![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please provide a section about Intel and its locations, especially in China and Israel. I want to know all information. -- Sp0 10:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
answers: 6 Intel units in Israel which employs over 6,600 ppl...Tech standrts don't fall shorts from the California ones, and the MMX chip was first developed in Haifa... Working conditions are quite good in the Israeli standarts, approx. 6000$US for a beghinig developer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.121.211 ( talk) 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Im not sure if there should be so many links to Crap like Evil inside and whatnot.. Looks kinda Stupid -Jman888
Updated, if you don't like something, just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.126.32 ( talk) 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Intel used to produce vacuum tubes? I found an Intel tube in one of my radio's and I wonder if it really was Intel or some other company called Intel. The logo looks like inTel. Maybe it could be added to the article. http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/570/intel12gz.jpg http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8229/intel26ju.jpg Ikkejw 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone should place Intel's new logo on wikipedia, i'm unsure how or where to get it from though.
Someone just added the claim that Paul Otellini was responsible for the original IBM x86 design win. I have never heard that, and I was at Intel for a long time. Certainly Dave House and others were involved? I would say this needs some verification, but I'm not going to delete it for now. Comments? -- Gnetwerker 05:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The Intel page is very focused on the x86 CPUs, but what about the different lines in their history such as the i860 etc? -- Bjorn Elenfors
History of Intel from
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa092998.htm#intel
Jay 01:14 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Earl Whetstone was the Sales Engineer that helped get the original IBM deal won for Intel. I believe there would have been a number of senior managers invloved in getting the "design win" as part of the Crush program. So it is hard to know what Paul's role might have been.
The current stock price should be taken off. Has no real importance, and becomes outdated in literally 2 hours. So why even have it? Maybe the worth of the company in billions might be interesting/useful/more static, but I would say wikipedia is not a listing of Stock Prices.
-- Windfinder 15:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Where would the Intel740 fit? It's an orphan node right now, I think. If it doesn't fit anywhere, how should we link to it?
Deleted inapropriate political content that relates only vaguely to Intel, and from a completely one sided view.
I deleted the below addition by an anon user:
It's not backed up by any verifiable information, was inserted in the wrong section, is anecdotable and incredibly poorly written. Disagree? Discuss here. — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Completely agree. What are 'plasters'? Also, Intel doesn't give Christmas gifts anyway, and has only "holiday" parties (remember lots of staff are of non-Christian religions). Intel does have a confrontive culture (n.b. Constructive Confrontation classes), and I would not call it (historically, at least) family-friendly, but the faceintel.com drivel is just that. -- Gnetwerker 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
That photo of the car is pretty pointless, also copyrighted, and it interferes with the layout. I suggest that it be removed. -- Gnetwerker 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with this. The bit about the Sauber contract should also go. Rather petty bit of information. - Ray 3 February 2006
I also agree and removed it. Denis C. 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that anti-trust stuff repeated twice? Someone should clean that up. P-unit 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
An anon added this para:
I tagged this with {{citeneeded}}, but if we don't get a source quickly, I am inclined to remove it. It doesn't have dates, names, or any details, as well as being unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
206.114.20.121 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, it is obviously for real. Do you have any more recent citations about how the case was disposed? -- Gnetwerker 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This evaluation was done on this version of Intel at time 6:00 PM PST on April 1, 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.
Criteria:
Summary:
Congratulations. - Corbin Simpson 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The antitrust section is divided in two... if one were to edit this, that's the best place to start.
No one of the Traitorous Eight was involved in founding AMD. The "Traitorous Eight" left Shockley and went to Fairchild around 1957. AMD was, however, one of the Fairchildren, like National Semiconductor, which were founded about ten years later, in the late '60s.
Intel has not "refuted" AMD's antitrust claims. To me that implies that they have successfully proved that they are false. A better word would be "rebuffed". The veracity of the claims will be determined in a trial.
Does anyone have a source for the sentence "The only major competitor to Intel on the x86 processor market is Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), with which Intel has had full cross-licensing agreements since 1976: each partner can use the other's patented technological innovations without charge.". The only agreement I'm aware of is the one from 2001, which supercedes older agreements: http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
There is some talk of royalties in the agreement, so it's hardly without charge. I have some recollection of an older ageement which only covers x86 extensions and is royalty-free, but I don't have a source so I'm wondering if anyone knows of the agreement I'm talking about. - 85.157.199.19 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Anybody notice how every sentence ends in an exclaimation mark in the part "# # 1.4 Intel and the IBM PC 2"? They aren't necessary and they're annoying to look at.
Why isn't there any mention of the models which apparently had problems computing answers with long decimal answers? These were in the early Pentium 1 timeframe, though I don't know the model designation details.
No doubt the actual effect was overplayed in the exuberant web forums of the time, but I cannot recall any other computer models that had demonstrable serious basic math errors.
If I recall the public perception correctly, it intersected with the (proven successful) Intel Inside campaign to humorous effect. ( "Skulls & CrossBones inside, How many Pentium Engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? 6.99167")
Examples of humor of the day: http://www.samurajdata.se/~cj/funny/html/pentium.html
This appears to give the detail hungry types a place to start: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/PENTIUM/bugs
Now this has been identified, it stands as an Error of Omission, which currently artificially bolsters the company's reputation by omitting what may be their single largest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaoPhoenix ( talk • contribs)
The link titled "Intel Corp Company Profile and News Archive" Should be removed, it adds nothing more to what is provided in the yahoo link, and it is for a paid service, if there is agreement i can go ahead and remove it. Geneticflyer 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Geneticflyer
i think that the opening paragraph reads like PR from intel's site. i can't come up with anything to replace it at the moment, but i hope someone can come up with something better -- Scott w 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have had several relatives that have worked for these copyright infrigers, apperently ther inside motto is "Steal with Pride." HHS.student
Please give an example of a copyright infringement, and maybe some figures on why you think intel is a particularly bad company for this practice. 192.198.151.129 ( talk) 11:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As Intel has major locations in multiple locations, mostly around the US and Israel to my knowledge, I think a relevant section noting major locations is in order. I have not done a lot of work on this article, so I will not intervene. If anyone is up for it, I support the edit. -- יהושועEric 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
x86-processors are used in almost every personal computer you can buy on todays market, so I really think it should say 'most personal computers', not 'many'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.201.78 ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
The quotes section (added 5 April 2007 by 207.255.199.187) mentioning visas seems to be an unimportant, irrelevant political statement. I think it should be removed, but I don't know what to do (as I would like to assume good faith in accordance with Help:Reverting and WP:AGF). Nightspark 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be left in. It shows the attitude of the company good or bad toward importing workers. This goes along with it’s diversity discussion that is just as political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.13.66 ( talk) 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The article should mention where Intel manufactures. Do they use their own factories or do they contract out the manufacturing? AxelBoldt 07:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a partnership with apple section? There is nothing noteworthy for intel about selling to Apple. There is no "partnership" any more than Intel has with Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo or HP. This section should be removed, it serves no purpose here except to advertise for Apple. Further, Apple's share of worldwide PC market is less than 3%, it isnt even remotely a significant account.
Unless good reasons not to, I will remove this section shortly.
Wageslave 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The sections seem a bit disorganised. One section (lets say 1) treats one aspects, and then the other section (lets say 2) jumps to another aspect. Then, another section (lets say 3) elsewhere treats of a related aspect of section 1, which makes it a bit difficult to follow and get the whole picture.
These are just some suggestions to improve the article in general.
Aeons | Talk 06:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In the section Intel Inside, Intel Systems Division, and Intel Architecture Labs in the second paragraph it's stated that During the 1990s, Intel's Architecture Lab (IAL) was responsible for many of the hardware innovations of the personal computer, including the PCI Bus, the PCI Express (PCIe) bus, the Universal Serial Bus (USB), Bluetooth wireless interconnect, and the now-dominant architecture for multiprocessor servers.
As Bluetooth was developed by Ericsson, I would suggest to remove Bluetooth wireless interconnect or rewrite the article to point out exactly what was Intels part in development of Bluetooth (as I understand non).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.243.13 ( talk) 11:20, 20 July 2007
These seem somewhat subjective, and I'm not sure that they are all that significant. 2000 was in the middle of the tech bubble, and Microsoft is not a hardware manufacturer. -- Beland 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The company has always been vocal in trumpeting its market value of its brand and losing 10 places in the last year is a significant development.
Aaronproot
Added a reference to the early 1970's when Intel made a complete micro computer called the Intellec Series Intellec Series description, timeline of Intel products and The SIM - 4. Unbelievable that there is no Wiki article on them yet given their importance to the history of computing. Alatari 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
After checking the dates of the references, it came to my attention that the main criticism was concerning products released in 2005, whereas one of the examples given as a criticism is from 2003. The way it is written misleads into thinking that this criticism followed from the problems of the 2005 products.
This is a previous revision, before I began editing this section: [2].
This section also needs to be updated.
Ǣ0 ƞS 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is worth mentioning. Where would the appropriate place be to put this in the article?
link http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15511
Can someone check this edit? Note that the IP is registered to Intel. · AndonicO Talk 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a rah-rah. The stuff about Muslim / Jewish / Christian groups - how is that unique to Intel? Lotsa commpany in SiValley have.
The up-or-out policy as stated is pretty biased as well. "dead wood?" -- 203.117.92.2 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In looking for a reference, I came across several paragraphs worth of verbatim text from this website. I could certainly remove the material now, but I'd rather have this be a multi-editor process. E_dog95' Hi ' 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What's with this crap about silica called "dangerous chemical"? It's simply a silicon dioxide, that is -- sand. It's no more dangerous than your average window glass or sandbox on the playground, which are also mostly pure silica. Well, silica powder might be harmful -- if you're breathing it in by handfuls, but I highly doubt that that was the case. So I believe somebody's environmental imagination has run a bit wild here.-- Khathi ( talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The introduction to the article contains a sentence which sounds like it could have been pulled straight from an Intel shareholder meeting, "Founded by semiconductor pioneers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and widely associated with the executive leadership and vision of Andrew Grove, Intel combines advanced chip design capability with a leading-edge manufacturing capability." It reads more like an advert than unbiased encyclopaedia material. Colostomyexplosion ( talk) 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Please add these http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/01/22/09/intel-shut-sites-and-cut-6000-jobs Triadwarfare ( talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about Intel's Constructive Confrontation philosophy that was in effect when I was an Intel employee in Folsom, CA in the early and mid 90's. These items are true. I emailed directly to Andy Grove about the Pentium flaw and how it was being handled and he replied, my fellow employees were quite amazed. Please don't delete this, unless this site is for the promotion of Intel only and is not about the providing truthful facts about the company for better or worse. 71.33.47.145 ( talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I once heard a rumor, that the sign «Intel inside» was first located on the roof of some building, which was used as a helicopter landing zone. That sign was helping pilots to find «their» building. Does anybody know, if there is a bit of a truth in this story? -- Alogrin ( talk) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The Intel Inside symbol was painted on top of Intel's headquarters building in Santa Clara for several years. The building is in the approach path for the San Jose airport. This was well after the adoption of the logo, so not the source of it. -- Morrolan ( talk) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Its research lab located at Cambridge University was closed at the end of 2009.
We're only in May, I don't know what year the lab closed therefore the statement must be altered with a citation or removed. The recent European anti-trust lawsuit thats currently on the front page of the New York Times will no doubt send thousands to this wiki page. I have removed the statement. Thankyouverymuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deverell ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The links at the end of the lead section "In addition to its work in semiconductors, Intel has begun research in electrical transmission and generation.[6][7]" are dead. 77.86.67.245 ( talk) 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is in defense of this section listed under History, which someone removed. It goes as follows:
History of crippling competitors with legal bills
In its earlier days, Intel was noted for suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386 chip. [1] The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits. [2] It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured if those startup chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits, but this is a little-talked about fact [3] that has likely been very significant in the shaping of the world's technology up until now.
Please explain how even a single word here is anything but pure, flat, unadulterated information. (The remover, user "Aboutmovies", said it was NPOV, but I simply can't figure out how, or in what way this could possibly be pitched that isn't just a near-identical rehash of what's already here.) -- 68.111.167.64 ( talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to the party. I have been reading the discussion above but hadn't had time to comment. I am breaking this out as a separate sub-section mainly because 7 indents is probably enough.
Aboutmovies was perfectly reasonable to remove the text in question. If the text described a set of specific companies that were sued and what happened to them, and preferably had decent external sources, that would be a good start. As it is we have a vague claim that they sued a bunch of people at some unspecified point in time, and then an even vaguer claim that these suits could "cripple" competitors regardless of the outcome. Even the citations are problematic, both because of the vagueness of what they are meant to support, and because it is not evident whether the citation is something that Bill Gates said or something that Janet Lowe said. And all of this seems a bit meaningless when no comparison is provided between Intel and other companies, or even Intel at a different point in time; certainly it is implied that they were very lawsuit-happy over whatever period is being described, but no evidence is provided.
The third sentence is also problematic for a number of reasons. It is assumed without evidence that in the absence of Intel's 386-era lawsuits, the market would be very different; but since it has not been stated who they sued, or what happened after such suits, there is nothing to support that claim. If the companies that they sued were badly financed, badly run, and had no innovative ideas beyond naming their companies "Shmintel" and their product the "three86", then no, it does not inherently follow that suing those companies had a significant effect on the course of the industry.
The claim that something is "little-talked about" is inherently slippery. The Google search "citation" falls into the classic "Google test" problem that the query used is simultaneously very vague (no reference to, say, a specific company that they sued - and isn't even specific to the 386 era) and very specific (any article that doesn't actually use the word "crippled" or a close synoym may not be returned). It should also strike you as a bad sign that of the 18,000 results returned, not that many actually seem to be related to this topic; of the first 30 results, only one made any mention of Intel suing someone in the 386 era... and it was this article (Google's cache caught the version with this text in it). All of this is irrespective of the fact that anything not indexed by Google will be left out.
I am also struck by the undertones that Intel was the bad guy for suing whoever they might have sued, which of course sets off NPOV alarm bells (as does use of the word "crippled"). But yet again, since it is never stated who they might have sued or why, there is no basis to judge that on. — Aluvus t/ c 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Point 1: Your logic isn't adding up very well at all... First, each of those Moore statements did NOT happen... this one did. And it's an *incredibly* notable statement, worth its weight even in the Technology Hall of Fame. The only unfortunate thing for ME is that it can't be sourced as anyone else saying it, but part of what I'm saying is that, aside from nobody here even challenging its message (because of how "duh" it is, on the most basic, basic, basic level), it isn't the kind of "notable claim" that needs citation, because a "claim" is a verbal relaying of an event that has taken place - thus one can challenge whether or not it is TRUE. This is a "call to insight" on something the reader already knows is true! (thus if the reader DIDN'T know it - and nobody here even challenges the fact it's highlighting - it would simply make them draw a blank, and that's *absolutely* not what's happening. So, again: this statement MAKES no claim. It's a call to insight, relying on something the reader already assumes. You arguing it is like saying "The following Comedian Article line needs a citation: Comedians are supposed to be funny." Why does that need citation? It's not an event-related "claim", it's just a call to insight on whatever parts of the article came before it.
Let me post it again:
During the time of the 386
CPU, Intel partook in suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386.
[1] The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits.
[2] It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits.
Point 2: So you're saying that my statement is SO TRUE (thank you) that it doesnt *need* to be said... But you're not realizing that I am POWERFULLY motivated by the message inherent to get it on the page, because while true to the bone, it brings to the reader's mind something that is NOT automatically assumed unless one were to really, really stop and think about the implications of the previous sentences.
Point 3: It's absolutely not WP:V, because it's explaining the SUM of the previous 2 sentences. How can you not see this? You say it looks isolated and lost here. That's like saying that the statement "His death was sad" wouldn't be appropriate at the end of a funeral speech (and would also need citation). Not on this planet.
"Surely you appreciate that people watching the page don't think your additions are suitable, and then when you came to WP:3 and I responded in disagreement with your intentions, this must tell you that there is something wrong?"
It does. It makes me strongly wonder if more than one of you guys aren't Intel investors or employees (I know your edits are heavily focused around silicon valley-related articles), because if 100 people care enough to view this discussion page, there's an enormous mathematical probability that not only are a great deal of them Intel employees or investors (Intel has 83,000 employees, and who knows how many investors), but an even higher chance that those that are will have an EXTREMELY volatile reaction to the statement, and thus be prompted to defend it (especially with such weak arguments, as I'm bombarded with here - I'm sorry people, but your arguments are just desperate-as-can-be fluff, extremely indicative - to me at least - of bias going on here, since they are so furiously combating such an untouchable statement). I'm not going to press or even maintain the idea that you ARE investors, beyond what's written here, but I'm just telling you why I do indeed see something wrong, as you mentioned, and why I most certainly have no intention of letting go of this.
I'm going to take this to ArbCom next, because I KNOW that they won't have a biased interest in this (Arbitrators are elected to a board beforehand - they aren't just random users). ANYBODY from ThirdOpinion can chime in here, and naturally since I warned beforehand that I was going to post there, you can come here like, "I'm the fair and balanced Third Opinion you were looking for," when that is not a very sound assumption, given all probability here. You could be, but I think not, because your completely bizarre case against this line here makes absolutely no *human* sense.
Also, you said: You are simply not getting Wikipedia, and there is little any of us can do for you to make the connection beyond what we have said. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the real world. The consensus has been formed, and your views did not make the cut.
Not so. One of the rules here is "Wikipedia is not a democracy", so majority opinion among editors is never the final say, since majority opinion could easily just be a bunch of cause-supporters trying to get important information distorted. I don't buy this one bit, and thus will let ArbCom decide next, since they know all the rules.--
68.111.167.64 (
talk)
03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
My, Wikipedia's formatting/layout/everything is a pile of 1980's CRAP.--
68.111.167.64 (
talk)
04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reported the IP editor to the admins' noticeboard here because of their continued editing of the article without consensus and in breach of policy. Bigger digger ( talk) 23:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm no fan of the company at all but this article is overly negative and focuses too much on trivial detail, much of which is poorly sourced. Ironically it even misses one of the more interesting negative events that led to the rapid growth of several of their competitors such as Cyrix and AMD (the exploding chips fiasco in some earlier Pentium-I's, and the poor way it was handled). What do others think? Orderinchaos 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Does Microsoft have any indefinite support for Intel's mainstream and compatibility being that every thing works Unix or Linux impenditure keystroke or move passe. To get right to the point, does Intel and Microsoft appear to go hand in hand, or is that simply a given that should not be brought up? To reference, why [do] money holders not get into CPU ventures period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
.........Intel has maintained top billing in the CPU race (industry) and withstanding, for reasons of prestige, it has held ground as the premire microprocessor and has left the gate closed to new technologies and expenditures into the market during our short CPU stint that mearly started years prior.......... to follow here wiki suit, by follow-up, a relation would have to indict intel as a soverign branding that has 'kept it "treading water (jk)' during these few short years. Maybe it could even be reasoned how it has kept this ground either by menteal coersion or by physical prowess or duress that wealthy individuals have not lept into this seemingly prolific teritory of CPU/PC foray. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC). Bill Riojas Mclemore ( talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (EST)
I'm concerned over this sentence and have removed it for discussion:
Removed for now pending review here. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
3D transistors are a joke. That's what Intel's marketing wing is calling its multi-gate and tri-gate MOS devices. 3D transistor is not a technical term and the impression it conjures up of some radically advanced tech over the so-called "2D transistor" is nothing more than pure marketing bullcrap. The sources linked are also news sources with no technical background. CNN and (wait for it) Semiaccurate? Really? Google even lists Semiaccurate as satire because of how ridiculous and opinionated those posts are, and often how factually incorrect information is dressed up in ostensibly technical language. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. A company like Intel deals with cutting-edge technology beyond the understanding of laypeople. In order to remain encyclopaedic we need to stop using marketing press-releases (and the news segments that follow) as our information source. Rlinfinity ( talk) 09:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Anon poster here. Would it be relevant to cite Intel's $1.25 billion USD settlement with AMD, prompting the latter to cease all of its pending litigation worldwide?
URL for reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33882559/ns/business-us_business/
This is breaking news as of the morning of approximately 0900 US EST, 12 November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.242.115 ( talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning here that Intel releases specs to the FLOSS community? — Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference 7 is no longer available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.142.211 ( talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello-
My name is Gary Niekerk and I work in Intel's Office of Corporate Responsibility. I would like to add a link and reference to Intel's Corporate Responsibility report to the end of this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Environmental_record
The corporate responsibility report [3] gives detailed information on Intel's global environmental performance including chemical use, energy use, water use, environmental fines, etc.
Please let me know if this is acceptable to do.
Gniekerk ( talk) 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
While a small portion of the company, it has historic computing if not financial significance. This is not even a B-class article. It does require a rewrite as one commenter pointed out. 143.232.210.38 ( talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I know the article lists macafee.. but shouldn't there be more on other intel acquisitions.. like a list on link to one? I dont think they were the only one - Tracer9999 ( talk) 04:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
this to inform the mandator that offensive language is used in the below link. ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation#Origins_and_early_years'' please do correct it.
and if possible can you send me the biography of the person who can be called as the father of Intel Corporation.
From: Rakesh Kumar Singh [email redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.97.81 ( talk • contribs)
I am in the process of linking Intel to the new solid-state drive template and I realized there is nothing (notable) on this page covering Intel's participation in the expanding SSD market for either their NAND flash or solid-state drives. When I get a chance I will come back to add a section with an overview of all the products (at least the categories). § Music Sorter § ( talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Intel® Identity Protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.168.106 ( talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The 'logos' section needs updating for the badges on second generation of i-series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battman95 ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
We should add something on the 2009 Stars Ratings program. Here is one source link. If I get a chance I will come back to add something. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention anything about the i Family!-- Mike28968 ( talk) 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"22nm processors" ( Intel#22nm_processors) between 386 and 486 CPUs seems completely out of place. Since this is the first time I open this article and haven't really read all of it, I'm not sure what's the best place to fit it in, but this does not appear ideal. W3ird N3rd ( talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The text says that decreasing revenues in September 2006 lead to the laying off of 10,500 employees by July 2006. This is chronologically nonsensical... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.74 ( talk) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Nothing on ARM?? 192.55.55.41 ( talk) 19:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel that the article as it currently stands (1/26/2012) gives a distorted view of the early history of Intel's computer chips. The emphasis on the lack of profitability of the early chips overlooks their importance to the computer industry. The 4004 and 8008 were ground breaking chips, they pioneered a new industry, but in reality they were not widely deployed. On the other hand, the 8080 chip had a huge impact and widespread adoption. This chip was an industry game changer and was what put Intel on the map. To be dismissive of it due to low profit margins (which this article currently does), is to give a distorted view of how significant the chip actually was. One of the pivotal moments for Intel was when the Altair computer chose to use the 8080 chip. Intel's 8080 and Zilog's Z-80 spent the 1970's dukeing it out for dominance. The Z-80 (which came out later) was considered superior to the 8080 (better memory interface, better mnemonics, more registers) and gained a large adoption, but when Zilog came out with the Z-8000 as the successor this turned out to be a major misstep because it broke compatibility with the then considerable software available for the 8080/Z-80 chips (CP/M etc.). The 8086 bent over backwards to maintain compatibility with the 8080 and ultimately won dominance in the market. Zilog later tried to backtrack and introduced upgrades to the Z-80 but by then it was too late, Intel had run away with the market, the Z-8000 never gained much traction, but the Z-80 lived on for many decades in embedded control systems such as vending machines. This article ought to say something about the above. comments by Old Codger (I was a programmer in those days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.0.185 ( talk) 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Intel's PQS award, part of its SCQI program, seems to be something that should be included in the article, but I'm not sure how it ought to be done. Thanks for any pointers on this tactical subject.
A larger strategic issue I'd like to discuss concerns the structure of major articles such as this one, where something of an outline can be adapted from the structure already provided by the corporation itself, in terms of a table of organization or an outline taken from the corporation's website and sitemap. While this could have some problems in various ways (copying elements of website design, letting the corporation set the tone of the article, etc.) it would make a comprehensive inclusion of the corporation's activities and programs a heck of a lot easier. Basically, I think that WP's ad-hoc style is getting in its own way in articles this complex. Can a section or sections be introduced which fit the above description? Where is the proper place to discuss this? TheLastWordSword ( talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an open call for a Facilities section. I would like to see a section, preferably near the top to keep it in line with other similar page designs, with a description of intel's specific capacity (# of plants at wafer sizes) and facilities. I'd volunteer to write up a section, but I don't have that information to add. -- 173.66.0.100 ( talk) 12:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 70.39.185.131 ( talk) 23:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought that there might as well be a section or grouping for the several Intel related biographical articles on wikipedia.
There were only two mentioned when I started, but just guessing quickly found a few.
Unknown if there are wikipedia standards for organizing this sort of thing. I am sure that the wikipedia trolls will delete if they feel like it.
Would be best if there was some sort of semi-automated query that might apply. A.Glew ( talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
incorrect revenue figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalenjji ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Totally ludicrous header for a totally ludicrous section. In what way has there been a "collapse of the PC market"? There has been a relatively small decline in the growth rate of the industry, but it's still a huge market. The only source for this section mentions nothing about a collapse, it's about increasing tablet demand and a slowing PC market. Core1911 ( talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
And in the meantime, Intel is selling it process capabilities to other companies to make their custom chips. For example:
etc. When the actual press releases come out we can add them next to the already confirmed deal. Hcobb ( talk) 01:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Is Intel really a company of Israel? It was founded by two Americans, is headquartered in America, is traded on American stock exchanges. The article mentions that Intel has offices in Israel, but also in a number of other countries that Intel isn't categorised as being a company of. Diweikipa ( talk) 15:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope including the old Intel logo in .svg is useful. I hope it won't be deleted - Polytope4d ( talk) 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In the talks about the VCPI (Virtual Control Program Interface) article we have found out that prior to the publication of the DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) standard in 1990, Intel seems to have had a role in the coordination or development of a similar effort named "extended VCPI" or " XVCPI" to address the shortcomings of the original VCPI 1.0 specification around 1989/1990 in order to provide better support to the memory management and multitasking capabilities of the 386 processor. Other companies apparently involved in this effort were Digital Research with Concurrent DOS 386 and Interactive Systems with Interactive Unix, but probably there were more. Very little is known about this. Does someone reading this remembers this standard or proposal and perhaps has announcements, documentation of any kind, or bits of background information in regard to this XVCPI thing? Your comments or contributions to the VCPI article or talk page would be highly welcome to better document this bit of technical history. Thanks. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we can see "8/6/68 Name changed to Intel Corporation, a California Corporation." in http://www.intel.com/intel/company/corp4.htm . So actually they used NM Electronics as the name of their company for less than a month? 202.43.96.123 ( talk) 14:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.96.123 ( talk) 07:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) kadjjasdjhawowehyugqerwiwqegiqwegiwdouwohaghoeagouearbjdafus|Imveracious]] ( talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed an entire section devoted to discussion of a minor issue involving Intel temporarily withdrawing advertising from a website because of Gamergate lobbying. It was trivial and not really relevant to the company, and it's already out of date. -- TS 22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I found an interesting article in an old copy of Intel Technology Journal that describes how the various Intel chips got their "names"...
Might make a good subsection for this and/or other Intel articles. 104.32.193.6 ( talk) 09:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Intel has announced a $300 million diversity fund, which seemed to make a big splash in the news this morning [4]. Perhaps this would be worth a one-sentence mention in the diversity section? I have a minor COI wrt the subject and would rather not edit the article. - a13ean ( talk) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a complaint (and a minor and insignificant one at that) that has not had any effect on Intel at all. This shouldn't have it's own section. If people think it should remain in this article, put it in an already established section. Maybe in corporate affairs section, just like there's a religious controversy in that one. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Intel acquired in 2010 one major part of Infineon, the wireless business division. It did not buy the full company, Infineon still exists as a major German semiconductor company. This is easily verifiable by ref 56 ( and the reference to the Infineon wikipage and webpage.)
In the Acquisition table in line 3, it should read Infineon (partial), isn't it?
( 134.191.220.74 ( talk) 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Intel. 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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the proposal to split the SSD section to a new article. I see since January 2014 there have been no comments either way, so I will be bold and execute the split shortly per Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Article is missing any mention of some early and pretty important acquisitions. One that comes to mind is Chips and Technologies that took place in 1997/98 [6]. At the time it was Intel's largest Acquisition @ $420 million [7] and allowed Intel to enter the graphics processing market. -- CyberXRef ☎ 04:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Intel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Just add it its not hard but I'm bad at wikipediaing. KspeXproler ( talk) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Intel. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42469When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intel. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n1964_v39/ai_13901771{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n2109_v42/ai_18135525When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Intel. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intel. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Objective3000. I don't think removing that content was the best way to go about it. Just because it happened recently doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM is a problem. In fact, the statement from Intel substantiated the information and confirmed the existence of the exploit. " "Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices — with many different vendors' processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits." ( ABC News). Financial Review also wrote that Intel confirmed the reports.
I think the best plan of action would be to re-add the content with Intel's statements. We can also change "the last decade" to 1995 per ABC News. The Financial Review article also contains more details to make it less speculative. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made one final change that included Intel's response. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. It should be noted that the article says "up to 30%", meaning there's a high chance a system isn't inhibited by 30%. Here's a Forbes article. The section should also mention the impact this'll have on big organisations which is written about here. Amazon, for instance, has apparently already protected itself. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 14:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the NY Times not a reliable source?
Why delete this content from 2018 security flaws:
According to a New York Times report, "There is no easy fix for Spectre ... as for Meltdown, the software patch needed to fix the issue could slow down computers by as much as 30 percent". https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/computer-flaws.html
Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Once again, fully-cited content that I added was deleted. The current content of this article looks like a whitewash to me. IMHO. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This content that I had added indicates Intel's view. It was deleted on the basis that it was quoting financial analysts.
A CNBC report indicated that Intel's estimate as to performance degradation after the solution for Meltdown "should not be significant" for the average user but later agreed that a decrease in performance of up to 30 percent was possible after fixes under some "synthetic workloads." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/amd-is-big-winner-from-chip-flaw-fiasco.html
Call me paranoid, but I continue to feel that this is all a whitewash of Intel. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, quote a source other than CNBC but provide the true version of Intel's view on the effect the fix will have. You're right; I am not a tecchie on computer processing. (However, I was a technical writer for photography magazines for over 20 years so I do understand concepts.) And I do feel that anything that seems to make Intel look bad is deleted. Not modified with a better source, but deleted. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Intel has been busy firefighting this PR nightmare all week, and it seems the company will need plenty more extinguishers on hand in the near future. Meantime, other chip makers will likely be keeping as low a profile as possible.
Also, the revelation that Intel’s chief executive Brian Krzanich allegedly sold off the majority of his shares in the company later on last year – after Intel was supposedly informed about the security flaws back in June – has added another pinch of spice to this whole affair (as if it wasn’t heated enough).
Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La
Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988
Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1
Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, @ Dbsseven I have added many comments from various reliable sources in the previous topic and that can become confusing.
My primary points, all covered with quotes and citations in the previous Talk item. This WP article is about a corporation so the financial impact on the company, and its competitors, is relevant.
1. Intel's actual view on the effect the fix will have needs to be included. Use a source other than CNBC; https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates
2. We should also consider including this info: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich sold about half his stock months after he learned about critical flaws in billions of his company's microchips. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html (Also at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-ceo-sold-millions-in-stock-after-company-was-informed-of-vulnerability-before-disclosure-2018-01-03
The company has known about the security flaw for months, according to the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 Intel Wrestled With Chip Flaws for Months
3. A class action suit vs. Intel has been started. http://www.techradar.com/news/intels-nightmare-continues-as-lawsuits-loom-over-meltdown-and-spectre-bugs
4. The Public Relations issue: WSJ is behnd a paywall but their article includes this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 3 hours ago - The disclosure of security flaws in computer chips dealt Intel what seemed like a sudden crisis, but behind the scenes it and other tech companies and experts have ... “I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPU's, and actually admit that they have issues instead of writing PR blurbs that ...
Cheers! Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La
Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988
Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1
Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
*Proposal: I do not agree with all of the comments by Dbsseven in the various Talk items, but in general, this editor seems to have the most practical view of the content this article should include at this time. IMHO. (Some of the issues are still developing and not ready to be covered yet.) I hope you will do an edit Dbsseven.
Another concept would be a new section about the criticism in the major news media of the company's handling of the flaw, and of the CEOs massive sale of stock after the flaw was well known at Intel, and the Public Relations approach, etc. With a mention of the class action suits. In an article about a corporation, that might make more sense then detailed coverage of the security flaw. (I could write that but several Users are set to UNDO anything that I add.) Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The articles do say he sold the stock and that the flaw had been known for months before that. But also that the sale was one that was scheduled long ago, per Intel. Nonetheless, it did attract criticism in the news media. Often, it's not what a company does, but how it's viewed after the fact. The perception. And it has not been positively viewed.
"Brian Krzanich sold... leading journalists to questions about the timing of the sale" Sure, that would work, although I doubt that many other Users will agree. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
hi Peter K Burian and Objective3000. This conversation seems to be going all over the place and difficult. I would like to find some common language WP:CONSENSUS that is everyone can live with. I would like to propose specific language and then we can discuss the language here. (cites to be added once language is agreed)
The current version (minus refs):
The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws.
I propose (changes in bold):
The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.
Dbsseven ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Intel has developed and is rapidly issuing updates for all types of Intel-based computer systems — including personal computers and servers — that render those systems immune from both exploits (referred to as “Spectre” and “Meltdown”) reported by Google Project Zero. Intel and its partners have made significant progress in deploying updates as both software patches and firmware updates.[9] I am not crystal balling. I’m looking at what is actually happening – not at tech and financial blogs. Here we run into WP:RECENTISM again. We need to report actual results, not speculation. (BTW, no need to ping me.) O3000 ( talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Phoronix seems solid to me. Phoronix benchmarks have been cited by a number of other technical publications such as CNET News[9][10] and Slashdot.[11] It's certainly not a blog. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Revised proposal (italics of uncertain content):
The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Benchmarks by Phoronix using the Linux Kernel page-table isolation mititgation demonstrated little impact on gaming frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.
Dbsseven ( talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
hi Peter K Burian and Objective3000 and anyone else interested in joining in. As it is a week later, it seems worth revisiting the performance impact portion of the 2018 bug section with update values. As it is contentious, I though we could discuss it here. Some recent sources from Microsoft, Intel, RedHat and secondary source commentary.
I propose to replace: The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Using the initial Linux Kernel page-table isolation mitigation showed little impact in some benchmarks, but slowing in particular use-cases.
With: The impact of the initial fixes varied by operating system, CPU, and task; ranging from no impact to a noticeable decrease in system performance. These effects were most pronounced older CPUs and older versions of Windows.
Thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Intel® Optane™ Technology – Wikipedia updates; Intel Talk page
The following is an outline of proposed information that can be added to the Intel talk page:
Section: 1.1: Operating segments [Change copy in the Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group bullet] Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group – 4% of 2016 revenues – manufactures NAND flash memory and Intel Optane memory, products primarily used in solid-state drives.[10] [Reference does not change]
Section: 3.4: Solid-state drives (SSD) [Change copy to] In 2008, Intel began shipping mainstream solid-state drives (SSDs) with up to 160 GB storage capacities.[135] As with their CPUs, Intel develops SSD chips using ever-smaller nanometer processes. These SSDs make use of industry standards such as NAND flash,[136] mSATA,[137] PCIe, and NVMe. In 2017, Intel introduced SSDs based on Intel Optane technology.[138] [138 changes to] 138. ^ Sean Portnoy (October 30, 2017). “Intel releases first Optane SSD for desktops, workstations”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirleyhh ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intelligent Technology and Electronics. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
As the original product marketing mgr that brought pentium to market beating out MIPS RISC I can add important historical content. Need access. Recurry ( talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In Otellini's 2013 interview , he acknowledges a mistake in not making mobile chips for Apple; volume became 100 times bigger than forecast. The path not taken was later associated with a large job loss, as the old PC chip business became stagnant, and Intel could not pivot to mobile. It seems notable, but I don't know how to apply it to the article. Talk archive offers no help. TGCP ( talk) 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
First, Intel was and still is the most successful company in “mobile” which traditionally refers to laptop and notebook PCs- including MacBook. Intel declined to build a special processor for iPhone (traditionally called handhelds). While it would have certainly added some to Intel’s bottom line, the amount would, and still is minimal given The required low margins and Apple's volumes in handheld. The fab captivity used would have displaced other products with many times the selling price and margins. Apple has taken 10 years to get one RISC chip that is competitive with x86 in one market segment only - mobile pc. Its primary business is systems- not chips, and it’s highly questionable that they can afford the investment and focus required to stay competitive with Intel over the next few years. This is similar to when Apple switched to PowerPC back in the 90s. They came out with new PowerPC-based computers that got lots of coverage at the time for beating Intel but even the benchmark claims didn’t last long and eventually, they had to go with Intel for the last 15 years. Recurry ( talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Correction:
the amount would be - and still is - minimal, given the required low margins in handheld. Recurry ( talk) 10:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The "Intel Ignite" program is a relatively minor project of Intel and entirely dependent on Intel. This article would more appropriately be a sentence in Intel's timeline. FalconK ( talk) 06:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I must agree with Ovedc. Ignite is a stand-alone independent program with the support of Intel, and no difference from any other cooperate incubator as mentioned. Shaykea ( talk) 11:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It should stay as a stand-alone article rather than a brief mention on Intel's timeline. It's definitely relevant enough for an own article. Sure, it's not very long, but a lot of important key facts and sentences that give context and structure would be lost if we condensed the entire article into one to a few sentences.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 15:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
30 Diarmuidkelly ( talk) 10:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
30 Diarmuidkelly ( talk) 10:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
30 Diarmuidkelly ( talk) 10:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Change Acquisition table entry: Add Cosmonio and add reference. There is no news coverage of this that I could find, only the company's website. Change Acquisition table: Add Cosmonio entry at end
Number | Acquisition announcement date | Company | Business | Country | Price | Used as or integrated with | Ref(s). |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | June 4, 2009 | Wind River Systems | Embedded Systems | ![]() |
$884M | Software | [1] |
2 | August 19, 2010 | McAfee | Security | ![]() |
$7.6B | Software | [2] |
3 | August 30, 2010 | Infineon (partial) | Wireless | ![]() |
$1.4B | Mobile CPUs | [3] |
4 | March 17, 2011 | Silicon Hive | DSP | ![]() |
N/A | Mobile CPUs | [4] |
5 | September 29, 2011 | Telmap | Software | ![]() |
$300–350M | Location Services | [5] |
6 | October 30, 2011 | Invision | Software | ![]() |
$50–60M | Software | [6] |
7 | April 13, 2013 | Mashery | API Management | ![]() |
$180M | Software | [7] |
8 | May 6, 2013 | Stonesoft Corporation | Security | ![]() |
$389M | Software | [8] |
9 | July 16, 2013 | Omek Interactive | Gesture | ![]() |
N/A | Software | [9] |
10 | September 13, 2013 | Indisys | Natural language processing | ![]() |
N/A | Software | [10] |
11 | March 25, 2014 | BASIS | Wearable | ![]() |
N/A | New Devices | [11] |
12 | August 13, 2014 | Avago Technologies (partial) | Semiconductor | ![]() |
$650M | Communications Processors | [12] |
13 | December 1, 2014 | PasswordBox | Security | ![]() |
N/A | Software | [13] |
14 | January 5, 2015 | Vuzix | Wearable | ![]() |
$24.8M | New Devices | [14] |
15 | February 2, 2015 | Lantiq | Telecom | ![]() |
$345M | Gateways | [15] |
16 | June 1, 2015 | Altera | Semiconductor | ![]() |
$16.7B | Programmable Solutions Group (PSG) - e.g. FPGAs | [16] |
17 | June 18, 2015 | Recon | Wearable | ![]() |
$175M | New Devices | [17] |
18 | October 26, 2015 | Saffron Technology | Cognitive computing | ![]() |
undisclosed | Software | [18] |
19 | January 4, 2016 | Ascending Technologies | UAVs | ![]() |
undisclosed | New Technology | [19] |
20 | March 9, 2016 | Replay Technologies | Video technology | ![]() |
undisclosed | 3D video technology | [20] |
21 | April 5, 2016 | Yogitech | IoT security and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. | ![]() |
undisclosed | Software | [21] |
22 | August 9, 2016 | Nervana Systems | Machine learning technology | ![]() |
$350M | New Technology | [22] |
23 | September 6, 2016 | Movidius | Computer vision | ![]() |
undisclosed | New Technology | [23] |
24 | March 16, 2017 | Mobileye | Autonomous vehicle technology | ![]() |
$15B | Self driving technology | [24] [25] |
25 | July 12, 2018 | eASIC | Semiconductor | ![]() |
undisclosed | Programmable Solutions Group | [26] |
26 | April 16, 2019 | Omnitek | FPGA Video Acceleration | ![]() |
undisclosed | Video acceleration | [27] [28] |
27 | December 16, 2019 | Habana Labs | Machine learning technology | ![]() |
$2B | New Technology | [29] |
28 | May 4, 2020 | Moovit | Transit data | ![]() |
$900M | Transit data | [30] |
29 | May 20, 2020 | Rivet Networks | Networking | ![]() |
undisclosed | [31] | |
30 | September 24, 2020 | Cosmonio | Computer vision | ![]() |
undisclosed | Software | [32] |
References
Omek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ai
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wall Street Journal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).saffron
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).movidius
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add the acquisition of SigOpt to the list of companies acquired by Intel. Reference: https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-to-acquire-sigopt-to-scale-ai-productivity-and-performance Seasickcake 7037 ( talk) 18:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC) ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC) That just says they're planning on acquiring them. We'll need a source to say it's happened. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I found a few pieces of evidence to conform that intel did acquire SigOpt. One is their Twitter description that says "acquired by Intel October 2020". https://twitter.com/SigOpt Also a Tech crunch article that says "it has acquired SigOpt". https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/29/intel-acquires-sigopt-a-specialist-in-modeling-optimization-to-boost-its-ai-business I know this is not direct evidence to show that the acquisitions has taken place but it shows that the acquisitions has occurred. Seasickcake 7037 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Forget to add signature with timestamp. I apologize for that. -- Seasickcake 7037 ( talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what happened here, it sort of looks like some vandals did a drive-by. I'm going to do this the easy way, pull the entire source down, organize it and edit to make it an article about Intel - the corporation. Some of the statements on this page are laughable. For a point of reference: Intel has been more of a benefit to society than it has been a hindrance, or damaging. Yes, intel has caused damages, some that may have created other/more problems. My intent and obligation is to represent them equally with appropriate weighting without minimizing or unnecessary elevation. The point is to make it an encyclopedic article about Intel "the company" without the multiple deep-dives into tangential issues, living on such an awful layout. Missbellanash ( talk) 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Missbellanash ( talk) 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Find out the name of INEC Chairman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.29.179 ( talk) 18:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Intel#Ultrabook_fund_(2011)
This section is talking in present tense about sources dating back to 2011. It could probably use a change to past tense at least but probably needs a full update to what happened with the fund as the results of this fund should be observable at this point. Gyaruko ( talk) 18:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please provide a section about Intel and its locations, especially in China and Israel. I want to know all information. -- Sp0 10:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
answers: 6 Intel units in Israel which employs over 6,600 ppl...Tech standrts don't fall shorts from the California ones, and the MMX chip was first developed in Haifa... Working conditions are quite good in the Israeli standarts, approx. 6000$US for a beghinig developer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.121.211 ( talk) 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Im not sure if there should be so many links to Crap like Evil inside and whatnot.. Looks kinda Stupid -Jman888
Updated, if you don't like something, just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.126.32 ( talk) 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Intel used to produce vacuum tubes? I found an Intel tube in one of my radio's and I wonder if it really was Intel or some other company called Intel. The logo looks like inTel. Maybe it could be added to the article. http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/570/intel12gz.jpg http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8229/intel26ju.jpg Ikkejw 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone should place Intel's new logo on wikipedia, i'm unsure how or where to get it from though.
Someone just added the claim that Paul Otellini was responsible for the original IBM x86 design win. I have never heard that, and I was at Intel for a long time. Certainly Dave House and others were involved? I would say this needs some verification, but I'm not going to delete it for now. Comments? -- Gnetwerker 05:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The Intel page is very focused on the x86 CPUs, but what about the different lines in their history such as the i860 etc? -- Bjorn Elenfors
History of Intel from
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa092998.htm#intel
Jay 01:14 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Earl Whetstone was the Sales Engineer that helped get the original IBM deal won for Intel. I believe there would have been a number of senior managers invloved in getting the "design win" as part of the Crush program. So it is hard to know what Paul's role might have been.
The current stock price should be taken off. Has no real importance, and becomes outdated in literally 2 hours. So why even have it? Maybe the worth of the company in billions might be interesting/useful/more static, but I would say wikipedia is not a listing of Stock Prices.
-- Windfinder 15:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Where would the Intel740 fit? It's an orphan node right now, I think. If it doesn't fit anywhere, how should we link to it?
Deleted inapropriate political content that relates only vaguely to Intel, and from a completely one sided view.
I deleted the below addition by an anon user:
It's not backed up by any verifiable information, was inserted in the wrong section, is anecdotable and incredibly poorly written. Disagree? Discuss here. — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Completely agree. What are 'plasters'? Also, Intel doesn't give Christmas gifts anyway, and has only "holiday" parties (remember lots of staff are of non-Christian religions). Intel does have a confrontive culture (n.b. Constructive Confrontation classes), and I would not call it (historically, at least) family-friendly, but the faceintel.com drivel is just that. -- Gnetwerker 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
That photo of the car is pretty pointless, also copyrighted, and it interferes with the layout. I suggest that it be removed. -- Gnetwerker 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I strongly agree with this. The bit about the Sauber contract should also go. Rather petty bit of information. - Ray 3 February 2006
I also agree and removed it. Denis C. 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that anti-trust stuff repeated twice? Someone should clean that up. P-unit 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
An anon added this para:
I tagged this with {{citeneeded}}, but if we don't get a source quickly, I am inclined to remove it. It doesn't have dates, names, or any details, as well as being unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
206.114.20.121 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, it is obviously for real. Do you have any more recent citations about how the case was disposed? -- Gnetwerker 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This evaluation was done on this version of Intel at time 6:00 PM PST on April 1, 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.
Criteria:
Summary:
Congratulations. - Corbin Simpson 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The antitrust section is divided in two... if one were to edit this, that's the best place to start.
No one of the Traitorous Eight was involved in founding AMD. The "Traitorous Eight" left Shockley and went to Fairchild around 1957. AMD was, however, one of the Fairchildren, like National Semiconductor, which were founded about ten years later, in the late '60s.
Intel has not "refuted" AMD's antitrust claims. To me that implies that they have successfully proved that they are false. A better word would be "rebuffed". The veracity of the claims will be determined in a trial.
Does anyone have a source for the sentence "The only major competitor to Intel on the x86 processor market is Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), with which Intel has had full cross-licensing agreements since 1976: each partner can use the other's patented technological innovations without charge.". The only agreement I'm aware of is the one from 2001, which supercedes older agreements: http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
There is some talk of royalties in the agreement, so it's hardly without charge. I have some recollection of an older ageement which only covers x86 extensions and is royalty-free, but I don't have a source so I'm wondering if anyone knows of the agreement I'm talking about. - 85.157.199.19 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Anybody notice how every sentence ends in an exclaimation mark in the part "# # 1.4 Intel and the IBM PC 2"? They aren't necessary and they're annoying to look at.
Why isn't there any mention of the models which apparently had problems computing answers with long decimal answers? These were in the early Pentium 1 timeframe, though I don't know the model designation details.
No doubt the actual effect was overplayed in the exuberant web forums of the time, but I cannot recall any other computer models that had demonstrable serious basic math errors.
If I recall the public perception correctly, it intersected with the (proven successful) Intel Inside campaign to humorous effect. ( "Skulls & CrossBones inside, How many Pentium Engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? 6.99167")
Examples of humor of the day: http://www.samurajdata.se/~cj/funny/html/pentium.html
This appears to give the detail hungry types a place to start: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/PENTIUM/bugs
Now this has been identified, it stands as an Error of Omission, which currently artificially bolsters the company's reputation by omitting what may be their single largest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaoPhoenix ( talk • contribs)
The link titled "Intel Corp Company Profile and News Archive" Should be removed, it adds nothing more to what is provided in the yahoo link, and it is for a paid service, if there is agreement i can go ahead and remove it. Geneticflyer 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Geneticflyer
i think that the opening paragraph reads like PR from intel's site. i can't come up with anything to replace it at the moment, but i hope someone can come up with something better -- Scott w 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have had several relatives that have worked for these copyright infrigers, apperently ther inside motto is "Steal with Pride." HHS.student
Please give an example of a copyright infringement, and maybe some figures on why you think intel is a particularly bad company for this practice. 192.198.151.129 ( talk) 11:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As Intel has major locations in multiple locations, mostly around the US and Israel to my knowledge, I think a relevant section noting major locations is in order. I have not done a lot of work on this article, so I will not intervene. If anyone is up for it, I support the edit. -- יהושועEric 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
x86-processors are used in almost every personal computer you can buy on todays market, so I really think it should say 'most personal computers', not 'many'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.201.78 ( talk) 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
The quotes section (added 5 April 2007 by 207.255.199.187) mentioning visas seems to be an unimportant, irrelevant political statement. I think it should be removed, but I don't know what to do (as I would like to assume good faith in accordance with Help:Reverting and WP:AGF). Nightspark 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be left in. It shows the attitude of the company good or bad toward importing workers. This goes along with it’s diversity discussion that is just as political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.13.66 ( talk) 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The article should mention where Intel manufactures. Do they use their own factories or do they contract out the manufacturing? AxelBoldt 07:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a partnership with apple section? There is nothing noteworthy for intel about selling to Apple. There is no "partnership" any more than Intel has with Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo or HP. This section should be removed, it serves no purpose here except to advertise for Apple. Further, Apple's share of worldwide PC market is less than 3%, it isnt even remotely a significant account.
Unless good reasons not to, I will remove this section shortly.
Wageslave 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The sections seem a bit disorganised. One section (lets say 1) treats one aspects, and then the other section (lets say 2) jumps to another aspect. Then, another section (lets say 3) elsewhere treats of a related aspect of section 1, which makes it a bit difficult to follow and get the whole picture.
These are just some suggestions to improve the article in general.
Aeons | Talk 06:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
In the section Intel Inside, Intel Systems Division, and Intel Architecture Labs in the second paragraph it's stated that During the 1990s, Intel's Architecture Lab (IAL) was responsible for many of the hardware innovations of the personal computer, including the PCI Bus, the PCI Express (PCIe) bus, the Universal Serial Bus (USB), Bluetooth wireless interconnect, and the now-dominant architecture for multiprocessor servers.
As Bluetooth was developed by Ericsson, I would suggest to remove Bluetooth wireless interconnect or rewrite the article to point out exactly what was Intels part in development of Bluetooth (as I understand non).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.243.13 ( talk) 11:20, 20 July 2007
These seem somewhat subjective, and I'm not sure that they are all that significant. 2000 was in the middle of the tech bubble, and Microsoft is not a hardware manufacturer. -- Beland 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The company has always been vocal in trumpeting its market value of its brand and losing 10 places in the last year is a significant development.
Aaronproot
Added a reference to the early 1970's when Intel made a complete micro computer called the Intellec Series Intellec Series description, timeline of Intel products and The SIM - 4. Unbelievable that there is no Wiki article on them yet given their importance to the history of computing. Alatari 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
After checking the dates of the references, it came to my attention that the main criticism was concerning products released in 2005, whereas one of the examples given as a criticism is from 2003. The way it is written misleads into thinking that this criticism followed from the problems of the 2005 products.
This is a previous revision, before I began editing this section: [2].
This section also needs to be updated.
Ǣ0 ƞS 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is worth mentioning. Where would the appropriate place be to put this in the article?
link http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15511
Can someone check this edit? Note that the IP is registered to Intel. · AndonicO Talk 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a rah-rah. The stuff about Muslim / Jewish / Christian groups - how is that unique to Intel? Lotsa commpany in SiValley have.
The up-or-out policy as stated is pretty biased as well. "dead wood?" -- 203.117.92.2 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In looking for a reference, I came across several paragraphs worth of verbatim text from this website. I could certainly remove the material now, but I'd rather have this be a multi-editor process. E_dog95' Hi ' 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What's with this crap about silica called "dangerous chemical"? It's simply a silicon dioxide, that is -- sand. It's no more dangerous than your average window glass or sandbox on the playground, which are also mostly pure silica. Well, silica powder might be harmful -- if you're breathing it in by handfuls, but I highly doubt that that was the case. So I believe somebody's environmental imagination has run a bit wild here.-- Khathi ( talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The introduction to the article contains a sentence which sounds like it could have been pulled straight from an Intel shareholder meeting, "Founded by semiconductor pioneers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and widely associated with the executive leadership and vision of Andrew Grove, Intel combines advanced chip design capability with a leading-edge manufacturing capability." It reads more like an advert than unbiased encyclopaedia material. Colostomyexplosion ( talk) 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Please add these http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/01/22/09/intel-shut-sites-and-cut-6000-jobs Triadwarfare ( talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph about Intel's Constructive Confrontation philosophy that was in effect when I was an Intel employee in Folsom, CA in the early and mid 90's. These items are true. I emailed directly to Andy Grove about the Pentium flaw and how it was being handled and he replied, my fellow employees were quite amazed. Please don't delete this, unless this site is for the promotion of Intel only and is not about the providing truthful facts about the company for better or worse. 71.33.47.145 ( talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I once heard a rumor, that the sign «Intel inside» was first located on the roof of some building, which was used as a helicopter landing zone. That sign was helping pilots to find «their» building. Does anybody know, if there is a bit of a truth in this story? -- Alogrin ( talk) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The Intel Inside symbol was painted on top of Intel's headquarters building in Santa Clara for several years. The building is in the approach path for the San Jose airport. This was well after the adoption of the logo, so not the source of it. -- Morrolan ( talk) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Its research lab located at Cambridge University was closed at the end of 2009.
We're only in May, I don't know what year the lab closed therefore the statement must be altered with a citation or removed. The recent European anti-trust lawsuit thats currently on the front page of the New York Times will no doubt send thousands to this wiki page. I have removed the statement. Thankyouverymuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deverell ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The links at the end of the lead section "In addition to its work in semiconductors, Intel has begun research in electrical transmission and generation.[6][7]" are dead. 77.86.67.245 ( talk) 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This is in defense of this section listed under History, which someone removed. It goes as follows:
History of crippling competitors with legal bills
In its earlier days, Intel was noted for suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386 chip. [1] The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits. [2] It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured if those startup chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits, but this is a little-talked about fact [3] that has likely been very significant in the shaping of the world's technology up until now.
Please explain how even a single word here is anything but pure, flat, unadulterated information. (The remover, user "Aboutmovies", said it was NPOV, but I simply can't figure out how, or in what way this could possibly be pitched that isn't just a near-identical rehash of what's already here.) -- 68.111.167.64 ( talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to the party. I have been reading the discussion above but hadn't had time to comment. I am breaking this out as a separate sub-section mainly because 7 indents is probably enough.
Aboutmovies was perfectly reasonable to remove the text in question. If the text described a set of specific companies that were sued and what happened to them, and preferably had decent external sources, that would be a good start. As it is we have a vague claim that they sued a bunch of people at some unspecified point in time, and then an even vaguer claim that these suits could "cripple" competitors regardless of the outcome. Even the citations are problematic, both because of the vagueness of what they are meant to support, and because it is not evident whether the citation is something that Bill Gates said or something that Janet Lowe said. And all of this seems a bit meaningless when no comparison is provided between Intel and other companies, or even Intel at a different point in time; certainly it is implied that they were very lawsuit-happy over whatever period is being described, but no evidence is provided.
The third sentence is also problematic for a number of reasons. It is assumed without evidence that in the absence of Intel's 386-era lawsuits, the market would be very different; but since it has not been stated who they sued, or what happened after such suits, there is nothing to support that claim. If the companies that they sued were badly financed, badly run, and had no innovative ideas beyond naming their companies "Shmintel" and their product the "three86", then no, it does not inherently follow that suing those companies had a significant effect on the course of the industry.
The claim that something is "little-talked about" is inherently slippery. The Google search "citation" falls into the classic "Google test" problem that the query used is simultaneously very vague (no reference to, say, a specific company that they sued - and isn't even specific to the 386 era) and very specific (any article that doesn't actually use the word "crippled" or a close synoym may not be returned). It should also strike you as a bad sign that of the 18,000 results returned, not that many actually seem to be related to this topic; of the first 30 results, only one made any mention of Intel suing someone in the 386 era... and it was this article (Google's cache caught the version with this text in it). All of this is irrespective of the fact that anything not indexed by Google will be left out.
I am also struck by the undertones that Intel was the bad guy for suing whoever they might have sued, which of course sets off NPOV alarm bells (as does use of the word "crippled"). But yet again, since it is never stated who they might have sued or why, there is no basis to judge that on. — Aluvus t/ c 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Point 1: Your logic isn't adding up very well at all... First, each of those Moore statements did NOT happen... this one did. And it's an *incredibly* notable statement, worth its weight even in the Technology Hall of Fame. The only unfortunate thing for ME is that it can't be sourced as anyone else saying it, but part of what I'm saying is that, aside from nobody here even challenging its message (because of how "duh" it is, on the most basic, basic, basic level), it isn't the kind of "notable claim" that needs citation, because a "claim" is a verbal relaying of an event that has taken place - thus one can challenge whether or not it is TRUE. This is a "call to insight" on something the reader already knows is true! (thus if the reader DIDN'T know it - and nobody here even challenges the fact it's highlighting - it would simply make them draw a blank, and that's *absolutely* not what's happening. So, again: this statement MAKES no claim. It's a call to insight, relying on something the reader already assumes. You arguing it is like saying "The following Comedian Article line needs a citation: Comedians are supposed to be funny." Why does that need citation? It's not an event-related "claim", it's just a call to insight on whatever parts of the article came before it.
Let me post it again:
During the time of the 386
CPU, Intel partook in suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386.
[1] The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits.
[2] It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits.
Point 2: So you're saying that my statement is SO TRUE (thank you) that it doesnt *need* to be said... But you're not realizing that I am POWERFULLY motivated by the message inherent to get it on the page, because while true to the bone, it brings to the reader's mind something that is NOT automatically assumed unless one were to really, really stop and think about the implications of the previous sentences.
Point 3: It's absolutely not WP:V, because it's explaining the SUM of the previous 2 sentences. How can you not see this? You say it looks isolated and lost here. That's like saying that the statement "His death was sad" wouldn't be appropriate at the end of a funeral speech (and would also need citation). Not on this planet.
"Surely you appreciate that people watching the page don't think your additions are suitable, and then when you came to WP:3 and I responded in disagreement with your intentions, this must tell you that there is something wrong?"
It does. It makes me strongly wonder if more than one of you guys aren't Intel investors or employees (I know your edits are heavily focused around silicon valley-related articles), because if 100 people care enough to view this discussion page, there's an enormous mathematical probability that not only are a great deal of them Intel employees or investors (Intel has 83,000 employees, and who knows how many investors), but an even higher chance that those that are will have an EXTREMELY volatile reaction to the statement, and thus be prompted to defend it (especially with such weak arguments, as I'm bombarded with here - I'm sorry people, but your arguments are just desperate-as-can-be fluff, extremely indicative - to me at least - of bias going on here, since they are so furiously combating such an untouchable statement). I'm not going to press or even maintain the idea that you ARE investors, beyond what's written here, but I'm just telling you why I do indeed see something wrong, as you mentioned, and why I most certainly have no intention of letting go of this.
I'm going to take this to ArbCom next, because I KNOW that they won't have a biased interest in this (Arbitrators are elected to a board beforehand - they aren't just random users). ANYBODY from ThirdOpinion can chime in here, and naturally since I warned beforehand that I was going to post there, you can come here like, "I'm the fair and balanced Third Opinion you were looking for," when that is not a very sound assumption, given all probability here. You could be, but I think not, because your completely bizarre case against this line here makes absolutely no *human* sense.
Also, you said: You are simply not getting Wikipedia, and there is little any of us can do for you to make the connection beyond what we have said. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the real world. The consensus has been formed, and your views did not make the cut.
Not so. One of the rules here is "Wikipedia is not a democracy", so majority opinion among editors is never the final say, since majority opinion could easily just be a bunch of cause-supporters trying to get important information distorted. I don't buy this one bit, and thus will let ArbCom decide next, since they know all the rules.--
68.111.167.64 (
talk)
03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
My, Wikipedia's formatting/layout/everything is a pile of 1980's CRAP.--
68.111.167.64 (
talk)
04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have reported the IP editor to the admins' noticeboard here because of their continued editing of the article without consensus and in breach of policy. Bigger digger ( talk) 23:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm no fan of the company at all but this article is overly negative and focuses too much on trivial detail, much of which is poorly sourced. Ironically it even misses one of the more interesting negative events that led to the rapid growth of several of their competitors such as Cyrix and AMD (the exploding chips fiasco in some earlier Pentium-I's, and the poor way it was handled). What do others think? Orderinchaos 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Does Microsoft have any indefinite support for Intel's mainstream and compatibility being that every thing works Unix or Linux impenditure keystroke or move passe. To get right to the point, does Intel and Microsoft appear to go hand in hand, or is that simply a given that should not be brought up? To reference, why [do] money holders not get into CPU ventures period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore ( talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
.........Intel has maintained top billing in the CPU race (industry) and withstanding, for reasons of prestige, it has held ground as the premire microprocessor and has left the gate closed to new technologies and expenditures into the market during our short CPU stint that mearly started years prior.......... to follow here wiki suit, by follow-up, a relation would have to indict intel as a soverign branding that has 'kept it "treading water (jk)' during these few short years. Maybe it could even be reasoned how it has kept this ground either by menteal coersion or by physical prowess or duress that wealthy individuals have not lept into this seemingly prolific teritory of CPU/PC foray. ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC). Bill Riojas Mclemore ( talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (EST)
I'm concerned over this sentence and have removed it for discussion:
Removed for now pending review here. FT2 ( Talk | email) 02:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
3D transistors are a joke. That's what Intel's marketing wing is calling its multi-gate and tri-gate MOS devices. 3D transistor is not a technical term and the impression it conjures up of some radically advanced tech over the so-called "2D transistor" is nothing more than pure marketing bullcrap. The sources linked are also news sources with no technical background. CNN and (wait for it) Semiaccurate? Really? Google even lists Semiaccurate as satire because of how ridiculous and opinionated those posts are, and often how factually incorrect information is dressed up in ostensibly technical language. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. A company like Intel deals with cutting-edge technology beyond the understanding of laypeople. In order to remain encyclopaedic we need to stop using marketing press-releases (and the news segments that follow) as our information source. Rlinfinity ( talk) 09:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Anon poster here. Would it be relevant to cite Intel's $1.25 billion USD settlement with AMD, prompting the latter to cease all of its pending litigation worldwide?
URL for reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33882559/ns/business-us_business/
This is breaking news as of the morning of approximately 0900 US EST, 12 November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.242.115 ( talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning here that Intel releases specs to the FLOSS community? — Mike. lifeguard | @en.wb 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.-- Oneiros ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Reference 7 is no longer available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.142.211 ( talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello-
My name is Gary Niekerk and I work in Intel's Office of Corporate Responsibility. I would like to add a link and reference to Intel's Corporate Responsibility report to the end of this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Environmental_record
The corporate responsibility report [3] gives detailed information on Intel's global environmental performance including chemical use, energy use, water use, environmental fines, etc.
Please let me know if this is acceptable to do.
Gniekerk ( talk) 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
While a small portion of the company, it has historic computing if not financial significance. This is not even a B-class article. It does require a rewrite as one commenter pointed out. 143.232.210.38 ( talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I know the article lists macafee.. but shouldn't there be more on other intel acquisitions.. like a list on link to one? I dont think they were the only one - Tracer9999 ( talk) 04:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
this to inform the mandator that offensive language is used in the below link. ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation#Origins_and_early_years'' please do correct it.
and if possible can you send me the biography of the person who can be called as the father of Intel Corporation.
From: Rakesh Kumar Singh [email redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.97.81 ( talk • contribs)
I am in the process of linking Intel to the new solid-state drive template and I realized there is nothing (notable) on this page covering Intel's participation in the expanding SSD market for either their NAND flash or solid-state drives. When I get a chance I will come back to add a section with an overview of all the products (at least the categories). § Music Sorter § ( talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Intel® Identity Protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.168.106 ( talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The 'logos' section needs updating for the badges on second generation of i-series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battman95 ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
We should add something on the 2009 Stars Ratings program. Here is one source link. If I get a chance I will come back to add something. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This article doesn't mention anything about the i Family!-- Mike28968 ( talk) 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
"22nm processors" ( Intel#22nm_processors) between 386 and 486 CPUs seems completely out of place. Since this is the first time I open this article and haven't really read all of it, I'm not sure what's the best place to fit it in, but this does not appear ideal. W3ird N3rd ( talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The text says that decreasing revenues in September 2006 lead to the laying off of 10,500 employees by July 2006. This is chronologically nonsensical... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.74 ( talk) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Nothing on ARM?? 192.55.55.41 ( talk) 19:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I feel that the article as it currently stands (1/26/2012) gives a distorted view of the early history of Intel's computer chips. The emphasis on the lack of profitability of the early chips overlooks their importance to the computer industry. The 4004 and 8008 were ground breaking chips, they pioneered a new industry, but in reality they were not widely deployed. On the other hand, the 8080 chip had a huge impact and widespread adoption. This chip was an industry game changer and was what put Intel on the map. To be dismissive of it due to low profit margins (which this article currently does), is to give a distorted view of how significant the chip actually was. One of the pivotal moments for Intel was when the Altair computer chose to use the 8080 chip. Intel's 8080 and Zilog's Z-80 spent the 1970's dukeing it out for dominance. The Z-80 (which came out later) was considered superior to the 8080 (better memory interface, better mnemonics, more registers) and gained a large adoption, but when Zilog came out with the Z-8000 as the successor this turned out to be a major misstep because it broke compatibility with the then considerable software available for the 8080/Z-80 chips (CP/M etc.). The 8086 bent over backwards to maintain compatibility with the 8080 and ultimately won dominance in the market. Zilog later tried to backtrack and introduced upgrades to the Z-80 but by then it was too late, Intel had run away with the market, the Z-8000 never gained much traction, but the Z-80 lived on for many decades in embedded control systems such as vending machines. This article ought to say something about the above. comments by Old Codger (I was a programmer in those days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.0.185 ( talk) 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Intel's PQS award, part of its SCQI program, seems to be something that should be included in the article, but I'm not sure how it ought to be done. Thanks for any pointers on this tactical subject.
A larger strategic issue I'd like to discuss concerns the structure of major articles such as this one, where something of an outline can be adapted from the structure already provided by the corporation itself, in terms of a table of organization or an outline taken from the corporation's website and sitemap. While this could have some problems in various ways (copying elements of website design, letting the corporation set the tone of the article, etc.) it would make a comprehensive inclusion of the corporation's activities and programs a heck of a lot easier. Basically, I think that WP's ad-hoc style is getting in its own way in articles this complex. Can a section or sections be introduced which fit the above description? Where is the proper place to discuss this? TheLastWordSword ( talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
This is an open call for a Facilities section. I would like to see a section, preferably near the top to keep it in line with other similar page designs, with a description of intel's specific capacity (# of plants at wafer sizes) and facilities. I'd volunteer to write up a section, but I don't have that information to add. -- 173.66.0.100 ( talk) 12:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The following coordinate fixes are needed for
— 70.39.185.131 ( talk) 23:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I thought that there might as well be a section or grouping for the several Intel related biographical articles on wikipedia.
There were only two mentioned when I started, but just guessing quickly found a few.
Unknown if there are wikipedia standards for organizing this sort of thing. I am sure that the wikipedia trolls will delete if they feel like it.
Would be best if there was some sort of semi-automated query that might apply. A.Glew ( talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
incorrect revenue figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalenjji ( talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Totally ludicrous header for a totally ludicrous section. In what way has there been a "collapse of the PC market"? There has been a relatively small decline in the growth rate of the industry, but it's still a huge market. The only source for this section mentions nothing about a collapse, it's about increasing tablet demand and a slowing PC market. Core1911 ( talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
And in the meantime, Intel is selling it process capabilities to other companies to make their custom chips. For example:
etc. When the actual press releases come out we can add them next to the already confirmed deal. Hcobb ( talk) 01:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Is Intel really a company of Israel? It was founded by two Americans, is headquartered in America, is traded on American stock exchanges. The article mentions that Intel has offices in Israel, but also in a number of other countries that Intel isn't categorised as being a company of. Diweikipa ( talk) 15:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope including the old Intel logo in .svg is useful. I hope it won't be deleted - Polytope4d ( talk) 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In the talks about the VCPI (Virtual Control Program Interface) article we have found out that prior to the publication of the DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) standard in 1990, Intel seems to have had a role in the coordination or development of a similar effort named "extended VCPI" or " XVCPI" to address the shortcomings of the original VCPI 1.0 specification around 1989/1990 in order to provide better support to the memory management and multitasking capabilities of the 386 processor. Other companies apparently involved in this effort were Digital Research with Concurrent DOS 386 and Interactive Systems with Interactive Unix, but probably there were more. Very little is known about this. Does someone reading this remembers this standard or proposal and perhaps has announcements, documentation of any kind, or bits of background information in regard to this XVCPI thing? Your comments or contributions to the VCPI article or talk page would be highly welcome to better document this bit of technical history. Thanks. -- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 12:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we can see "8/6/68 Name changed to Intel Corporation, a California Corporation." in http://www.intel.com/intel/company/corp4.htm . So actually they used NM Electronics as the name of their company for less than a month? 202.43.96.123 ( talk) 14:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.96.123 ( talk) 07:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) kadjjasdjhawowehyugqerwiwqegiqwegiwdouwohaghoeagouearbjdafus|Imveracious]] ( talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed an entire section devoted to discussion of a minor issue involving Intel temporarily withdrawing advertising from a website because of Gamergate lobbying. It was trivial and not really relevant to the company, and it's already out of date. -- TS 22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I found an interesting article in an old copy of Intel Technology Journal that describes how the various Intel chips got their "names"...
Might make a good subsection for this and/or other Intel articles. 104.32.193.6 ( talk) 09:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Intel has announced a $300 million diversity fund, which seemed to make a big splash in the news this morning [4]. Perhaps this would be worth a one-sentence mention in the diversity section? I have a minor COI wrt the subject and would rather not edit the article. - a13ean ( talk) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a complaint (and a minor and insignificant one at that) that has not had any effect on Intel at all. This shouldn't have it's own section. If people think it should remain in this article, put it in an already established section. Maybe in corporate affairs section, just like there's a religious controversy in that one. Knightmare72589 ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Intel acquired in 2010 one major part of Infineon, the wireless business division. It did not buy the full company, Infineon still exists as a major German semiconductor company. This is easily verifiable by ref 56 ( and the reference to the Infineon wikipage and webpage.)
In the Acquisition table in line 3, it should read Infineon (partial), isn't it?
( 134.191.220.74 ( talk) 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 12 external links on
Intel. 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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the proposal to split the SSD section to a new article. I see since January 2014 there have been no comments either way, so I will be bold and execute the split shortly per Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Article is missing any mention of some early and pretty important acquisitions. One that comes to mind is Chips and Technologies that took place in 1997/98 [6]. At the time it was Intel's largest Acquisition @ $420 million [7] and allowed Intel to enter the graphics processing market. -- CyberXRef ☎ 04:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Intel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Just add it its not hard but I'm bad at wikipediaing. KspeXproler ( talk) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Intel. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42469When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intel. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n1964_v39/ai_13901771{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n2109_v42/ai_18135525When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Intel. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Intel. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Objective3000. I don't think removing that content was the best way to go about it. Just because it happened recently doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM is a problem. In fact, the statement from Intel substantiated the information and confirmed the existence of the exploit. " "Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices — with many different vendors' processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits." ( ABC News). Financial Review also wrote that Intel confirmed the reports.
I think the best plan of action would be to re-add the content with Intel's statements. We can also change "the last decade" to 1995 per ABC News. The Financial Review article also contains more details to make it less speculative. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I've made one final change that included Intel's response. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. It should be noted that the article says "up to 30%", meaning there's a high chance a system isn't inhibited by 30%. Here's a Forbes article. The section should also mention the impact this'll have on big organisations which is written about here. Amazon, for instance, has apparently already protected itself. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 14:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Is the NY Times not a reliable source?
Why delete this content from 2018 security flaws:
According to a New York Times report, "There is no easy fix for Spectre ... as for Meltdown, the software patch needed to fix the issue could slow down computers by as much as 30 percent". https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/computer-flaws.html
Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Once again, fully-cited content that I added was deleted. The current content of this article looks like a whitewash to me. IMHO. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This content that I had added indicates Intel's view. It was deleted on the basis that it was quoting financial analysts.
A CNBC report indicated that Intel's estimate as to performance degradation after the solution for Meltdown "should not be significant" for the average user but later agreed that a decrease in performance of up to 30 percent was possible after fixes under some "synthetic workloads." https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/amd-is-big-winner-from-chip-flaw-fiasco.html
Call me paranoid, but I continue to feel that this is all a whitewash of Intel. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, quote a source other than CNBC but provide the true version of Intel's view on the effect the fix will have. You're right; I am not a tecchie on computer processing. (However, I was a technical writer for photography magazines for over 20 years so I do understand concepts.) And I do feel that anything that seems to make Intel look bad is deleted. Not modified with a better source, but deleted. Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Intel has been busy firefighting this PR nightmare all week, and it seems the company will need plenty more extinguishers on hand in the near future. Meantime, other chip makers will likely be keeping as low a profile as possible.
Also, the revelation that Intel’s chief executive Brian Krzanich allegedly sold off the majority of his shares in the company later on last year – after Intel was supposedly informed about the security flaws back in June – has added another pinch of spice to this whole affair (as if it wasn’t heated enough).
Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La
Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988
Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1
Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, @ Dbsseven I have added many comments from various reliable sources in the previous topic and that can become confusing.
My primary points, all covered with quotes and citations in the previous Talk item. This WP article is about a corporation so the financial impact on the company, and its competitors, is relevant.
1. Intel's actual view on the effect the fix will have needs to be included. Use a source other than CNBC; https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates
2. We should also consider including this info: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich sold about half his stock months after he learned about critical flaws in billions of his company's microchips. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html (Also at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-ceo-sold-millions-in-stock-after-company-was-informed-of-vulnerability-before-disclosure-2018-01-03
The company has known about the security flaw for months, according to the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 Intel Wrestled With Chip Flaws for Months
3. A class action suit vs. Intel has been started. http://www.techradar.com/news/intels-nightmare-continues-as-lawsuits-loom-over-meltdown-and-spectre-bugs
4. The Public Relations issue: WSJ is behnd a paywall but their article includes this:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 3 hours ago - The disclosure of security flaws in computer chips dealt Intel what seemed like a sudden crisis, but behind the scenes it and other tech companies and experts have ... “I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPU's, and actually admit that they have issues instead of writing PR blurbs that ...
Cheers! Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La
Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988
Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1
Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
*Proposal: I do not agree with all of the comments by Dbsseven in the various Talk items, but in general, this editor seems to have the most practical view of the content this article should include at this time. IMHO. (Some of the issues are still developing and not ready to be covered yet.) I hope you will do an edit Dbsseven.
Another concept would be a new section about the criticism in the major news media of the company's handling of the flaw, and of the CEOs massive sale of stock after the flaw was well known at Intel, and the Public Relations approach, etc. With a mention of the class action suits. In an article about a corporation, that might make more sense then detailed coverage of the security flaw. (I could write that but several Users are set to UNDO anything that I add.) Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The articles do say he sold the stock and that the flaw had been known for months before that. But also that the sale was one that was scheduled long ago, per Intel. Nonetheless, it did attract criticism in the news media. Often, it's not what a company does, but how it's viewed after the fact. The perception. And it has not been positively viewed.
"Brian Krzanich sold... leading journalists to questions about the timing of the sale" Sure, that would work, although I doubt that many other Users will agree. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
hi Peter K Burian and Objective3000. This conversation seems to be going all over the place and difficult. I would like to find some common language WP:CONSENSUS that is everyone can live with. I would like to propose specific language and then we can discuss the language here. (cites to be added once language is agreed)
The current version (minus refs):
The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws.
I propose (changes in bold):
The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.
Dbsseven ( talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Intel has developed and is rapidly issuing updates for all types of Intel-based computer systems — including personal computers and servers — that render those systems immune from both exploits (referred to as “Spectre” and “Meltdown”) reported by Google Project Zero. Intel and its partners have made significant progress in deploying updates as both software patches and firmware updates.[9] I am not crystal balling. I’m looking at what is actually happening – not at tech and financial blogs. Here we run into WP:RECENTISM again. We need to report actual results, not speculation. (BTW, no need to ping me.) O3000 ( talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Phoronix seems solid to me. Phoronix benchmarks have been cited by a number of other technical publications such as CNET News[9][10] and Slashdot.[11] It's certainly not a blog. Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Revised proposal (italics of uncertain content):
The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Benchmarks by Phoronix using the Linux Kernel page-table isolation mititgation demonstrated little impact on gaming frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.
Dbsseven ( talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
hi Peter K Burian and Objective3000 and anyone else interested in joining in. As it is a week later, it seems worth revisiting the performance impact portion of the 2018 bug section with update values. As it is contentious, I though we could discuss it here. Some recent sources from Microsoft, Intel, RedHat and secondary source commentary.
I propose to replace: The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Using the initial Linux Kernel page-table isolation mitigation showed little impact in some benchmarks, but slowing in particular use-cases.
With: The impact of the initial fixes varied by operating system, CPU, and task; ranging from no impact to a noticeable decrease in system performance. These effects were most pronounced older CPUs and older versions of Windows.
Thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Intel® Optane™ Technology – Wikipedia updates; Intel Talk page
The following is an outline of proposed information that can be added to the Intel talk page:
Section: 1.1: Operating segments [Change copy in the Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group bullet] Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group – 4% of 2016 revenues – manufactures NAND flash memory and Intel Optane memory, products primarily used in solid-state drives.[10] [Reference does not change]
Section: 3.4: Solid-state drives (SSD) [Change copy to] In 2008, Intel began shipping mainstream solid-state drives (SSDs) with up to 160 GB storage capacities.[135] As with their CPUs, Intel develops SSD chips using ever-smaller nanometer processes. These SSDs make use of industry standards such as NAND flash,[136] mSATA,[137] PCIe, and NVMe. In 2017, Intel introduced SSDs based on Intel Optane technology.[138] [138 changes to] 138. ^ Sean Portnoy (October 30, 2017). “Intel releases first Optane SSD for desktops, workstations”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirleyhh ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intelligent Technology and Electronics. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
As the original product marketing mgr that brought pentium to market beating out MIPS RISC I can add important historical content. Need access. Recurry ( talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
In Otellini's 2013 interview , he acknowledges a mistake in not making mobile chips for Apple; volume became 100 times bigger than forecast. The path not taken was later associated with a large job loss, as the old PC chip business became stagnant, and Intel could not pivot to mobile. It seems notable, but I don't know how to apply it to the article. Talk archive offers no help. TGCP ( talk) 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
First, Intel was and still is the most successful company in “mobile” which traditionally refers to laptop and notebook PCs- including MacBook. Intel declined to build a special processor for iPhone (traditionally called handhelds). While it would have certainly added some to Intel’s bottom line, the amount would, and still is minimal given The required low margins and Apple's volumes in handheld. The fab captivity used would have displaced other products with many times the selling price and margins. Apple has taken 10 years to get one RISC chip that is competitive with x86 in one market segment only - mobile pc. Its primary business is systems- not chips, and it’s highly questionable that they can afford the investment and focus required to stay competitive with Intel over the next few years. This is similar to when Apple switched to PowerPC back in the 90s. They came out with new PowerPC-based computers that got lots of coverage at the time for beating Intel but even the benchmark claims didn’t last long and eventually, they had to go with Intel for the last 15 years. Recurry ( talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Correction:
the amount would be - and still is - minimal, given the required low margins in handheld. Recurry ( talk) 10:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The "Intel Ignite" program is a relatively minor project of Intel and entirely dependent on Intel. This article would more appropriately be a sentence in Intel's timeline. FalconK ( talk) 06:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I must agree with Ovedc. Ignite is a stand-alone independent program with the support of Intel, and no difference from any other cooperate incubator as mentioned. Shaykea ( talk) 11:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It should stay as a stand-alone article rather than a brief mention on Intel's timeline. It's definitely relevant enough for an own article. Sure, it's not very long, but a lot of important key facts and sentences that give context and structure would be lost if we condensed the entire article into one to a few sentences.-- Maxeto0910 ( talk) 15:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
30 Diarmuidkelly ( talk) 10:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
30 Diarmuidkelly ( talk) 10:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
30 Diarmuidkelly ( talk) 10:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Change Acquisition table entry: Add Cosmonio and add reference. There is no news coverage of this that I could find, only the company's website. Change Acquisition table: Add Cosmonio entry at end
Number | Acquisition announcement date | Company | Business | Country | Price | Used as or integrated with | Ref(s). |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | June 4, 2009 | Wind River Systems | Embedded Systems | ![]() |
$884M | Software | [1] |
2 | August 19, 2010 | McAfee | Security | ![]() |
$7.6B | Software | [2] |
3 | August 30, 2010 | Infineon (partial) | Wireless | ![]() |
$1.4B | Mobile CPUs | [3] |
4 | March 17, 2011 | Silicon Hive | DSP | ![]() |
N/A | Mobile CPUs | [4] |
5 | September 29, 2011 | Telmap | Software | ![]() |
$300–350M | Location Services | [5] |
6 | October 30, 2011 | Invision | Software | ![]() |
$50–60M | Software | [6] |
7 | April 13, 2013 | Mashery | API Management | ![]() |
$180M | Software | [7] |
8 | May 6, 2013 | Stonesoft Corporation | Security | ![]() |
$389M | Software | [8] |
9 | July 16, 2013 | Omek Interactive | Gesture | ![]() |
N/A | Software | [9] |
10 | September 13, 2013 | Indisys | Natural language processing | ![]() |
N/A | Software | [10] |
11 | March 25, 2014 | BASIS | Wearable | ![]() |
N/A | New Devices | [11] |
12 | August 13, 2014 | Avago Technologies (partial) | Semiconductor | ![]() |
$650M | Communications Processors | [12] |
13 | December 1, 2014 | PasswordBox | Security | ![]() |
N/A | Software | [13] |
14 | January 5, 2015 | Vuzix | Wearable | ![]() |
$24.8M | New Devices | [14] |
15 | February 2, 2015 | Lantiq | Telecom | ![]() |
$345M | Gateways | [15] |
16 | June 1, 2015 | Altera | Semiconductor | ![]() |
$16.7B | Programmable Solutions Group (PSG) - e.g. FPGAs | [16] |
17 | June 18, 2015 | Recon | Wearable | ![]() |
$175M | New Devices | [17] |
18 | October 26, 2015 | Saffron Technology | Cognitive computing | ![]() |
undisclosed | Software | [18] |
19 | January 4, 2016 | Ascending Technologies | UAVs | ![]() |
undisclosed | New Technology | [19] |
20 | March 9, 2016 | Replay Technologies | Video technology | ![]() |
undisclosed | 3D video technology | [20] |
21 | April 5, 2016 | Yogitech | IoT security and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems. | ![]() |
undisclosed | Software | [21] |
22 | August 9, 2016 | Nervana Systems | Machine learning technology | ![]() |
$350M | New Technology | [22] |
23 | September 6, 2016 | Movidius | Computer vision | ![]() |
undisclosed | New Technology | [23] |
24 | March 16, 2017 | Mobileye | Autonomous vehicle technology | ![]() |
$15B | Self driving technology | [24] [25] |
25 | July 12, 2018 | eASIC | Semiconductor | ![]() |
undisclosed | Programmable Solutions Group | [26] |
26 | April 16, 2019 | Omnitek | FPGA Video Acceleration | ![]() |
undisclosed | Video acceleration | [27] [28] |
27 | December 16, 2019 | Habana Labs | Machine learning technology | ![]() |
$2B | New Technology | [29] |
28 | May 4, 2020 | Moovit | Transit data | ![]() |
$900M | Transit data | [30] |
29 | May 20, 2020 | Rivet Networks | Networking | ![]() |
undisclosed | [31] | |
30 | September 24, 2020 | Cosmonio | Computer vision | ![]() |
undisclosed | Software | [32] |
References
Omek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Ai
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wall Street Journal
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).saffron
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).movidius
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request to
Intel has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add the acquisition of SigOpt to the list of companies acquired by Intel. Reference: https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-to-acquire-sigopt-to-scale-ai-productivity-and-performance Seasickcake 7037 ( talk) 18:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC) ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC) That just says they're planning on acquiring them. We'll need a source to say it's happened. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I found a few pieces of evidence to conform that intel did acquire SigOpt. One is their Twitter description that says "acquired by Intel October 2020". https://twitter.com/SigOpt Also a Tech crunch article that says "it has acquired SigOpt". https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/29/intel-acquires-sigopt-a-specialist-in-modeling-optimization-to-boost-its-ai-business I know this is not direct evidence to show that the acquisitions has taken place but it shows that the acquisitions has occurred. Seasickcake 7037 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Forget to add signature with timestamp. I apologize for that. -- Seasickcake 7037 ( talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what happened here, it sort of looks like some vandals did a drive-by. I'm going to do this the easy way, pull the entire source down, organize it and edit to make it an article about Intel - the corporation. Some of the statements on this page are laughable. For a point of reference: Intel has been more of a benefit to society than it has been a hindrance, or damaging. Yes, intel has caused damages, some that may have created other/more problems. My intent and obligation is to represent them equally with appropriate weighting without minimizing or unnecessary elevation. The point is to make it an encyclopedic article about Intel "the company" without the multiple deep-dives into tangential issues, living on such an awful layout. Missbellanash ( talk) 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Missbellanash ( talk) 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Find out the name of INEC Chairman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.29.179 ( talk) 18:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Intel#Ultrabook_fund_(2011)
This section is talking in present tense about sources dating back to 2011. It could probably use a change to past tense at least but probably needs a full update to what happened with the fund as the results of this fund should be observable at this point. Gyaruko ( talk) 18:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)