Talk:Cannon Lake (microprocessor)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cannon Lake (microprocessor) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Electronics Low‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 October 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Use of old codename[edit]

I made the edits to Skylake and moved this article to Cannonlake. Skymont is wrong and there are many Intel employees at this point who know Cannonlake is the correct code name. Just a matter of time until someone leaks it to SemiAccurate MrCrackers (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted.[edit]

This article seems to be unconstructive and offended WP:BALL. May I delete this article? See what I do? Talk to me? This is 113.253.22.52. Posted 10:07 UTC.

This seems to offend WP:BALL[edit]

I think this article have no relevant information to prove that Cannonlake is going to announced. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENT AND RUMORS. Please consider delete this article, or redirect it to something else. Windows 9 was once like this article, full of rumors. Intel's job list only mentioned CPU engineer. If you think I am wrong, leave a message on 113.253.16.154's talk page. (Posting as 113.253.22.52, My home have more than one IP addresses)113.253.16.154 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Posting as 113.253.16.154 and 113.253.22.52, Now the two IP's has intergrated into one account - CloudComputation. Last time, 113.253.22.52 requested a deletion of page but it is keeped. Now, the power performance engineer job list has no the name "CANNONLAKE". Tom's hardware and apc are just rumors. CloudComputation (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, Cannonlake is probably only 2 years away, which is not really that long time for a microprocessor design. Many sources say Intel is working on a 10nm shrink, and all information agree that the code name for it will be Cannonlake. This acticle basically only says such a fabrication node is planned, as well as what the leaked code names are. I agree that rumor-aggregation-pages are bad for Wikipedia, but IMO the current page is about something arguably announced, and is quite constrained in what rumored details are included.

Also, IMO we should have a Windows 9 page, as long as the amount of speculation and unconfirmed rumors could be kept down, as it is real and notable. It is quite obvious that Microsoft is working on a successor to Windows 8, we even know the codename (Threshold), and there are 12 million Google hits for "Windows 9". Thue (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Lake?[edit]

Take a look at the following news article: http://www.game-debate.com/news/?news=17466&game=None&title=Intel%20Ditches%20Cannonlake%20And%20Replaces%20It%20With%20Ice%20Lake%20CPUs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:102:129D:6844:584B:CBC:402A (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CannonLake cancelled, to be replaced by Ice Lake (10nm architecture) and pushed back to 2017 due to production difficulties, and re-introduces FIVR for the new 10nm chips, but requires brand-new chipsets and motherboards for them. Kabylake would be considered a "refresh" of Skylake with improved Integrated GPU chips (possibly full Intel Iris Pro GPU integration). Kinda confirmed here: http://news.softpedia.com/news/the-new-intel-ice-lake-cpu-will-come-with-integrated-voltage-regulator-486702.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.60.52.136 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This October 2015 article seems to disagree, sounds fairly authoritative since it apparently has a direct quote from Intel: "To address this cadence, in the second half of 2016 we plan to introduce a third 14-nanometer product, code named Kaby Lake, built on the foundations of the Skylake micro-architecture but with key performance enhancements. Then in the second half of 2017, we expect to launch our first 10-nanometer product, code named Cannonlake. We expect that this addition to the roadmap will deliver new features and improved performance and pave the way for a smooth transition to 10-nanometers." Thue (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watts make no sense[edit]

"Due to low 10nm yields, Cannonlake will be limited to 15 Watt U and 5.2 Watt Y system-on-chip parts with GT2" and then " Thermal design power (TDP) up to 95 W (LGA 1151)". You can't have both! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.68.15 (talk) 02:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 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: not moved. Wikipedia does title its articles by using official names, it uses the most common name in reliable sources regardless of the official name. Good evidence has been provided that the current title is the common name. I will also be move protecting this article because some people seem very keen to keep moving it without a consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannonlake → Cannon Lake (CPU) – Intel calls this CPU architecture this way, so "Cannonlake" is a misnomer https://newsroom.intel.com/news/brian-krzanich-2017-ces-news-conference Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. SkyWarrior 04:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem-S-Tashkinov: did you mean to Cannon Lake (CPU)? the target page is a list of real lakes. But books suggest Cannonlake, all one word. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've appended " (CPU)" on the end, as that seems to be the intent. Laurdecl ^talk 04:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – authoritative sources suggest otherwise ([1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]). Also, the current generation Skylake is marketed as one word (I have one). However, I would like to see a move to Cannonlake (microarchitecture). Laurdecl ^talk 04:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only authoritative source in this matter is Intel. And Intel calls this CPU architecture "Cannon Lake", not "Cannonlake". Your comment is absolutely without substance and factually incorrect. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took the courage to rename this article regardless. If you wanna argue with Intel and with how they call their own CPUs architectures - go, rename it back. It will look totally idiotic, wrong and unreasonable but why would I care if you believe that some random journalists on the Internet know what happens inside Intel better than Intel itself. Besides most (if not all) of the mentioned articles are either rumors, predictions or speculations. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artem-S-Tashkinov: Leaving aside whether it was appropriate to move a page while your own move request was active, do you have any reliable sources for the two-word spelling that aren't directly sourced from Intel themselves? See also WP:COMMONNAME for the relevant page-name policy. ONR (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)?

Skylake - one word: https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/37572/Skylake - also one word in WP
Kaby Lake - two words: https://ark.intel.com/products/codename/82879/Kaby-Lake - also two words in WP
Cannon Lake - two words: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cannon+Lake%22+site%3Aintel.com Again I don't give a flying f*ck about your "sources". Intel is the source, not some random pundits.

Stop lying about naming conventions in WP. Articles in WP always follow trademarks (sans lower case/caps in certain cases due to WP limitations). Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread MOS:TM. ONR (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also all these names are architectures, not CPUs. When you let idiots edit WP, bad things happen.

Comment I am moving this article from Cannonlake (CPU) to Cannonlake per Talk:Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Requested_move_11_February_2017. This RM may continue as is to determine whether Cannon Lake (CPU) is a more suitable title than Cannonlake. I am neutral on this. f eminist 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. Relisting one more week to get a clearer consensus (not to mention an alternative proposal name has been made). In the meantime, I suggest Artem-S-Tashkinov to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I will leave a more detailed message on their talk. SkyWarrior 04:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. Artem-S-Tashkinov offers as evidence that Intel use "Cannon Lake" as the official name that a search of the Intel site for Cannon Lake produces results. However, a search of the same site for Cannonlake also produces about the same number of results (Google says it is 22 to 52 respectively, bu Google can't count). Most of these results are forum posts by users so are useless for determining official name. Of the ones that appear to be from Intel staff, in all the ones I looked at "Cannon Lake" is explicitly described as the codename for a forthcoming product, thus also useless for determining official name. In any case COMMONNAME would usually trump any official name and I'm not seeing any strong enough evidence to override that in this case. SpinningSpark 10:46, 18 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.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Haswell (CPU) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two dates in the article, which is it.[edit]

"initially expected to be released late in the first half of 2018" or "The company expects Cannon Lake based products to be available at the end of 2017." Perhaps this statement was in regards to Coffee Lak being available end of '17? Definite confusion. Also if Cannon Lake will ever have higher performance CPUs or if that will be a future codename. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.136.164 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AVX-512 in the i3-8121U[edit]

@Pizzahut2: it looks like AVX-512 in the i3-8121U is not clear. The sources cited don't definitively state it is absent, and a new source [9] is more affirmative that it is included. I am going to change the table to "unknown" based on this information, but we should keep an eye out for a solid source one way or the other. Dbsseven (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like a bug in Intel's ARK database atm. — Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 July 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Participants were unconvinced that the article subject was its own distinct microarchitecture. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon Lake (microprocessor) → Cannon Lake (microarchitecture) – Other microarchitectures have "(microarchitecture)" in their title not a "(microprocessor)" Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose since Cannot Lake is not its own architecture per se, it's still old good Skylake (microarchitecture). It's a CPU lineup, except there's a single model. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Cannon Lake (microprocessor) speaks of the microarchitecture being Palm Cove, so what is the underlying microarchitecture - and, per Artem Tashkinov's comment, is that just a tweak to Skylake that's insufficiently big to render it its own microarchitecture? Guy Harris (talk) 01:42, 23 July 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.