Jump to content

Talk:List of Intel processors/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Missing items

Sandy Bridge processors aren't listed. Many Xeon processors are also missing. Maybe this article should just list architectures which link to articles which contain the variants within. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.153.150 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There are many lists and tables of Intel processors in various articles - having one "master list" doesn't help, especially since it's not been kept up-to-date. Each architecture is interesting in its own right, so should probably have its own article. Within that there should be sections for each core revision, and within those a list of released models. Then you'd also want a "list of Intel microprocessor architectures" article that simply links to them. --Myrmecophagavir (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many, partly broken links to Google Docs documents. Is this spam? They should be removed, IMHO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.60.99 (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

MISSING PROCESSORS?

At least the T3200 (mobile CPU!) and E7x00 series (wolfdale with 3mb cache) are missing. What's worse, Intel's documentation on T3200 is spotty to non-existent. Get to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.46.149 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many other mobile cpus missing as well, for example the T9300, T9400 etc, etc Wims (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hail the great 8085! :-)

The 8085 was the greatest, of course that's not NPOV :)!

Heh -- well, at least it was a better 8080 than the 8080 :-) --Wernher 21:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it can be said that the 8085 is the final evolution of 8-bit microprocessors. Too bad it didn't make it into the early home computers (pre-IBM PC). The 8085 was eclipsed by the Z80 in the early home computer market. Many 8085s were manufactured but ended up as mainframe I/O controllers and in various early PC peripherals.

Listbox proposal

How about something like this for the processors' individual articles? (486 example shown) Crusadeonilliteracy 14:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Preceded by:
Intel 80386		 Intel microprocessors Succeeded by:
Intel Pentium


As you might have seen, there is now a listbox with roughly all the Intel µPs on it; hopefully that's just as informative (maybe even more?) as the proposal you mention above. --Wernher 18:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

StrongARM/XScale here?

Should the StrongARM/XScale chips be listed here since Intel makes them now? Ckape 08:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would say no, since those processors are based on designs from other companies (ARM both?), only manufactured and possibly developed further by Intel. Perhaps they should be put in a list or listbox for ARM? --Wernher 18:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
StrongARM was originally designed by Digital Equipment Corporation, then acquired by Intel. XScale was designed totally by Intel. Dyl 20:08, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Why the aggressive cleanup?

The recent cleanup removed lots of useful information, and no reason was noted. My favorite quirky processor, the iAPX 432 went down the drain... Yaron 22:24, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

But that's simply outrageous. Doesn't people have any sense of tech history at all? I say we reenter the relevant 'cleaned up' information. Perhaps one should put it into a more legible form first (?), but reentered it must be. --Wernher 04:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree. What's the purpose of an encyclopedia, if not to hold historical and perhaps some obscure information? If articles were to hold info only about the well-known, then why not just use Intel's website? Dyl 20:34, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
I added info on the iAPX 432, 376, 860, and 960, then noticed this discussion. There was no good reason for the information to be removed, and I would even dispute the value of having it in a "non-mainstream" section. If you're going to have such a section, arguably even the 4004, 4040, and 8008 belong there, as they never were widely used other than in embedded systems. --Brouhaha 00:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Corrected 4004 clock speed again.

See my comment on this topic in the discussion section of the 4004.

--Colin Douglas Howell 00:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i860 (80860)

The i860 (80860) is currently listed as a 32-bit processor, but it was in fact Intel's first 64-bit microprocessor. I'd have fixed this myself but am not sure how best to do it. The processors are currently listed in order of introduction, and I didn't want to change that section heading to say "32-bit and 64-bit microprocessors". --Brouhaha 19:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I think the 860 was more of a 32/64-bit processor, given its 32-bit integer ALU(s); I guess Intel would want to market it as a 64-bit one due to the FPU and buses. Anyway, the 64-bit feature should be noted by the 860's location in the listing, as you suggest.
To address the article's chrono vs "class" ordering problem, I'm currently working on a combined scheme: the µPs will be ordered by "class", i.e. wordlength as well as "mainstreaminess" (the latter an issue with the 432, i960 and i860), but within each "class" there'll be release date notes (between the processor items) for those other-class processors released in the same time window. --Wernher 23:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
See the following thread for the continuation of the chrono vs "class" ordering discussion. --Wernher 02:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chrono vs "class" ordering

So there; I've made the change to "class" ordering with chronological entries. Phew, some job, if I may say so. :-) Please go check whether I've introduced any typos/brainos (might just happen, you know). --Wernher 02:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intel386 EX release date

Title says it all... Anybody have definite info regarding that date? The earliest possible date I've got so far, after googling around for a bit, is August 1994 (from an Intel386 Embedded Processor Update) --Wernher 15:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have now also found refs to September 1994 in misc datasheets (i.e., date of initial datasheet publication -- rev 0), so I think the Aug '94 release date may be correct. I'll settle for that one until told otherwise. --Wernher 15:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Does the Intel 8051/52 belong here?

I noticed the page about the Intel_8051 isn't connected to this collection of Intel microprocessors. Is that an intentional distinction between microprocessors and microcontrollers? Or an oversight?

An oversight, I think. Mirror Vax 02:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Er, nope. That is, I, for one, in my work on this list, have consciously made a distinction between µPs and µCs---in line with the Intel µP list box. We might perhaps add a separate List of Intel microcontrollers, or maybe it would be better to put the µCs in a separate section in the present µP list. For the Motorola chips, we have a common list but two distinct templates, 1 and 2. --Wernher 01:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see the microcontrollers, too - 8031, 8748, and all the other little chips. For a while every Macintosh sold had an Intel chip in it...in the keyboard. Guess I'll have to take a rainy weekend and hit my old Intel manuals. --Wtshymanski 17:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriateness

I have deleted the title of section one of this article, as it was wildly inappropriate. I am not sure of what it is meant to be, so I have temporarily assigned it a title noting the change. The original title was: KEVIN SUCKS BALLS A LOT AND HE LIKES IT A LOT HE ALSO EATS CRAP

I think you'll agree with my change.

NOTE: More cleanups now...

===Pentium ("ClassicDCRAP")===(ALSO CRAP)

has been changed to ===Pentium===

Section 7 has been removed. The full text was as follows:

===well this is as follows===

Oh my god!! THIS IS CRAP

Not needed, guys.

===KEVIN SUCKS CRAP KEVIN GO SUCK CRAP===

Removed from See Also section

80486DX's speeds were listed as crap speeds, now fixed. Also, gigaCRAPS changed to gigabytes. "Used in Desktop computing and crap servers" changed to "Used in Desktop computing and servers". "Level 1 crap cache on chip" changed to "Level 1 cache on chip".

Pentium, "Bus width 64 craps" changed to "Bus width 64 bits". "Number of transistors 3.1 million craps" changed to "Number of transistors 3.1 million".

Someone has a crap fetish, so says Bryan Jones

Thanks for trying to fix things here. However, there's still a lot that 64.30.49.146 has removed today that's not been added back, so I'm just going to revert things to the last good version. Jgp 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Pentium M in 64 bit section?

Why to put Pentium M (32 bit only) in Section 9: The 64-bit processors: IA64 and EM64T?

It's one of the "chronological entries"; I guess the idea is to show what other stuff was going on at the time. Guy Harris 08:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I also find this really confusing. I suggest moving it. Riki 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean removing it; there's already an entry for Pentium M in the 32-bit section - the entry in the 64-bit section indicates what time it came out relative to the times various 64-bit processors came out, and that entry points to the main entry. Guy Harris 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The organization is terrible. It should either be strictly chronological (which I personally thing makes the most sense), or strictly by functional groupings (4/8/16/32/64 bit, etc.), but not both mashed together. Maybe it should be split into two separate lists. --Brouhaha 07:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason I made this ordering was that which Guy Harris mentions above: showing which other processors were made at the same time as those in the given section. I think this is a valuable piece of information, and I honestly thought any confusion about the ordering would be reduced/eliminated by the phrase "chronological entry" being included in all the pertinent entries. --Wernher 04:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It might be less confusing than some past organization, I haven't checked. But it's still very confusing, even to someone like me who is very familiar with Intel product history. I still believe that it should be one way or the other, or two lists. If it was by functional grouping, it would be adequate for each entry to have an intro date or year, but having one list with multiple entries for many products is absurd. I suppose it's possible that there may be other Wikipedia pages like this, but I haven't seen them, and I've NEVER seen such a thing in a dead-tree encylopedia. --Brouhaha 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I would have no problem with having two lists. My only concern is that some people might update one page and forget to update th other, but that's minor. Jgp 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
And it already happens with the confusing conbined list. --Brouhaha 02:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Which of Intel's line of processors was the turning point?

Intel has developed so many processors today and is the most successful company in this field. Which processor do you think was the turning point in the life of Intel? --Susam Pal, Infosys Technolgies Ltd., India

Hello Susam, In my opinion, it can be said that the original Intel 4004 is the turning point for Intel because the 4004 was the original integrated microprocessor. It can also be said that the 8086/8088 microprocessors were the turning point because they were used in the IBM PC (and clones) - a computer design that has changed computing worldwide since the early 1980's. --Anonymous
A very diffucult Q to answer, but perhaps the 8080 is as much of a candidate as the 4004 and the 8086/88, since the 8080 was the one, that, for all practical purposes, started off the microcomputer industry as a whole. That processor inspired the Zilog Z80 and the Motorola 6800, the latter of which in turn inspired the MOS Technology 6502. The rest, as they say, is history... --Wernher 02:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


The first Intel CPU can't really be called a turning point for Intel because there was nothing before it to turn from! I suppose the 8086 and/or 8088 would qualify since it's the x86 series that has made Intel a household word or maybe the 80386 since that was the first 32 bit CPU and made Microsoft Windows the standard for PC's but truly Intel has been on a course straight up since it began and didn't need a turning point.


Why are Apple Macintosh computers called out for the Intel Core processors?

Most other system vendors (e.g., Dell) don't get links here, and certainly not one link per Intel processor variant they use. Why should Apple? If they have to be listed at all, it should be only one link. --Brouhaha 07:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking back, an anon added the individual models and added the Apple links. I've deleted the Apple links and have added an end-note to the T1200. Intel do not actually list it as a product; nor is it listed in their datasheet. -- iici 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Virtual memory for Pentium I

What does this mean? "Virtual Memory 64 terabytes". Please, give the sources of information or delete this. -- A5b 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


-DeathKnight: This means that the processor is capable of supporting that much virtual memory. However, I edited much of the 386/486 info regarding how much memory they could handle. Due to the fact that it was wildly incorrect. I will look all of the specs for the Pentium to confirm.

I think the lines that say Virtual Memory (Insert ammount here) Should read as

Support for up to (Insert Ammount Here) of Virtual Memory

Its a bit longer, but it less likely to cause confusion.

"Addressible memory" refers to the amount of physical memory the processor can handle; it's 2^(the size of the physical address bus in bits). It's:
  • 4 gigabytes in most of the older 32-bit processors;
  • 16 megabytes in the 80386SX, which had a 24-bit physical address bus rather than the 32-bit physical address bus of the 80386DX, 80486, and original pentium;
  • 64 gigabytes in the later 32-bit processors with PAE, as the physical address expanded to 36 bits.
It might be bigger still in the EM64T processors.
"Virtual memory" means the size of the virtual address space; unfortunately, there are arguably two useful values in the 386 and later non-EM64T processors, namely the linear address space (which is, as far as I know, 4 gigabytes in all of those processors, even the 80386SX, as limiting linear virtual addresses to 24 bits would probably have caused compatiblity problems with a lot of operating systems) and the segmented address space (which, if they can support up to 8192 segments in the GDT and 8192 segments in the LDT, is 64 terabytes, i.e. (8192+8192)*2^32, with 2^32 being the maximum segment size). Guy Harris 05:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


-DeathKnight: Thank you for fixing my mistakes. I should have double checked as the sources I had originally gone with for some of the info was wrong.

4004 NOT used in Pioneer

The claim that the 4004 was used in a Pioneer spacecraft is a myth, per Dr. Larry Lesher of NASA and Steve Short of Intel Press Relations: [1] --Brouhaha 08:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

8086 performance against 8088

Strange issue with subject:

  • 8086: 8 MHz with 0.66 MIPS
  • 8088: 8 MHz with 0.75 MIPS

And 8088 is identical to 8086 except for its 8 bit external bus.

How it can be faster then 8086? It's some kind of mistake here. Unfortunatelly, I can't find out correct benchmark values in the Internet. Ddanila 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this triggers a logic check. To argue the other side, there may have been a difference in instruction cache size (and we're talking on the order of 6 bytes of cache here) but I doubt that would make a difference of more than 10% at the extreme. MIPS figures are kind of pointless anyway, they only compare accurately between the same microarchitecture tested using the same benchmark program. What do you think are the odds the 80486's and the 8086 figures here came from the same test, notwithstanding that they're different microarchitectures. I'm for removing the MIPS figures if they're in doubt or if the benchmark they're derived from can't be cited in a footnote. 71.242.43.9 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Adressable and Virtual Memory

Strange issues: someone messed up almost the descriptions of the amounts of Adressable & Virtual Memory.

E.g: mebibyte , tebibytes , gibibytes

Before cleaning this up to KiB, MegaB, GigaB I would like advice.

Thank you --CedricVonck 14:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Organization re: chronological entries

Looking at the various sections and the brief redundant "chronological entries" scattered throughout, I have an observation and a suggestion. The observation is that this approach, while it has its merits and I see its intent and the value of it, is awkward. The way in which the entries were added to the end of the previous sections so as not to appear in the table of contents is a clever hack, but a hack nonetheless. It makes editing a little bit awkward (breaking the elegant organization of section editing and the automatic insertion of section headings into edit summaries), and it makes the blank vertical space above a chronological pseudo-section heading appear sightly larger than the space above a regular, real section heading in my browser (Firefox 2.0). Also, an argument could be raised about whether anything that looks like a section heading, but isn't, should be allowed; shouldn't all section headings appear in the TOC?

My suggestion is to separate out all of the chronological entries into a separate list which is chronological only, with links back to the main entries in the categorized organization. This could also, optionally (this is not part of my main suggestion) address the concern of some earlier contributor on this talk page who suggested breaking the article up into multiple articles, perhaps separating out microcontrollers from microprocessors. Instead of (or along with) that, the chronological list could be separated into a new article called Chronological list of Intel microprocessors. (Aside, I also have to comment that the title of this article doesn't really make you expect to necessarily find microcontrollers listed here, if you were looking for them. Better to put them into the title or take them out of the article, but, I would suggest, keep both combined in the chronological list, in another separate article.) Essentially, my argument is that having mention of processors from other categories interspersed into each category sort of contradicts the intent behind organizing the information into processor family categories to begin with; it's sort of schizophrenic (in Dr. Martin Luther King's usage of the term.) Basically, I'm saying go chronological, or go family-wise, but not both in the same place (because it just doesn't work well—like Asia's second album, Alpha. It was a passible album with some good songs, but as a whole it didn't come together. That wasn't for lack of consistency in purpose, as far as I noticed, but the effect was similar. I don't know; this analogy is just off the top of my head.)

My preference and recommendation to the community would be to split the article into three, one about microprocessors, ordered first by family and then chronologically within each family, one about microcontrollers, ordered the same way as the one about microprocessors, and one including both microprocessors and microcontrollers all listed chronologically. Or, put all three lists into one article. Give each article a title that includes the word microprocessors if they are listed in the article and the word microcontrollers if they are listed in the article. Pervasively cross-link the three lists; give either the chronological list or both by-family lists no details, only a link to the appropriate one of the other two lists where the details are, so that all of the details appear only once and there's no redundancy or opportunity for inconsistency to be introduced by edits made to only one copy.

On a completely different point (but still about organization), it would also be nice if a consistent philosophy for the ordering of details could be applied. For example, technical specifications first (and in a particular defined order), then points about unique capabilities (like the 80186 having inbuilt peripherals), then historical and usage notes (such as how extensively the device was used, how extensively or successfully it sold, or what notable machines the processor was used in.) Don't let this paragraph distract you from the main idea I'm presenting in the paragraphs above. 71.242.43.9 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes?

This is just a raw idea that I'm throwing out there, but isn't there a CPU infobox template that provides a standard form for a lot of the information about processors? Is there any chance that infobox could be used for each CPU as the basis for its section, with bullted points below for other, irregular information and notes? 71.242.43.9 (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Itanium 2 x86 support--moving editor's comment from article text to here

In his or her "Revision as of 18:27, 20 January 2009", 76.247.187.244 (talk) inserted the following comment in the Itanium 2 section:

To Verify: I think x86 hardware instruction decoding may only be on Merced, and was removed from Itanium-II.

I'm removing that comment from the article text (immediately) and adding a {{dubious}} tag pointing here after the statement being questioned, which is just above the "Itanium" (not "Itanium 2") heading. 71.242.43.9 (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Core 2 Duo T5800/T7250 : x86 or x64 (32-bit or 64-bit)

I'm finding some information that disagrees with each other:

  • The Merom page says x86.
  • This page (List_of_Intel_microprocessors) says that the T7250 is 64-bit, but implies that the T5800 is an x86 processor ("x86-architecture microprocessors" at bottom of the page).
  • Intel's T5800 Product Page states that it is a 64-bit processor.
  • The x64 page states that "Intel Core 2 (Including Mobile processors since "Merom")" are 64-bit.
  • CPU-Z identifies one of the processor's instruction sets as "EM64T", which is one of Intel's designations for 64-bit processing.

Anyone care to discuss? --Godfoster (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

All Core microarchitecture processors are 64 bit x86. The term 'x64' is only used by Microsoft, Sun, and a few others but not by Intel. Strictly speaking, x86-64 is an extension to the original x86 instruction set, just like MMX, SSE and other extensions exist, but x86 is the more general term. Feel free to update the infoboxes of all processors (merom, conroe, yorkfield, woodcrest, ...) with the specific instruction set extensions, see Clarksfield (microprocessor) for an example. Note that the 45 nm versions don't support SSE4.1.
T5800 has part number LF80537GG041F, while T7250 is LF80537GG0412M. The main difference between the two is that all T7xxx series support Intel VT, which T5800 and T5900 don't. Arndbergmann (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dragon 32/64?

I have removed the erroneous claim that the Dragon 32 and Dragon 64 uses the 8088 CPU. The Dragon 32/64 in fact use the Motorola MC6809E CPU. I have no idea where that claim came from, but it clearly wasn't researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.38.15.247 (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - that nonsense has been there since April 2010! Letdorf (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC).

Code names?

Maybe there should be a section of this page devoted to the code names given to Intel processors. I haven't done the research, but there may be some patterns:

Such a description is in List of Intel codenames. It may be a good idea to link to that page from here and/or from Template:Intel processors though. Arndbergmann (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ordering within processor types....

I feel that reading though the list of different processor types is disjointed. For example, when you are looking at the list of processors newer chips follow older ones. This follows a logical process.

Within each chip though the processors are listed in reverse order with the fastest first. Intel has always brought out slower chips first and then as the process for producing them is refined bringing out faster ones. Admittedly the manufacturing process determines what minimum speed each can do, otherwise overclocking would not work. The list should continue to use this increasing scale no matter what sub-grouping is being defined.

What are other people's thoughts on this?

Addendum: I'll leave this up for a few months and then make the adjustment if there is no discussion, otherwise I'm sure this comment will float forever.Rjhawkin (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone removed most of the 4040 section

On 13th June 2011, someone anonymous removed most of the 4040 section. Does that look like vandalism, or was the info wrong? Myrmecophagavir (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. Letdorf (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

Sandy Bridge

Sandy Bridge not updated here? 175.156.211.51 (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Sandy Bridge is completely missing and Ivy Bridge is nearly here in 6 months. - xpclient Talk 08:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone added a Sandy Bridge section, but it was a bit slap-dash and inserted into the middle of Nehalem. I've pulled it into its own architecture section, and added info for all the desktop variants on which I could find information. I believe Ivy Bridge will be a die-shrink of the architecture; so its variants should be put in the existing Sandy Bridge sub-sections, in the same manner as Bloomfield et al. went into Nehalem. Myrmecophagavir (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

List split?

This page is now 31kb, and ~45 page-downs long on an 800x600 screen, if no-one objects, I think I shall split it into a few slightly overlapping lists(eg: list of intel x86 processors, list of non-x86 intel processors, chronological list of intel processors, etc.).

Does anyone have any ideas as to what good lists would be? --Boffy b

Completely off the top of my head (so please don't take it to conclusively), I'd say that one suitable split would be a 'techno-chronological' one, resulting in the following articles, for example:
  • "List of Intel 8-bit and 16-bit processors"
  • "List of Intel 32-bit non-Pentium processors"
  • "List of Intel 32-bit Pentium processors" (split into the following two lists if necessary)
    • "List of Intel Pentium I, Pro, II, and III processors"
    • "List of Intel 32-bit Pentium 4 processors"
  • "List of Intel 64-bit processors" (or "List of Intel 64-bit Pentium and Itanium processors")
The split of the 32-bit Pentium lists may be necessary due to size, and technically desirable anyway since the P4's microarchitecture is quite different from the PII/III's. I'm not sure if I like the (overly long?) article names, but it's just a thought... At least, these titles are reasonably intuitive (or?).
Of course, the x86/non-x86 dividing line that you propose is quite logical too, but some intra-"Pentium X" list splits like I have suggested above would also be needed if list size are to be significantly reduced. --Wernher 5 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

Missing 486s, or am I going crazy?

I coulda sworn I've previously seen mention of 40mhz bus models (and seen a number of motherboards offering such), at least spanning DX40, SX40 and DX2-80 (the DX4-120 was only ever prototyped AFAIK?), including in old motherboard manuals.

Similarly though a DX50 is mentioned on this list, I think I saw tell of an SX50 as well - and I've recently come into possession of an SX25 whose (ISA!) motherboard offers only two FSB speeds: 25... and 50. And it offers the BIOS-settable dividers (EG the ISA speed) in factors of 50MHz too (e.g. CLK/6 and CLK/8 which give performance slightly above and below the default 7.16MHz under test).

Not a specialist or late model board either, but a very mainstream, medium-low end model from 1992. I was thinking of hopping on eBay to find an SX or DX-50 to upgrade it with to make a "tallest dwarf" kind of thing, even... it seems engineered to take it quite happily... 193.63.174.211 (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of the Am486 -- different manufacturer. Arndbergmann (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ivy bridge

someone should put the ivy bridge processors on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.43.166 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Intel Core i7-3970X

The Intel Core i7-3970X was released about a month ago. Shouldn't this be included in the article? --Siva1979Talk to me 18:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Last 2 lists, need some more info on Years ?

hi, first time here. found it impossible to find info on a processor that did not have specific model number listed. would say adding 1 column with the year of release would help greatly. (have no idea how to add columns). will see about looking up data, seems like would not be able to find all at once. 

- i was looking for the year of manufacture for:

Xeon Dual-Core X5260, took me more than an hour to find. seems to be 2009 (date at bottom): http://h18004.www1.hp.com/products/quickspecs/12476_div/12476_div.HTML

update, on link this page, would seem you already have that info, if buried/ after need it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdale-DP_(microprocessor)#Wolfdale-DP answer would seem to be: 2007-present for: 80573 Xeon 5200 Wolfdale-DP (i was looking for: x5260, xeon 5260, 52xx)

Omgitsmon (talk) 05:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

8031/8051: 1-bit architecture

There is a discussion underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics#8031.2F8051:_1-bit_architecture.3F related to 1-bit architecture in MCS-51. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please calm down. Tagremover (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a rather rude and aggressive reply to a neutrally worded notice of a relevant discussion on another page. Please be WP:CIVIL. --Guy Macon (talk)
For a third time, improve your tone. Accuse others to be rude and aggressive is not friendly. Please be WP:CIVIL. It was also mainly to Toddst1 comment on this article revert. Tagremover (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't take orders from people who refuse to even discuss reasonable requests.[2] If you want people to use a different tone towards you, change your behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasonless revert

Actually you gave no reason, that seems dubious / disputed. Please discuss on project talk page. Tagremover (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He gave a reason. "(Reverted to revision 554138447 by Guy Macon: remove dubious / disputed edit per project talk page." Please don't say things that are not true. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I stated the reason in the edit summary and left a neutrally worded message pointing to the discussion above. Miscounting the number of reverts is not constructive. It was a singular action. Tagremover's malevolent characterizations of others' actions is now disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Tagremover, because you are currently on thin ice regarding arguably disruptive behavior, I strongly advise that you simply stop talking about other editors and talk only about article content. I am sure that everyone else involved will follow suit. I certainly will. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Haswell

time for an update from someone more knowledgeable than me? :D Impasse 16:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impasse (talk • contribs)

Device Geometry

It would be nice if this list included the device geometry. Intel is currently working on 10 nm The first devices were 10 micron or larger.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.35.226.228 (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Skylake

Skylake needs to be added. PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Intel microprocessors. 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 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

80286

The 80286 is being given short shrift here. It was not just a faster 8086 or 80186! This was the CPU that made the 8 bit bus obsolete (there was no 80288) and introduced protected mode.

The i286 could run Windows 3.1 (in Standard mode) unlike the earlier 8086/8088/80186/80188. It shouldn't just be lumped in with those DOS real mode CPU's with no notations.

Agreed. Problem is that personal experience counts for spit on Wikipedia and it's an incredible pain in the backside to find official documentation on 286. I guess it just wasn't considered historic enough, being between the PC pioneer 8088, x86 pioneer 8086, and IA-32 pioneer 386. Featherwinglove (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

P4 -- a new generation? (G7?)

Wasn't the Pentium4 finally a leap into generation 7? ANyone care to put headings in, eg "486 generation" / "generation 4" / whatever the correct term is? -- Tarquin

Calling the Pentium 4 7th generation is a bit amusing considering it is inferior to the 'previous generation'. It was a redesigned core for the purposes of scaling high MHz, not speed. A Pentium III at 2.4GHz with 800MHz FSB would probably run rings around a P4EE. All creations for marketing, like how the Pentium Pro was sold under ~5 different names. Crusadeonilliteracy
I'm not certain whether NetBurst was a marketroid's brain fart (i.e. they should have learned from the Klamath Celeron/Mendicino Celeron 300A experience that people care more about whether their computers run well than what name and number is on the processor's pretty box that's about to go into the cardboard bin) or a technical brain fart repeating what happened with the 7030 Stretch when IBM attempted performance gains via deep pipelines and high clock rates in the discrete transistor era. I believe the latter is more likely since the Stretch experience wouldn't be in Intel's recent memory. ...but when across the hall, they're doing Itanium, an attempt to replace the x86 architecture with an explicitly parallel, low clock rate, high instruction-per-cycle macroarchitecture, it really seems like Stretch was a learned lesson. Spock must be baffled! Featherwinglove (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

List clutter fixed

The old list was pretty cluttered and hard to read (at least to me). I've formatted most of it as nested lists, which helps readability, but now we've got a pretty long page. Any ideas how to break this up? By year of production maybe? Or generations? -- Wapcaplet

Insert: the preceding comment was entered 16:39, 7 January 2003‎. --Mopskatze (talk)

The last three generations of core have been split into separate pages. I previously found this page useful, since I could search for a part number & find out what it is. Splitting into separate pages destroys this utility. I just found ark.intel.com ; this is less useful than this page was. For my purposes, this page should be restored to listing all the chips. But that would be unencyclopedic. Just my opinion. Davidlark (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Intel microprocessors. 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) 18:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

More Specific Headers

I did this to get more consistency and better navigation. When there are several bullet points or paragraphs for one term (example: Broadwell), but with different content, the reader must be able to see what they refer to without scrolling and searching (it's hard to see the nesting level of titles). --5D 2.201.0.101 (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Xeon E 1220 etc

Missing from List — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Penryn processors

Missing from List

•Wolfdale and Yorkfield Processors are listed and are part of the Penryn micro-architecture per Penryn_(microprocessor). Could we clarify this somehow in the page? SVMLegacy (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to Tables

Would it be worthwhile to unify the lists into tables similar to this list, divided by architecture/platform? It could add some clarity, and could provide more information in a logical manner. SVMLegacy (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

9900ks, 10th gen desktop comet lake processors

These processors need to be added.24.36.195.185 (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

These still need to be added 82.38.61.171 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

11th gen intel

Need a small modification in the 11gen intel table to follow the format of the other generations 007sak (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

i5-2045M processor

I have an i5-2045M processor but I do not see it listed.

ICE77 (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Price ksh?

What does ksh mean CyrilSLi (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It means "the article has been vandalized". The drawback to this project. Fixed, for now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

14th generation

The 14th generation has been announced. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Core generations truncated

Why do the list of cpus in the core i line stop at the 7th generation? If you are going to make a list of all the processors and their specs, make the list. Dont pick and choose when you are going to have detailed info and when you are going to give up and list general names and bits of info. If I am trying to scroll all the way down from 14th gen core i9 to a 286 I should be able to. I shouldnt have to look up a specific microarchitecture to compare it to another if you have a page that says "list of intel microarchitectures" 107.13.144.21 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Alder Lake-N

Just a question, is there some reason why Alder Lake-N processors are not listed here? I see quite some number of computers using those. And they are listed only directly in Alder Lake page. 193.165.97.61 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ive got the same question for some Raptor Lake H cpus, like i7-13700H. It appears in the Raptor Lake page but not here. My take is that it would make the table more complicated because its got a new combination of cores (6+8) and threads (20) so maybe no one has gotten around to a slightly complicated table edit. I haven't been editing in a number of years, but my take would be wait a week or so and if no one comments/objects, edit them in. Since youve already waited a week for a similar question, I may try it for the 13700H if/when I get time. Econotechie (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of Intel processors

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Intel processors's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RCP" in group "lower-alpha":

  • From Coffee Lake: Price is Recommended Customer Price (RCP) at launch. RCP is the trade price that processors are sold by Intel to retailers and OEMs. Actual MSRP for consumers is higher
  • From Intel Core: Price reflects Recommended Customer Price (RCP) rather than MSRP. RCP is the cost per unit, in bulk sales of 1000 units or more, to OEMs, ODMs, and retail outlets when purchasing from Intel. Actual MSRP is higher than RCP

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Comprehensive list of Intel processors is fabulous resource; is not excessive detail

The Template to the Wikipedia page says the article may have excessive detail. I strongly disagree - this is a fabulous resource in listing most (ideally all) Intel x86 processors, along with detailed info on each (#P & E cores, multi-threading, power, package, etc.) Exactly what I was looking for and had partially created multiple times on my own before finding it. Note that it can be opened in Excel to automatically create a spreadsheet populated with the multiple tables. It is a fantastic resource. Don't reduce the detail. Don't replace it with a separate page for each generation. Thanks to those that created it!!! 24.143.251.106 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this page was vandalised for the sake of brevity.
It was very useful reference page where all core details were in one place. 87.205.225.245 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Intel_processors/Archive_1&oldid=1241655726"