Jump to content

Talk:Haswell (microarchitecture)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rPGA947 or FC PGA946?

[edit]

Intel Socket G3, also known as rPGA 946B/947 or FCPGA 946. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.47.181.53 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW moved, with the (microarchitecture) disambiguator used when needed, and no disambiguator when not. This may be considered a reversal of a series of undiscussed moves. (non-admin closure) feminist 11:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– The current title is nonsensical and the vast majority of articles like this use "(microarchitecture)" (see here). As stated in the lead, these articles are about processor microarchitectures and are used in hundreds of different CPU models, so "(CPU)" is factually wrong. Pages like Zen (microarchitecture) are using the correct name (in fact all AMD articles use the correct name and so do most Intel). Additionally, the category for this page is Category:Intel microarchitectures. Some of the pages were moved from the correct name without consensus. Laurdecl talk 05:17, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed move seems obviously correct to me. Thue (talk) 15:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these are all (with one exceptions) both CPUs and microarchitectures. It is not always so. And actually Kaby Lake is not a microarchitecture, it is a CPU or Intel generation with the SkyLake microarchitecture.Carewolf (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Carewolf: I disagree. Kaby Lake is a new microarchitecture (µarch). Smaller number of things are different in this one compared to last few released by Intel but that doesn't mean it's not different µarch. There are number of changes which are quite significant. For example Speed Shift v2. Please use {{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪 18:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Intel used to split products and architectures, see stuff like Westmere and Katmai. These day they combine them. This leeds us to the problem that things like "Kaby Lake" are rather abstract things. Officially they are "product generations" of an architecture, but not necessarily representing any changes to said architecture (Kaby Lake is architecturally identical to SkyLake). Though I do admit we probably can not make that distinction ourselves as it would be original research. It was just the only justification I could see to keep the odd "(CPU)" title. But note I do not oppose the move, it is mostly correct, and being more accurate would probably not be neutral.Carewolf (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It says so in the lead: "Kaby Lake is the codename used by Intel for a processor microarchitecture". Laurdecl talk 01:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kaby Lake is not a new architecture as indicated by Intel representatives themselves.[1] Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A microarchitecture is a class of CPUs. When describing a class of objects (microarchitecture), it is natural to talk about the objects themselves in the article (CPUs). That does not make the article itself about a CPU. It is like the difference between a set containing an element and the element itself in set theory. So I completely disagree with your claim that the articles are "both CPUs and microarchitectures". They are unambiguously microarchitectures.
So Thue, is that a support? Laurdecl talk 09:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, support. No coherent (as far as I can tell) arguments have been made against the move. Thue (talk) 13:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Microarchitecture is accurate description of the topic covered by those pages.
While this is good quick fix I don't see why should we use such name for all of those articles. Let's take Kaby Lake for example. The only topic on Wikipedia with such name is one about the microarchitecture. We should just name it just "Kaby Lake". We didn't name article about Slovenia "Slovenia (country)" because it's currently only use of said name. Please use {{Reply to}} Vivil 🗪 18:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but let's just get this done first. Laurdecl talk 01:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of unnecessary disambiguators No opinion on which DAB to use. Pppery 00:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can whoever moves this just correct the disambiguation and I'll move them to the primary topic after. No point in over complicating things. Laurdecl talk 10:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My take is this one: leave the words "CPU" or "microarchitecture" out of the articles names (as it was before some idiot declined my rename of "Cannonlake" to "Cannon Lake" which is how Intel calls it) unless there's a conflict with other similarly called articles. Intel marketing department has no bearing on this matter - will WP fall onto Intel's marketing lies just because they want to boast a new arch which is not "new" in any meaning of this word? But I guess the general consensus among the people who only care about some dubious standards vs. reality will prevail. Also let me remind you that according to Intel's own marketing materials Coffee Lake and Cannon Lake will also have the same microarchitecture as Skylake and they will offer very insignificant improvements (like fixed function decoding/encoding of certain video codecs). Since it's all an unabated mess, I prefer not to follow Intel. Thank you very much and I hope you will do some research before committing to any form of idiocy.Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can the closing admin please warn this user that the next time they call editors intel shills, edit war over page moves [2], move a page while an RM is in progress, talk about "idiots editing WP" [3], calling editors idiots again [4], call other editors "alternatively gifted" [5], or call other editors liars based on a serious misunderstanding of policy [6], that they will be blocked? Laurdecl talk 05:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • When people without actual knowledge make decisions in regard to naming schemes, there can be no words to be used other than "idiot". If that offends you or anyone else here, then have the courage to admit that you know little about microarchitectures and let people with actual knowledge decide. Alas that will not happen, and I will be deemed "offensive". Well, fuck it. I'm not here to be polite when egregiously unreasonable things are beings discussed among people who mustn't decide them. Go ban me from editing WP if you want - I don't care. However for my entire WP history less than a few edits have been reverted (twice they were later reinstated) - perhaps I know what I'm talking about. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Anyway, the point remains that all of these articles are about microarchitectures. I very highly doubt you have more CPU-related knowledge than I do, considering I have programmed operating systems from scratch in assembly, using an Intel manual. I suggest you talk to people on here as you would in real life, where doubtless you would not suggest to people who disagree with you that they are mentally deficient. If Cannonlake et al are not microarchitectures then what are they? Certainly "(CPU)" makes no sense whatsoever, as they are not CPUs. Laurdecl talk 09:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, let's see. 1) Kaby Lake has zero new instructions. 2) Kaby Lake has exactly the same CPU core as SkyLake 3) Has the same IPC as SkyLake as demonstrated by dozens of outlets. Yeah, a "new" architecture. Meanwhile not a single person in discussion has laid out a single argument why Kaby Lake should be called a new microarchitecture. It's not. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Even if something isn't a new microarchitecture (I have no opinion regarding whether Kaby Lake is), that doesn't in any way imply it isn't a microarchitecture. There are plenty of articles that are about the same subject from different perspectives, e.g. the Bicycle article is largely referring to the Safety Bicycle in its descriptions, yet talk those articles talk about different things (both of which could accurately be described as articles about "Bicycles"). So even if (and again, this is if, I don't know enough about the details of Kaby Lake to say) Kaby Lake is an alias of Skylake used for more recent versions, that would still make it a microarchitecture, and not a CPU (which is a physical item). Tga (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Err, this isn't about Kaby Lake being a new microarchitecture (I agree that Intel is grasping at straws for its shareholders). This is about whether "Kaby Lake (CPU)" should become "Kaby Lake (microarchitecture)". Kaby Lake is obviously a microarchitecture, even if it is identical to Skylake. Laurdecl talk 20:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get rid of unnecessary disambiguators - I support that. That's why I am here ... Christian75 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Get rid of unnecessary disambiguators No opinion on which DAB to use." (I'm entirely in agreement with User:Pppery here.) Mdrnpndr (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haswell (microarchitecture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream?

[edit]

How about dividing the mainstream section of the table into two, by putting Pentium G and Celeron series into another category called "Budget"?--Eleman (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haswell_(microarchitecture)&oldid=1235106996"