Template talk:Intel processors

Centrino

I was looking through the processor list, and I noticed the distinct lack of Centrino. I would have added it, but I thought there might be a reason it was absent, like it being a subset of Pentium M (I don't know if that's true, but it could explain it). Anyone care to shed some light on this? ~ Oni Lukos (No, that's not my real name) _c 19:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, don't I feel stupid? I always assumed that Centrino was the actual processor line and not a combination of various things as the Centrino sticker on my laptop is in the same place as where there's usually a sticker denoting the processor used. I guess I should have read the article I linked to. ~ Oni Lukos _c 18:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

The split of "discontinued/continued" is a massive iprovement. I just split teh Itanium processors back to acommodate the split. -Arch dude 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the split is correct though, it certainly contradicts the pentium 4 article which says the last shipment of pentium 4 processors will be in 2008. Plugwash 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"Intel CPU slots and sockets" a bit confusing

It could be just me, but I find the current layout to be a little confusing. The current rows look like this:

Box 1 (color 1):     Intel _processors_
  Box 2 (color 2):         Discontinued | (list)
  Box 3 (color 2):              Current | (list)
Box 4 (color 1):     _Intel CPU slots and sockets_
                      Italics indicate non-x86 processors.

What this said to me when I read it is that line 1 was a header for a table. Lines 2 and 3 were clearly payload for that header, being in a different color, and having individual row labels, each having lots of clickable content. OK so far.

So what's line 4? It looks like a header -- same color as line 1, centered text, bold. So where's the payload? Given its resemblance to a header, I expected to see a list of slots/sockets. Since (most of) the "real" header is clickable, but still has a table of links to follow, it wasn't obvious to me that the real content for maybe-header is only to be found by clicking on it.

Also in this maybe-header is a comment about what italics mean, but there are no italics in this box. This little bit of explanation is separated from the thing it's really explaining.

I would suggest changing this to look something like:

Box 1 (color 1): Intel _processors_ (Italics indicate non-x86 processors) Box 2 (color 2): Discontinued | (list) Box 3 (color 2): Current | (list) Box 4 (color 2): Slots / Sockets | See _CPU socket_ --NapoliRoma 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than a text representation, here's a coded example of what I think would be a less confusing layout:

Discontinued vs Current Processors

I'm sorry but whomever took it upon themselves to label many still in production processors as discontinued really should have seen which had been discontinued. http://www.intel.com/products/embedded/processors.htm?iid=process+embed shows the processors in current production. Really the only discontinued CPU's are <=i486 and the <=i960 and the 386 and 486 only gained this status in summer 2006 (http://www.embedded.com/columns/embeddedpulse/188500905?_requestid=277155). At the very least, a clarification is needed as to which are 'current' and 'discontinued' since there is only a small fraction of those parts now actually discontinued.

Rada 06:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided shows embedded products. What that means is that these are no longer current products and are in an extended life cycle phase for embedded applications only! Further more, I am a computer tech and I know that these are discontinued products. Intel discontinued the Pentium M in favor of the newer 65nm Pentium Dual core and Celeron M processors. Production for the 90nm CPUs ended at the end of 2007. We no longer can get Pentium M processors in our store for custom laptop builds. They are in an embedded life cycle phase! The only Pentium D processors currently being manufactured are the 925 and 945 models and that too will end in the second half of 2008. That means that these are no longer mainstream products, hence the term discontinued. Jdlowery (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Intel Pentium M is not a discontinued product, MID platform still uses them as see in here. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nehalem and Sandy Bridge

Shouldn't we put the Nehalem and the Sandy Bridge into the speculated list of the template? 189.31.94.176 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Agree, and done. Cheers! --MakE ^shout! 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree. Architecture generally refers to the architecture of a processor, however, it most cases it also include the architecture of the chipset itself, the interconnect of implantation of a chipset generally will affect some minor changes of server processor so I suggest don't fuse them to prevention confusion. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Request information to be added

Can somebody add the following

Network Processor IPX2XXX(SONET & ATM), IP4XX(LAN/WAN integrated & embedded), IP12XX (SONET) ref.

I/O Processor (the RAID controller on chipset)

• I/O SoC
  • IOP322

Link it via Network processor, I think it is the best article we got so far --Ramu50 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Info Updated: --Ramu50 (talk) 19:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Netburst processor discontinuance

For those of you who think that the Netburst based processors Pentium 4, Pentium D, and Pentium Extreme are still current, think again. Intel has moved on from these products and has already replaced them with the Core 2 Duo line. These Netburst based processors have already entered Intel's product discontinuance program and are being phased out completely. Last shipments on all retail (boxed) Netburst based processors were made March 7, 2008 and OEM (tray) processors will be made on August 8, 2008. After this date, these products will be completely gone. This means Intel no longer produces these products. This also means that these countries who are still selling these products are just selling existing stock. This could continue for years down the road, but the key here when we say they are discontinued products is that Intel no longer actually produces them. Please read this article for further details on the matter.Jdlowery (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Template Overall Organization

I propose we do the following

• Discontinued
• Current (Desktop)
• Current (Mobile)

• List (common)
  • Processors
  • Codenames
  • Chipsets

List (enterprise, workstation or servers)

• Slots and Sockets

I think it will be a lot more organized. I don't think we need List of Atom, Celeron, Core, Core 2, Itanium, Itanium II, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium D, Pentium Dual Core, Pentium M and Xeon. Most people don't even use these links at all. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"most people don't even use these links"? I don't see how one editor can have such information. I see no reason to exclude such names from the template. Jeh (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually just make a section called other and have a link called Index, list of... or make it a stub of the template, because some list include discontinued and current which is conflicting. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Codenames: not just for futures

I don't think the list of codenames should be restricted to future products. It should include already-released names such as "Dothan", "Merom", "Penryn", "Coppermine", etc., linking to the articles describing those products or technologies. Just because a code name no longer is a "future" doesn't mean people won't be wondering about what it means. It's true that the regular WP search will find these things, but that can be much more circuituous. Links in a template are cheap. And being from the past, they'll be very easy to maintain. :) Jeh (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of "speculated"

Shouldn't the "Lists of speculated" part of the template be renamed "Future" or something? I mean Wikipedia isn't a rumors site for one thing. And even if "speculated" stays, the extra "Lists of" words don't seem to be needed. Althepal (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A100

The A100 series is not ARM based, it's x86 (as it's article also points).--200.148.45.132 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks! burnte (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation

1. I've consolidated the two different lists of lists, because it's stupid to have two different list lines.
2. I've consolidated the only non-duplicate link on the MID line to where it should be. All the other items in teh MID line are duplicate or not linked. #Also, that's a type of system, not a type of processor. it's not fit for this template.
3. I've consolidated the non x86 processors into one line for multiple reasons. We don't need to double the size od teh Discontinued list for a handful of minor chips. Also, we don't need one or two items on a line, and have several of those lines. Also, Itanium isn't called VLIW by Intel. VLIW is a type of design that Itanium happens to fall under, like RISC or CISC. Itanium is IA-64 and now IIA, Intel Itanium Archetechture, NOT VLIW. Stop reverting it to VLIW, it's inaccurate.
4. This template needs to be concise, easy to use, and not littered with poorly structured lists. It should convey the needed information simply, not be a tree-of-life rivaling a taxonomic reference.

If you disagree, let's discuss the direction rather than just making plain bad edits to the template. burnte (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Restore to original version?

Would restoring the navbox to the simple and usable version be a good idea? Rilak (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no consensus for restoring the navbox to a more simple revision, I have removed links not in the scope of Intel processors. Of note are:

• The links to articles about Intel microcontrollers, there is already a better template for those: Template:Intel controllers
• The links to platforms - it is rather obvious that they are not processors when the lead sentence of such articles go something like this, "xyz is not a processor, but a collection of xyz/an initiative..."

Rilak (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

list of cores

I've added a list of all the cores in x86 processors since P5, sorted by microarchitecture and fabrication process, as part of the way out of Intel's naming nightmare. I'm not entirely happy with the new layout, but it's the best I could come up with. Maybe someone can still improve it.

For new processor core that are used in different brand names (e.g. Lynnfield in Core i5 and Core i7), the conclusion was to describe the specific features of the core in one article and link to that one from the article describing the brands. The same could be done for existing cores, e.g. Allendale, which is used in four different brands (Celeron, Pentium, Core 2 and Xeon). Arndbergmann (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Restore back to original version, all codenames can be found in list of each intel processors. Fernvale (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  That works for the old P5, P6 and Netburst microarchitectures, but not for Core and Nehalem. There, the code names are really what differentiates processors, while the brand names are mostly meaningless and most cores are used in two or three brands (core 2, pentium, core i3, core i5, core i7, ...). If we get one article per core, IMHO there should be a way to navigate between them other than cross-referencing from some random brand page.

  How about splitting the Cores section of the 'Template:Intel processors' into a different Navbox that only gets included for articles describing any of the cores? Arndbergmann (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  I like that idea. Adding cores into the template for all Intel CPU articles is a little overkill. Either link to a list of intel cores in the template or make a separate core template. --Vossanova ^o< 17:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

87 missing?

The template should include some kind of link to Intel 8087 and/or x87 -- that would seem to be a lot more important topic than the 80188... AnonMoos (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Alinor (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

State - autocollapse

As it mentioned over on the AMD processors page, I believe that this navbox has also gotten quite large and that an autocollapse state setting should be discussed. Thanks! The Tech Geek (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For reference, I believe this is the discussion: Template talk:AMD processors#State - autocollapse 173.50.233.227 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Since we did it for the AMD template, I believe we need to do the same for the Intel template so I applied that autocollapse setting today. § Music Sorter § (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

One issue with doing this is this navbox uses several collapsible sub-navboxes, unlike the AMD processors template, so setting "autocollapse" degrades to (always) "collapsed". 173.50.233.227 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Vermilion Range

This seems to be the best place to discuss Intel processors lists (it being sort of a list of lists). My question is where does one put the following:

"Vermilion Range"

Model	sSpec	Frequency	Product Code
EP80578	SLH4J SLADH SLAAC	800 MHz	LE80578EG800C
EP80578	SLH6E SLADJ SLAAD	1.2 GHz	LE80578EG009C
EP80578	SLH6F SLAHW	1.0 GHz	LE80578EG001C

Linkage information between model names, frequencies, and product codes based on PCN110389. sSpec numbers based on product codes indexed into qdms.intel.com. Uzume (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

"Intel Core" ambiguity

The section "Discontinued", sub-section "IA-32" includes "Core" which links to Intel Core. The section "Current", sub-section "x86-64" also includes "Core" which also links to Intel Core. I can see that the Intel Core article covers both discontinued and current processor lines, but the navbox categorization makes the reader do extra work to resolve what the reference to "Core" actually means.

Proposal: Entries in the template should refer to a clear and distinct product line, and the link text should indicate something about what product line that is. For example (and I am *not* an expert on these CPU lines! This is an example purely to illustrate my point!) how about the discontinued, 32-bit processors are referred to as "Core x" while the current, 64-bit processors are referred to as "Core ix" or "Core x and Core ix".

I know there are difficulties distinguishing which processors are current and which are discontinued, and the naming schemes are not likely to cooperate with a clear distinction, but I suspect that this navbox could work a little harder at explaining what it is talking about. Either that, or perhaps the navbox should be simplified and not try to split the product lines up by whether they are current or even by whether they are 32-bit or 64-bit.

Do any subject experts agree with me? By the way, I realise that this affects some other entries such as "Pentium". An effort to distinguish what is meant by multiple "Pentium" entries would be useful too. Robertbyrne (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem of splitting the tables into 'Discontinued' and 'Current' is the same for all six current lines of processors (Atom, Celeron, Pentium, Core, Xeon and Itanium). The Pentium one is special here because it has the most complex history and there are separate articles for the distinct brand names (Pentium Pro/2/3/4/D/M/...) which are not there for the other ones. We could solve this by always linking to the specific products and not to the broader family name in the 'Discontinued' rows, like "Pentium (Original * Pro * II * III * ...) * Core (Solo * Duo)". There are also other inaccuracies, e.g. Pentium Dual-Core and Atom both have discontinued 32 and 64 bit models. Arndbergmann (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Haswell/Broadwell

I updated the template, because Haswell is available, so the Haswell/Broadwell section is not in "future" anymore, but Broadwell is not available yet, so it would be better to split t6he Haswell/Broadwell section so that Broadwell is in the future secition and Haswell not, but I don't know how to do that without making two sections with different titles out of the Haswell/Broadwell section (which would not be good, because it would not be clear anymore, that Broadwell is a die-shrink of Haswell). --MrBurns (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Intel Quark

Hello. There is new line of SoCs from Intel, Intel Quark. Can anybody add link to Quark to the template? ``a5b (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done--Oneiros (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Microarchitecture consolidation

Since most of the CPU/SoC code names linked in this template redirect to their corresponding microarchitecture articles, I think the code name lists should be removed, and the microarchitecture groups merged into a single list -- or perhaps one list for desktop and another for mobile. I'm not against having a convenient list of code names, but without unique page links, they should go in List of Intel CPU microarchitectures instead. Any objectives or alternative suggestions? --Vossanova ^o< 21:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized Template:Intel processor roadmap exists, and serves this purpose well. --Vossanova ^o< 21:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually most do not. Most of the newer ones do since those have not been updated with all the dies, etc. but a rather large number of them redirect to sections on brand pages (e.g., all the Xeon cores). Also your edit loses fabrication tech information not to mention breaks the expanded "state" argument passed to this template on many pages where it is invoked. 192.55.54.40 (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This template is a navigation template, which means its purpose is to link to related articles. The individual cores do not have their own articles, so those links serve no purpose. The navigation template is not meant to add new info (cores, fab size) - just to link to articles. Per WP, "They should be kept small in size as a large template has limited navigation value" If you want an easy reference to such info, you can create a new article and link to it, or edit the existing processor roadmap template. --Vossanova ^o< 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Skylake is not future any more

I tried to update the template myself but it is too complex for me. --Kissg (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Microarchitectures / Atom

So I made a note which architectures belong to the Atom line, but it may be better to make a subsection instead.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, a subsection would be better. --Vossanova ^o< 21:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

Change [[Intel Core|Core]] to [[Intel Core#Core|Core]] in "Discontinued", "IA-32 (32-bit)". DSKoch (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)