 does not exist, the P5 architecture is described under Pentium. Intel P6 is also very similar in that only links to the names of processors of that generation are listed with architectual improvements described at each processor instead of the features of the artcitecture described directly at Intel P6.

Intel_P8 seems slightly more detailed than Conroe, so the improvements made to that article should be integrated into Conroe. This is the reason I suggested that article for merging instead of deletion.

The intel P8 seems to more or less be an exact duplicate of the Conroe page save the "early chips" segment (which I dont think is a proper way to think of them). I agree, P8 should be changed into a Conroe re-direct, but the early chips section shouldnt be copied over as it is not a proper descriptor of the different variation's intended uses.

I respectfully disagree. Conroe is not the name of the eight generation architecture, only the code name of the first desktop chip to use the new architecture. Unfortunately, Conroe does not represent all the chips of the new architecture, and a broader article to represent them all is needed. There will be other chips to succeed Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest that will use the new architecture. Conroe actually reminds me of Willamette, the first ever NetBurst chip in 2000, and that chip did not even merit its own article. On the other hand, Intel P8 represents the whole architecture, at least until a finalized brand name is released. But until then, the architecture is Intel P8. The two can not be merged. Would you like to just keep the two articles distinct? --Noypi380 05:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that I agree with you. If anything, Conroe should just be merged into this page, as referring to a microarchitecture by the codename of one of its first processors is rather misleading. Since 99% of what's in the Conroe page refers to this microarchitecture, I'd be in favour of moving it all into here and getting rid of the Conroe page until more specifics about Conroe itself (especially its brand name) are released. --Jgp 08:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conroe is one particular chip, not the architecture. Pending objections, I intend to merge this article into the P8 one, which can then be renamed when the real name for the architecture is announced. Dan100 (Talk) 20:09, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and I do not object. --Noypi380 14:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pentium 5?

There is absolutely no evidence that Conroe will be called Pentium 5. It is more likely to continue as a Pentium D, or adopt a whole new name. Andros 1337 03:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I do know how to prove the reverse. :)--Noypi380 06:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theres absolutely no clue as to what the new architecture's final code name will be; as a result, a redirect is going to have to be made once the final architecture name is released, with all of these other articles re-directing to the final name release.

Performance?

One of the sections in the article mentions that the integer performance is expected to be worse than K8 due to shorter pipelines. This is probably incorrect. Integer performance tends to be better on machines with shorter pipelines, while Floating point performance tends to be slightly worse. K. Eng 20:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement!

This stub reads like an advertisement, and clearly expresses a personal opinion. The article appears to have been written quickly and carelessly (e.g. typo "proceddor" and lack of capitalization for "cpu").