Talk:List of Intel Core 2 processors

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of Intel Core 2 processors 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

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

missing early Core 2 Cpu's[edit]

seems to start with the Core2 Duo line, these were the second incarnation of the Core line I believe. what about the Core2 such as the 6320 (note NOT the E6320 there is no 'E' in the code)

I haven't the time to find the SL code, but I know this CPU exists, its in one of my old DELL Dimension E520 towers.

Cant find much via Google, only one reference as the search is flooded with the newer 'E' version aka Core2 Duo E6320 http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core2+6320+%40+1.86GHz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.19.42 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Core 2 Quand Q6700 - (at least) three versions with differing TDP, even though of the same stepping?[edit]

Referring to the info-page of Intel, there were three different versions of the Q6700, of which the main important difference was the TDP.

Link: http://ark.intel.com/products/30790/Intel-Core2-Quad-Processor-Q6700-8M-Cache-2_66-GHz-1066-MHz-FSB

Citing (sorry for not cleaning up the table-formatting):

Original: Q6700 with 105W TDP

Retired and Discontinued

Spec Code Ordering Code Step RCP TDP

Boxed Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q6700 (8M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) LGA775

SLACQ BX80562Q6700 G0 N/A 100 W

Intel® Core™2 Quad Processor Q6700 (8M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) LGA775, Tray

SLACQ HH80562PH0678MK G0 N/A 95 W

You can find some of these versions on pictures on ebay (although that doesn't mean the pictures belong to the sold cpu's... just the photos being proof of the existence of the models).

Does anyone have deeper knowledge of the history of this model Q6700?

Ragnar G.D. 178.200.169.48 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technologies[edit]

These processors are great but it's still not anything like Core. It's way different and they operate on a virtual desk space. The interface is different than all the computers. Can be done also with i3 i5 & i7 series, however it's just not exactly a Core Two. So I guess there you have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:2D0:D9E2:249:4E55:51B3 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Core 2" is a Trademark[edit]

... thus, in all cases it should be denoted as: Core™2

Just my 0.02$

--MelioraCogito (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Display error: ^{[Failed verification]} template within table[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

There appears to be a display error in the § 2.2.1.2 "Merom" (low-voltage, 65 nm) part of the table. When the {{Failed verification}} template is removed from the first citations for Core 2 Duo SP7500 and Core 2 Duo SP7700, the table displays correctly. Adding the {{Failed verification}} template produces the following display error.

<span id="Core 2

Duo SP7500^{[21]

[failed verification]

[22]}">Core 2 Duo
SP7500^[21]
[failed verification][22]

I have carefully examined the page source, and as far as I can tell, everything is entered correctly. Simply put, the {{Failed verification}} is conflicting with the function of the {{cpulist}} template. Should I report this bug at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), or is there a simpler fix that I should try?
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 08:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everything appears to be entered correctly. The difficulty seems to be that {{cpulist}} template uses the model= parameter inside a CSS span id= parameter in addition to it being placed in the table cell and it's the former use that is causing a problem. It's kind of tricky, just about any directives put there will cause the span to bomb out, but somehow the ref tags still work.

I found a "hackaround" that may be suitable until a better solution can be found. Move the FV template 'inside' the ref tags and include a reason= parameter to more explicitly say what could not be verified.

{{cpulist|core|merom|model=Core 2 Duo SP7500<ref name="intel.com">{{cite web |url=https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/products/873/processors.html| title=Support for Intel® Processors| website=Intel| accessdate=26 June 2019}}
===> {{failed verification| date=October 2018| reason=for SP7500 and SP7700}} <=== </ref>
===> (failed verification) <=== 
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3203|title=The MacBook Air CPU Mystery: More Details Revealed|work=[[AnandTech]]|date=2008-01-17|first1=Anand Lai|last1=Shimpi|access-date=2018-10-27}}</ref>
|l2=4|fsb=800|mult=8|vmin=1.0|vmax=1.25|tdp=20|sock=µFC-BGA 956|price=OEM
  |sspec1=SLAT2|step1=|part1=SY80537GG0254M
  |sspec2=SLAEV|step2=}}

This is admittedly an incorrect use of the FV template, and it moves the notice down into the references section rather than keeping it with the table entry, which is why I added the parenthetical note. But it doesn't cause an obvious breakage of the HTML output and keeps with the spirit of what was intended. It only works on the first cite, which is why the reason= needs to mention both cases. And it is a little more work for whoever fixes it because they have to notice and remove the stray parentheticals.

And definitely worth reporting at VPT. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem with the {{cpulist}} template. It assumes that everything in the |model= and |ark= parameters is safe to use in {{anchor}}. While refs are, other templates, like {{fv}}, aren't. The best overall solution would be to move the refs to a different column, but {{cpulist}} is a fairly complex template, and doing so would take some effort. Instead, I did the easiest thing: I added a new parameter, |noanchor=, that prevents the model from being used as an anchor when set. It might be worth making this the default behavior when |anchor= is set, that depends on the other usages of the template. For this page, for now, it's not broken anymore. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very kindly to both of you for your assistance. I had not be alerted to your replies.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:List of Intel Core processors: post-merge table redesign[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Intel Core processors § Table redesign. I am intending to redesign the tables to remove less relevant info like part numbers, as well as merge same cells, remove segmentation rows, etc. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]