Jump to content

Talk:Intel Core

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

Wrong Classification

[edit]

Intel CPU Generation: Tik, Tok, since 2009, after socket 775. 975x chipset,

CPU´s are divided by Transistor Scale.. Nehalem is 45nm "1st Gen." Gulftown / Westmere 32nm "2nd Generation." both same / compatible socket: 1366.

Tik is 1st gen, Tok is 2nd Gen,

Tok lowers transistor size = increase power efficiency, increase cache size, increase cores from 4 to 6, and add new instruction set: AES.

Tok is a Refreshed / Refined / improved version of Tik.

Some Toks are different CPU configuration, for example: E5 v1 & v2 are Tik Tok socket compatible, 2011 E5 v3 & v4 are Tik Tok socket incompatible 2011-1 some v1 boards don´t even support v2, like some HP Z workstations with older boards rev001 002, because the Firmware is Not user upgradeable. Toks require a New Firmare with updated microcode, but are socket compatible.

other example: Z270 1151 intel 7th gen. 7700k Z370 1151-1 "different socket, 8th gen 8600k, incompatible" Z390 1151-1 "compatible, updated Bios, New CPU microcode added."

New / Updated Bios avoids requiring a smaller/older CPU to upgrade the Board, to make it compatible with newer CPU´s for the same socket. Compatible CPU´s released after the board was made.

New socket with same transistor scale is Not a New Generation. is a cut down / cheaper version with less PCIe lanes.

for example: X5687 Westmere socket 1366 = i7 2600K socket 1155 Sandy Bridge. same CPU in a cheaper socket, less cache, less PCIe lanes = less power consumption.

Classification by Socket Size as New Generation is misleading.

Socket size is the amount of PCIe lanes available in the CPU/Board... if a board/CPU has less lanes, when user inserts more PCIe devices, lanes must be shared by the CPU and device speed is reduced by half, very noticeable in SSD at 6Gbps and USB3.0 PCIe cards.

Socket size is the Performance leven when fully expanded, populated machine. High End level to Entry Level.

Not noticeable in GPU´s x16 PCIe v2.0, because most GPU don´t use the whole PCIe bandwidth, but the card connector has x16. there are tests using GPU´s PCIe v2.0 x16 vs. PCIe x8 v2.0 performance drop was near 0, minimal. same GPU´s PCIe v3.0 x16 vs. PCIe v2.0 x16 performance drop was minimal.

GPU´s are barely affected by less PCIe lanes, but other devices are very affected. that´s why most GPU mining farms use cheaper PCIe x1 riser for all x16 GPU´s. in Games, performance drop is more noticeable at x4 and x2 and x1.

High End Boards and CPU´s have a Big Socket with lots of pins = More Lanes. Only PCIe v4.0 has enough speed to avoid requiring more lanes.

Enthusiast, High End, classification can be seen in 1151 boards. z270 was high end inside a cheaper socket 1151. same z90, z170, and z370 / z390. all were high end with cheaper socket "less lanes".

but B series chipset / board were the cheapest of the cheapest. B250, etc... Budget Economy class, almost No features, very limited BIOS / UEFI, very limited PCIe lanes, cheaper heatsink thermal management, etc..

see cpu-world.com for better individual CPU classification / details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.83.225.20 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an ad

[edit]

This article is descriptive and informative.
It is not an ad.
The article simply states the products form.
Why cause the article to be rewritten?
Yes the product virtue is touted, however the mentality of the designer is revealed.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.89.36.16 (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Core i5, Nehalem section

[edit]

New feature add Turbo Boost Technology maximizes speed for demanding application, dynamically accelerating performance to match your workload- more performance when you need it the most. <<< What does this phrase have to do here??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.199 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Core i9

[edit]

Why is there no mention in the article of the future Core i9?-- Nahum (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sold as i7. Check the article on Gulftown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.67.239 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core i3

[edit]

I support the split of the Core i3 section into its own article. --Aizuku (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean adding another pointless stub. I would recommend doing the opposite: move the small Core i5 and i7 articles into the common Intel Core page. We could actually move much of the contents of Intel Core 2 into Core (microarchitecture) and move the rest into this page as well. This would reflect what we have in the Celeron and Xeon pages. Arndbergmann (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be consistency. Shentino (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold and merge them. Shentino (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

intel Corei3 processor, why not intel Core i7

[edit]

my name is john, can you answer a questian: why is it intel Corei3 processor fitted to some all in one computers, I had one and took it back to pcworld because I fond it to slow, I wanted one with the fastest processor being itel Core i7, is there any all in one computers that have intel core i7 thanks john, email: mottram6@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.248.82 (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for discussion about the article, not about the product it describes. Anyway, all-in-one computers typically have a low maximum TDP, like laptops, so it's reasonable that they can use e.g. only 2xxxT models, which don't exist as Core i7. Arndbergmann (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quad i3?

[edit]

Gateway has a laptop that's listed as an i3 quad core, but the table here shows that the i3 only has two cores. http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/models/nv-series --99.110.255.113 (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging core i3/i5/i7 pages into this one

[edit]

As discussed before, I think it would be much better to be consistent with the Celeron/Pentium/Xeon pages here and only describe the product lines in this place. The three other pages have exactly the same information, but the amount of technical detail specific to one brand name is so low that it doesn't really justify having separate articles. Arndbergmann (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

[edit]

Maybe give clearer performance indicators of every core so comparison is easier for the general public.

Woutergb (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Transistors?

[edit]

It used to be a common thread in discussions about CPUs to include specs like how many equivalent discreet transistors are screened into the dies. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those numbers should be in the pages describing the cores in detail, although they are sometimes missing there. This article is about a brand name that is used for very different chips, so I think it should not get lost in the details. Arndbergmann (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IBM's Core architecture?

[edit]

Unless I'm confused, some years ago, IBM announced a significantly-different CPU design that they referred to as "Core". Is there a need for disambiguation, or at least a note in this article? Regards, Nikevich 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Cell. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Core I Series Images

[edit]

Should this page have the processor logo images to help readers recognize it? Something along the lines from this wiki: de.wikipedia.org

01:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipeater (talk • contribs)

hyperthreading

[edit]

why is there no mention of hyperthreading? it's the biggest difference between i7 and i5, and some mobile i5s have hyperthreading as well. Aunva6 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update article to include Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge

[edit]

Sandy Bridge (32 nm) - socket LGA 1155
Ivy Bridge (22 nm) - socket LGA 1155
Haswell (22nm) "tock" release - socket LGA 1150

Hawell also has a six-core Sandy Bridge release, on an LGA 2011 socket, but it's not an i5. Socket 2011 supports quad channel RAM. Infodater (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

several things are wrong here:
A- haswell and sandy bridge are completely different architectures.
B- there are no i5 lga 2011 cpu's; they are all xeon or i7, and all the i7's have hyperthreading.
C- Ivy bridge E has yet to be released, even for servers.
D- there are not even Ivy bridge-EP xeons. see newegg 2011 socket xeons
so, the only correct statement in there is that there is haswell lga 1150 cpus. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Core M

[edit]

Should I create a new "List of Core M microprocessors" page? --Azul120 (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seem to have created it..., position might need some work... MoHaG (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haswell-E Processors

[edit]

Haswell-E processors are not even mentioned. Should they be added? — Cheba (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Processor generations

[edit]

A section on how Intel labels the generation of processors versus other ways needs to be added - see this article on PCWorld. Hitokage004 (talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


cORE I9

[edit]

WHAT ABOUR THE I9 PROCESSOR YOU GUYS ARE BEHIND THE TIMEZZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.251.15 (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? I guess you could consider the world like that for instance. As for my i5, I'm fine. It's just that they do exist, but were never made... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:6502:581B:FE5C:E4B0 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oh no, we are behind times Epicandrew1220 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Intel Core. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Intel Core. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- i's --

``Look at the intel before studying these. the i5 works instantly like the Core2 DUO. The 2Solo is an i3. The i7QUAd. Computer check...extreme...nice. Keep studying it. The Core S0l0? it's just a computer man!sk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:2D0:1AA:8BBD:340A:BD14 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Outline

[edit]

For my own purposes, the overview section had become too large to really function in that way, so I supplemented it with a new outline section.

I know (or knew) much of this history in considerable detail, and I made every effort to check each factual assertion as I went along, but it would surely benefit from a proper proofread and perhaps a spit-shine.

It's darn hard to write about branding efforts as real things. What I actually wrote:

Time has also brought improved support for virtualization and a trend toward higher levels of system integration and management functionality through the ongoing evolution of facilities such as Intel Active Management Technology.

What I was actually thinking:

Time has also brought improved support for virtualization and a trend toward higher levels of system integration and management functionality through the ongoing evolution of grab-bag facilities such as Intel Active Management Technology (another Intel branding initiative which promises—at most—what you've already seen).

Perhaps that's just my own sense of humour. In any case, I hope what I just contributed amounts to a worthy addition. — MaxEnt 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macy's

[edit]

Is there some target price for this brand of co-processor? I hear that the only i series has scripted redundancy files to keep..."the dream alive." Suck as for a product that manipulates the eerie extrema "two core" processor. LOL, very very funny people. As the years progress, Windows nine is just called Windows TEN (10). Or if the first line of core...ROTFLMAO. You get my drift. I think the core 2 came after the core. WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.58.156 (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Intel Core. 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) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre, Meltdown vulnerability

[edit]

Intel's security advisory INTEL-SA-00088 (entitled Speculative Execution and Indirect Branch Prediction Side Channel Analysis Method, which may or may not encompass the whole of Spectre and/or Meltdown) lists the following Core products:

  • Intel® Core™ i3 processor (45nm and 32nm)
  • Intel® Core™ i5 processor (45nm and 32nm)
  • Intel® Core™ i7 processor (45nm and 32nm)
  • Intel® Core™ M processor family (45nm and 32nm)
  • 2nd generation Intel® Core™ processors
  • 3rd generation Intel® Core™ processors
  • 4th generation Intel® Core™ processors
  • 5th generation Intel® Core™ processors
  • 6th generation Intel® Core™ processors
  • 7th generation Intel® Core™ processors
  • 8th generation Intel® Core™ processors
  • Intel® Core™ X-series Processor Family for Intel® X99 platforms
  • Intel® Core™ X-series Processor Family for Intel® X299 platforms

Comparing with the present article, does this mean Nehalem onwards, and that the original Core and Core 2 lines are not affected by one or perhaps both issues? meltdownattack.com reports that "every Intel processor which implements out-of-order execution is potentially affected, which is effectively every processor since 1995 (except Intel Itanium and Intel Atom before 2013). We successfully tested Meltdown on Intel processor generations released as early as 2011." The above details appear consistent with the 2011 date, but not with the 1995 date. Of course it's possible that older chips haven't been fully assessed. ("Intel may modify this list at a later time", and there is no strict implication that anything omitted from the list is OK.) Still, it would be useful to indicate vulnerability in this article, even if it could only be done for the older chips by comparing against the description "implements out-of-order execution" (for Meltdown, and "capable of keeping many instructions in flight" for Spectre). 144.173.39.91 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I understood, the core and core 2 duo-series (and older) are not affected by meltdown and spectre 1 and 2. Its "Out Of Order Execution"-technology is very different (more simple) from the newer core i3/i5/i7/XEON/Pentium-Series . That is what a specialist explained me. But I did not see a official statement from Intel that it is not affected by any of these "bugs", still waiting for more sources. --Oecherjong (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
تحديث 196.202.53.13 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short description use of "CPUs" rather than "microprocessors" and consistency with Ryzen article as far as "line" "brand" or "series"

[edit]

This recent edit to Ryzen by Zerranto brought to my attention that these two articles are inconsistent in their use of "CPUs" vs. "microprocessors" in their short descriptions and the use of "brand" vs "line" vs the term "series" which Zerranto preferred. I started a discussion at Talk:Ryzen#Change of description from "brand" to "series" and short description of "microprocessors" to "CPUs" where this can be discussed. I think we should make these two articles consistent. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping over some Core i9s?

[edit]

Why do some of the generation sections like 8th generation not include the Core i9s? Is this on purpose because of something I don't understand or did no one feel like it? Alexysun (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found this on List of Core i9 microarchitecture article: "The Core i9 brand was expanded to incorporate mainstream processors in October 2018, following the release of the Core i9-9900K processor, which uses Intel's mainstream consumer platform."

so this means the 8th gen i9 are not counted as Core i9s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexysun (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so they are part of a X-series, but 9th and 10th gen have X-series i9s as well, so why are 8th gen X-series i9s any different? Alexysun (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To revise table format before considering the question of merging/splitting/restructuring futher. Klbrain (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging:

into Intel Core.

I think the content in these individual list articles represents a huge source of duplication (which leads to many inconsistencies, and more often than not, errors as well), and can easily be explained in the context of Intel Core. A merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Intel Core, so as long as this article remains an overview of the whole Intel Core family of products, containing, for each generation:

  • wiki-links to the main article
  • brief description (context, release date, discontinuation date)
  • new features and breakthroughs
  • list of mircroprocessors (standard table template, the same for all generation)

Please let me know what you think. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 12:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes its a good thinking 2405:201:8009:68C9:D936:BCF7:13B5:8015 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Core i9, Core i7, Core i5, and Core i3 are brand names of the Core product line, and generally Core i7 and Core i5 are castrated versions of Core i9 while Pentiums and Celerons are castrated versions of Core i3. The only problem is the list with detailed CPU specs might be too long for Intel Core. Bustchemoae (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what should be done is that this 'Intel Core' article should be kept down to a short summary of all the processor gens, while the tables containing full details of every CPU should be put in a separate list article. Take a look at Core 2 Duo section of the article, all the model numbers are abbreviated as 2xxx, 3xxx etc and all the table info is kept to a summary, and there is a "Main article" link that takes you to the table containing each and every individual model of CPU with all the details included. And then take a look at 6th generation section, you have tables containing every model of CPU and all details rather than a summarised form of information. So somewhere along the line, the spirit of how things should be done here has been lost, and editors don't know fully what to do.
AMD Phenom also has short summary / prose, while List of AMD Phenom has all the tables with full details of the CPUs.
The "list of core i3", "list of core i5", "list of core i7" articles and so on should have never been created, instead they should've been all put in a "List of Core i-series processors" article or similar. Sort of like how on AMD side of things there's a List of Ryzen processors article that has every CPU rather than List of Ryzen 3, List of Ryzen 5, List of Ryzen 7 and so on.
So my idea is either combine i3, i5, i7, i9 into "List of Core i-series processors", or combine all the core CPUs (core 1, core 2, M, i3 i5 i7 i9) into List of Intel Core processors, and this Intel Core article could use a bit of trimming and summarisation of information. AP 499D25 (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AP 499D25: I agree: So the resulting articles would be:
  • Intel Core: With an overview of the history, features, and reception of each generation as well as an overview of the whole series.
  • List of Intel Core processors: A list of all processors per generation.
~ Arkhandar (message me) 15:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see preliminary empty lists for 1st gen, 2nd 3rd 4th etc have been added at List of Intel Core processors. So are we going ahead with this change as above?
Another question I have: what will happen to all of the former separate articles (list of i3, i5, i7, core 2) once the merging is all complete? They will be turned into redirects to List of Intel Core?
I'm guessing those former-articles-turned-redirects will serve as attribution for all previous contributions before the merge, and therefore can't / won't be deleted.
Although I've been editing Wikipedia for about 5 months now, I'm still kinda new and inexperienced with certain things like merging articles here haha. So answers to these questions would be greatly appreciated. AP 499D25 (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, @AP 499D25:. When a merge happens, the "former" articles are blanked and turned into redirects so that the article histories are preserved. Ideally we also add a note to the talk page of both the source articles (the ones merged from) and the target articles (the ones merged to). I have a gadget installed that does the blanking/redirecting and adding talk page notes, as well as removing the "merge" tags from the articles in one click. Basically, everything except merging the information. If you like, I'll be happy to help with that back-end bookkeeping stuff, if you'll just let me know when the information has been moved over. (And yes, I think, to your other question. It looks like the page at List of Intel Core processors is being set up in preparation for the merge. Joyous! Noise! 15:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Thanks for answering. I do know about the copied notes on talk pages as I've added them on articles that had their content split up before.
The only issue holding me back from copying all the lists over right now, is that the tables on the various old list articles seem to use a different style from one another. For example on List of Core 2, the items are listed in ascending order, and information that is same across the table is not merged, while on list of Core i7, 13th gen has descending order and merged (deduplicated) info. We've got to figure out some sort of standardisation for the presentation of information here. On AMD Ryzen articles they have all the tables put into templates so the tables are neatly standardised across multiple articles that use them, and so you don't have to update the same table two or three times across the different articles that have the same table.
I think what I'll do for now is just copy over all the tables as-is, and from there maybe other editors will figure out what best to do with the 'evolution' of tables across the generations. AP 499D25 (talk) 11:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you have a plan. Joyous! Noise! 15:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is good idea if the size limit and other technical limitations allow it. --HenriHa (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article size problem, proposal to split up again?

[edit]

I have ended up running into a major "brick wall" here as I copied over all the templates and info from the Core 2, i3, i5, i7, and i9 pages over into List of Intel Core processors.

On Special:PermaLink/1152644928#"Penryn",_"Penryn-3M"_(medium-voltage,_45_nm), every single template from the "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards is not rendering correctly like it should. It seems the cause for this is exceeding the post-expand include size limit.

So I suppose there are two ways we can go about this.

The first, and most obvious one, is to split up the articles on the basis of timeline, so article 1 covers 1st to 5th gen, article 2 covers 6th gen to 10th gen, etc.

The second, is to convert all the tables based on {{Cpulist}} templates to regular wikitables. The wikitables would render correctly as long as the raw page size is not exceeded (currently the page is ~500 KB big, as of writing this, and the limit is 2 MB).

Let me know of your thoughts on the best solution here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now, the page size is about 400 kilobytes. WP:TOOBIG is a rule of thumb and not a hard requirement, but this is absolutely gigantic (said page strongly recommends splitting into subpages at around 60kb). Using a less scientific (or perhaps more scientific) measurement, I have a big-ass 4k monitor, and I counted how many times I had to press PgDn to get to the bottom, and it was 65. Yikesaroo!!!!!!
I see the conversation above, and it looks like there were some pretty intelligent reasons for trying a merge. I think that your idea of breaking them up by generation is pretty smart; just substituting the tables wouldn't fix the issue of the page being gigantic. jp×g 09:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG Thanks for the response, it is greatly appreciated!
Lately I've been working on a "redesign" of the CPU tables, which will use regular tables instead of Cpulist templates, with merged cells of same information, common information that is same across all the models (e.g. socket) moved out of table and into bulletpoint list above table, and sSpec + Part number information removed. The resulting table will look quite similar to what's on List of AMD Ryzen processors, as well as those on Rocket Lake, Comet Lake, Alder Lake.
I did a redesign of quite a number of the tables in a sandbox, in the fashion noted above, and saw a substantial decrease in post-expand include size, as well as the amount of space the tables take up, both horizontally and vertically.
A proposal has been made on the list article's talk page about the rework of the layout of the tables, and there is consensus in favour of the table layout rework, overall.
So the current plan is to redesign all the tables first, see how it goes with the article size and length afterwards, before proceeding with a split up. I agree that with the current state of the article, it is an awful lot of scrolling going from top to bottom. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intel added Branded Name for the Meteor Lake Generation

[edit]

Intel introduced new brand name for Core series as shown at 'Intel Announces Major Brand Update Ahead of Upcoming Meteor Lake Launch'. Rjluna2 (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Today, Intel introduces a significant update to its client compute branding with the launch of the new Intel® Core™ Ultra and Intel® Core™ processor brands." Clearly "new" applies only to "Intel Core Ultra", given that the "Intel Core" brand has been around since, well, 2006; what's "new" for Intel Core is just that they dropped a redundant letter, "i", going with just "Core 3", "Core 5", etc.. This edit and this edit add information about the "i"-drops and the addition of "Ultra". Guy Harris (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why "midrange" in the first line?

[edit]

The first line of this entry starts with: "Intel Core is a line of streamlined midrange consumer, workstation and enthusiast". Why the "midrange"? Since something like a Core i9 is definitely not a midrange processor, but a high-end one, I assume the idea was that the word "midrange" only refers to the word "consumer" and not to the words "workstation" and "enthusiast", but, at least with respect to "workstation", you CAN have a midrange workstation processor (some workstation processors are more powerful than other workstation processors...). With respect to "enthusiast", I think that's not the best term: you can go for high-end processor for your computer without being an enthusiast (you might just want a fast computer that will handle demanding tasks well). So, in my opinion, a better opening line would be something like: "Intel Core is a line of streamlined mid- and high-range computer central processing units (CPUs) marketed by Intel Corporation". ZiggyMercury (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox cluttered to the point of pointlessness

[edit]

The Template:Infobox CPU at the top includes the merged information on around 18 generations of CPUs which makes a lot in it useless. For example: "Max. CPU clock rate 400 MHz to 6.2 GHz FSB speeds 533 MT/s to 1.6 GT/s QPI speeds 4.8 GT/s to 6.4 GT/s DMI speeds 2.0 GT/s to 16 GT/s". This says essentially nothing except that Intel has been using this brand name for a long time.

AMD Ryzen has a similar though less extreme issue.

IMHO it would be entirely reasonable to remove most entries from this infobox, specifically those which relate to specific features of each generation (such as FSB/QPI/DMI speeds and cache sizes). Leaving the maximum clock in there might be reasonable just to show the evolution, though on that matter, what's the source on the "400 MHz" claim as the maximum clock for a released Intel Core brand CPU? Phiarc (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Re. 400 MHz, there's a comment "This is the lowest speed of Meteor Lake's LP E-cores", which imho is wrong. That field is for the span of the *maximum* clock rate in a CPU family, and the other info boxes use the turbo frequencies for this. So the LP-E clock rate to consider here is their turbo, which is not 0.4 GHz.) Phiarc (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea: use {{Collapsed infobox section begin}} and {{Collapsed infobox section end}} templates to collapse parts of the infobox that are incredibly long / detailed. That's what I have done on the Ryzen article lately. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconstant Wikitable Format

[edit]

All of the wikitables in this article are inconstant and might not be understandable for the average person. Thus I recommend changing all of the wikitables to the same format. I cannot do this at this time because I am working on adding a 14th generation CPU wikitable, hence I ask for contributions for this work. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should use a summary style like what you see under the original Core, Core 2 and Core 1st generation sections. We already have a full list of all the processors over at List of Intel Core processors and whatnot, so there's not really a point in also copying all those full list tables here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary style means writing a brief overview of the lineup, not copying the full list of processors over. See Ryzen as an example where summary style is used throughout. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be misunderstanding, when I was talking about an inconsistent wikitable format I was referring to the list of processors, not the summary style. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. But the point I was making was that the article should not have full lists of processors on it, like the 14th gen desktop CPUs table you copied over for example. Putting lists of every processors here will make this article hard to read through, incredibly long, sluggish to load on slower connections and devices, and lastly, we may end up reaching the maximum size limit for how big a Wikipedia article can be. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So from what I am understanding, we should remove all of the lists that have processors included in them so we don't reach the maximum size limit for how big a Wikipedia article can be. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on this particular article ("Intel Core") for the various reasons as I listed above. This article should mainly focus on the overview of the lineups, brief summaries of each generation and associated architectures, and their reception. Putting all the big tables here makes it a bit hard to read through the evolutions of the generations. Also worth noting the Ryzen article used to have full lists of processors on it too, but now it's got an implementation of summary style on it. Some people did complain over there about the article getting a bit long at one point. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll just add the list of Intel processors into the article. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken (talk) 14:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-core / P-core

[edit]

Would some one be able to add a description of what these are, or a link to an article that describes them? Bendel boy (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intel_Core&oldid=1254738993"