This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Yonah (microprocessor) was copied or moved into Intel Core with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Intel CPU Generation: Tik, Tok, since 2009, after socket 775. 975x chipset,
CPU´s are divided by Transistor Scale.. Nehalem is 45nm "1st Gen." Gulftown / Westmere 32nm "2nd Generation." both same / compatible socket: 1366.
Tik is 1st gen, Tok is 2nd Gen,
Tok lowers transistor size = increase power efficiency, increase cache size, increase cores from 4 to 6, and add new instruction set: AES.
Tok is a Refreshed / Refined / improved version of Tik.
Some Toks are different CPU configuration, for example: E5 v1 & v2 are Tik Tok socket compatible, 2011 E5 v3 & v4 are Tik Tok socket incompatible 2011-1 some v1 boards don´t even support v2, like some HP Z workstations with older boards rev001 002, because the Firmware is Not user upgradeable. Toks require a New Firmare with updated microcode, but are socket compatible.
other example: Z270 1151 intel 7th gen. 7700k Z370 1151-1 "different socket, 8th gen 8600k, incompatible" Z390 1151-1 "compatible, updated Bios, New CPU microcode added."
New / Updated Bios avoids requiring a smaller/older CPU to upgrade the Board, to make it compatible with newer CPU´s for the same socket. Compatible CPU´s released after the board was made.
New socket with same transistor scale is Not a New Generation. is a cut down / cheaper version with less PCIe lanes.
for example: X5687 Westmere socket 1366 = i7 2600K socket 1155 Sandy Bridge. same CPU in a cheaper socket, less cache, less PCIe lanes = less power consumption.
Classification by Socket Size as New Generation is misleading.
Socket size is the amount of PCIe lanes available in the CPU/Board... if a board/CPU has less lanes, when user inserts more PCIe devices, lanes must be shared by the CPU and device speed is reduced by half, very noticeable in SSD at 6Gbps and USB3.0 PCIe cards.
Socket size is the Performance leven when fully expanded, populated machine. High End level to Entry Level.
Not noticeable in GPU´s x16 PCIe v2.0, because most GPU don´t use the whole PCIe bandwidth, but the card connector has x16. there are tests using GPU´s PCIe v2.0 x16 vs. PCIe x8 v2.0 performance drop was near 0, minimal. same GPU´s PCIe v3.0 x16 vs. PCIe v2.0 x16 performance drop was minimal.
GPU´s are barely affected by less PCIe lanes, but other devices are very affected. that´s why most GPU mining farms use cheaper PCIe x1 riser for all x16 GPU´s. in Games, performance drop is more noticeable at x4 and x2 and x1.
High End Boards and CPU´s have a Big Socket with lots of pins = More Lanes. Only PCIe v4.0 has enough speed to avoid requiring more lanes.
Enthusiast, High End, classification can be seen in 1151 boards. z270 was high end inside a cheaper socket 1151. same z90, z170, and z370 / z390. all were high end with cheaper socket "less lanes".
but B series chipset / board were the cheapest of the cheapest. B250, etc... Budget Economy class, almost No features, very limited BIOS / UEFI, very limited PCIe lanes, cheaper heatsink thermal management, etc..
see cpu-world.com for better individual CPU classification / details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.83.225.20 ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is descriptive and informative.
It is not an ad.
The article simply states the products form.
Why cause the article to be rewritten?
Yes the product virtue is touted, however the mentality of the designer is revealed.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.89.36.16 (
talk) 15:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
New feature add Turbo Boost Technology maximizes speed for demanding application, dynamically accelerating performance to match your workload- more performance when you need it the most. <<< What does this phrase have to do here??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.199 ( talk) 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention in the article of the future Core i9?-- Nahum ( talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I support the split of the Core i3 section into its own article. -- Aizuku ( talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and merge them. Shentino ( talk) 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
my name is john, can you answer a questian: why is it intel Corei3 processor fitted to some all in one computers, I had one and took it back to pcworld because I fond it to slow, I wanted one with the fastest processor being itel Core i7, is there any all in one computers that have intel core i7 thanks john, email: mottram6@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.248.82 ( talk) 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Gateway has a laptop that's listed as an i3 quad core, but the table here shows that the i3 only has two cores. http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/models/nv-series -- 99.110.255.113 ( talk) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
As discussed before, I think it would be much better to be consistent with the Celeron/Pentium/Xeon pages here and only describe the product lines in this place. The three other pages have exactly the same information, but the amount of technical detail specific to one brand name is so low that it doesn't really justify having separate articles. Arndbergmann ( talk) 10:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe give clearer performance indicators of every core so comparison is easier for the general public.
Woutergb ( talk) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It used to be a common thread in discussions about CPUs to include specs like how many equivalent discreet transistors are screened into the dies. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm confused, some years ago, IBM announced a significantly-different CPU design that they referred to as "Core". Is there a need for disambiguation, or at least a note in this article? Regards, Nikevich 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Should this page have the processor logo images to help readers recognize it? Something along the lines from this wiki: de.wikipedia.org
01:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipeater ( talk • contribs)
why is there no mention of hyperthreading? it's the biggest difference between i7 and i5, and some mobile i5s have hyperthreading as well. Aunva6 ( talk) 18:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Sandy Bridge (32 nm) - socket LGA 1155
Ivy Bridge (22 nm) - socket LGA 1155
Haswell (22nm) "tock" release - socket LGA 1150
Hawell also has a six-core Sandy Bridge release, on an LGA 2011 socket, but it's not an i5. Socket 2011 supports quad channel RAM. Infodater ( talk) 19:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Should I create a new "List of Core M microprocessors" page? -- Azul120 ( talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Haswell-E processors are not even mentioned. Should they be added? — Cheba ( talk) 13:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A section on how Intel labels the generation of processors versus other ways needs to be added - see this article on PCWorld. Hitokage004 ( talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
WHAT ABOUR THE I9 PROCESSOR YOU GUYS ARE BEHIND THE TIMEZZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.251.15 ( talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What about it? I guess you could consider the world like that for instance. As for my i5, I'm fine. It's just that they do exist, but were never made... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:6502:581B:FE5C:E4B0 ( talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
oh no, we are behind times Epicandrew1220 ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Intel Core. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Intel Core. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-- i's --
``Look at the intel before studying these. the i5 works instantly like the Core2 DUO. The 2Solo is an i3. The i7QUAd. Computer check...extreme...nice. Keep studying it. The Core S0l0? it's just a computer man!sk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:2D0:1AA:8BBD:340A:BD14 ( talk) 19:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
For my own purposes, the overview section had become too large to really function in that way, so I supplemented it with a new outline section.
I know (or knew) much of this history in considerable detail, and I made every effort to check each factual assertion as I went along, but it would surely benefit from a proper proofread and perhaps a spit-shine.
It's darn hard to write about branding efforts as real things. What I actually wrote:
Time has also brought improved support for virtualization and a trend toward higher levels of system integration and management functionality through the ongoing evolution of facilities such as Intel Active Management Technology.
What I was actually thinking:
Time has also brought improved support for virtualization and a trend toward higher levels of system integration and management functionality through the ongoing evolution of grab-bag facilities such as Intel Active Management Technology (another Intel branding initiative which promises—at most—what you've already seen).
Perhaps that's just my own sense of humour. In any case, I hope what I just contributed amounts to a worthy addition. — MaxEnt 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there some target price for this brand of co-processor? I hear that the only i series has scripted redundancy files to keep..."the dream alive." Suck as for a product that manipulates the eerie extrema "two core" processor. LOL, very very funny people. As the years progress, Windows nine is just called Windows TEN (10). Or if the first line of core...ROTFLMAO. You get my drift. I think the core 2 came after the core. WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.58.156 ( talk) 14:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Intel Core. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Intel's security advisory INTEL-SA-00088 (entitled Speculative Execution and Indirect Branch Prediction Side Channel Analysis Method, which may or may not encompass the whole of Spectre and/or Meltdown) lists the following Core products:
Comparing with the present article, does this mean Nehalem onwards, and that the original Core and Core 2 lines are not affected by one or perhaps both issues? meltdownattack.com reports that "every Intel processor which implements out-of-order execution is potentially affected, which is effectively every processor since 1995 (except Intel Itanium and Intel Atom before 2013). We successfully tested Meltdown on Intel processor generations released as early as 2011." The above details appear consistent with the 2011 date, but not with the 1995 date. Of course it's possible that older chips haven't been fully assessed. ("Intel may modify this list at a later time", and there is no strict implication that anything omitted from the list is OK.) Still, it would be useful to indicate vulnerability in this article, even if it could only be done for the older chips by comparing against the description "implements out-of-order execution" (for Meltdown, and "capable of keeping many instructions in flight" for Spectre). 144.173.39.91 ( talk) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This recent edit to Ryzen by Zerranto brought to my attention that these two articles are inconsistent in their use of "CPUs" vs. "microprocessors" in their short descriptions and the use of "brand" vs "line" vs the term "series" which Zerranto preferred. I started a discussion at Talk:Ryzen#Change of description from "brand" to "series" and short description of "microprocessors" to "CPUs" where this can be discussed. I think we should make these two articles consistent. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do some of the generation sections like 8th generation not include the Core i9s? Is this on purpose because of something I don't understand or did no one feel like it? Alexysun ( talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
so this means the 8th gen i9 are not counted as Core i9s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexysun ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I propose merging:
into Intel Core.
I think the content in these individual list articles represents a huge source of duplication (which leads to many inconsistencies, and more often than not, errors as well), and can easily be explained in the context of Intel Core. A merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Intel Core, so as long as this article remains an overview of the whole Intel Core family of products, containing, for each generation:
Please let me know what you think. ~ Arkhandar ( message me) 12:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I have ended up running into a major "brick wall" here as I copied over all the templates and info from the Core 2, i3, i5, i7, and i9 pages over into List of Intel Core processors.
On Special:PermaLink/1152644928#"Penryn",_"Penryn-3M"_(medium-voltage,_45_nm), every single template from the "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards is not rendering correctly like it should. It seems the cause for this is exceeding the post-expand include size limit.
So I suppose there are two ways we can go about this.
The first, and most obvious one, is to split up the articles on the basis of timeline, so article 1 covers 1st to 5th gen, article 2 covers 6th gen to 10th gen, etc.
The second, is to convert all the tables based on {{ Cpulist}} templates to regular wikitables. The wikitables would render correctly as long as the raw page size is not exceeded (currently the page is ~500 KB big, as of writing this, and the limit is 2 MB).
Let me know of your thoughts on the best solution here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Intel introduced new brand name for Core series as shown at ' Intel Announces Major Brand Update Ahead of Upcoming Meteor Lake Launch'. Rjluna2 ( talk) 17:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The first line of this entry starts with: "Intel Core is a line of streamlined midrange consumer, workstation and enthusiast". Why the "midrange"? Since something like a Core i9 is definitely not a midrange processor, but a high-end one, I assume the idea was that the word "midrange" only refers to the word "consumer" and not to the words "workstation" and "enthusiast", but, at least with respect to "workstation", you CAN have a midrange workstation processor (some workstation processors are more powerful than other workstation processors...). With respect to "enthusiast", I think that's not the best term: you can go for high-end processor for your computer without being an enthusiast (you might just want a fast computer that will handle demanding tasks well). So, in my opinion, a better opening line would be something like: "Intel Core is a line of streamlined mid- and high-range computer central processing units (CPUs) marketed by Intel Corporation". ZiggyMercury ( talk) 20:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox CPU at the top includes the merged information on around 18 generations of CPUs which makes a lot in it useless. For example: "Max. CPU clock rate 400 MHz to 6.2 GHz FSB speeds 533 MT/s to 1.6 GT/s QPI speeds 4.8 GT/s to 6.4 GT/s DMI speeds 2.0 GT/s to 16 GT/s". This says essentially nothing except that Intel has been using this brand name for a long time.
AMD Ryzen has a similar though less extreme issue.
IMHO it would be entirely reasonable to remove most entries from this infobox, specifically those which relate to specific features of each generation (such as FSB/QPI/DMI speeds and cache sizes). Leaving the maximum clock in there might be reasonable just to show the evolution, though on that matter, what's the source on the "400 MHz" claim as the maximum clock for a released Intel Core brand CPU? Phiarc ( talk) 14:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
All of the wikitables in this article are inconstant and might not be understandable for the average person. Thus I recommend changing all of the wikitables to the same format. I cannot do this at this time because I am working on adding a 14th generation CPU wikitable, hence I ask for contributions for this work. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken ( talk) 00:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from Yonah (microprocessor) was copied or moved into Intel Core with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Intel CPU Generation: Tik, Tok, since 2009, after socket 775. 975x chipset,
CPU´s are divided by Transistor Scale.. Nehalem is 45nm "1st Gen." Gulftown / Westmere 32nm "2nd Generation." both same / compatible socket: 1366.
Tik is 1st gen, Tok is 2nd Gen,
Tok lowers transistor size = increase power efficiency, increase cache size, increase cores from 4 to 6, and add new instruction set: AES.
Tok is a Refreshed / Refined / improved version of Tik.
Some Toks are different CPU configuration, for example: E5 v1 & v2 are Tik Tok socket compatible, 2011 E5 v3 & v4 are Tik Tok socket incompatible 2011-1 some v1 boards don´t even support v2, like some HP Z workstations with older boards rev001 002, because the Firmware is Not user upgradeable. Toks require a New Firmare with updated microcode, but are socket compatible.
other example: Z270 1151 intel 7th gen. 7700k Z370 1151-1 "different socket, 8th gen 8600k, incompatible" Z390 1151-1 "compatible, updated Bios, New CPU microcode added."
New / Updated Bios avoids requiring a smaller/older CPU to upgrade the Board, to make it compatible with newer CPU´s for the same socket. Compatible CPU´s released after the board was made.
New socket with same transistor scale is Not a New Generation. is a cut down / cheaper version with less PCIe lanes.
for example: X5687 Westmere socket 1366 = i7 2600K socket 1155 Sandy Bridge. same CPU in a cheaper socket, less cache, less PCIe lanes = less power consumption.
Classification by Socket Size as New Generation is misleading.
Socket size is the amount of PCIe lanes available in the CPU/Board... if a board/CPU has less lanes, when user inserts more PCIe devices, lanes must be shared by the CPU and device speed is reduced by half, very noticeable in SSD at 6Gbps and USB3.0 PCIe cards.
Socket size is the Performance leven when fully expanded, populated machine. High End level to Entry Level.
Not noticeable in GPU´s x16 PCIe v2.0, because most GPU don´t use the whole PCIe bandwidth, but the card connector has x16. there are tests using GPU´s PCIe v2.0 x16 vs. PCIe x8 v2.0 performance drop was near 0, minimal. same GPU´s PCIe v3.0 x16 vs. PCIe v2.0 x16 performance drop was minimal.
GPU´s are barely affected by less PCIe lanes, but other devices are very affected. that´s why most GPU mining farms use cheaper PCIe x1 riser for all x16 GPU´s. in Games, performance drop is more noticeable at x4 and x2 and x1.
High End Boards and CPU´s have a Big Socket with lots of pins = More Lanes. Only PCIe v4.0 has enough speed to avoid requiring more lanes.
Enthusiast, High End, classification can be seen in 1151 boards. z270 was high end inside a cheaper socket 1151. same z90, z170, and z370 / z390. all were high end with cheaper socket "less lanes".
but B series chipset / board were the cheapest of the cheapest. B250, etc... Budget Economy class, almost No features, very limited BIOS / UEFI, very limited PCIe lanes, cheaper heatsink thermal management, etc..
see cpu-world.com for better individual CPU classification / details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.83.225.20 ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is descriptive and informative.
It is not an ad.
The article simply states the products form.
Why cause the article to be rewritten?
Yes the product virtue is touted, however the mentality of the designer is revealed.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.89.36.16 (
talk) 15:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
New feature add Turbo Boost Technology maximizes speed for demanding application, dynamically accelerating performance to match your workload- more performance when you need it the most. <<< What does this phrase have to do here??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.2.199 ( talk) 21:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention in the article of the future Core i9?-- Nahum ( talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I support the split of the Core i3 section into its own article. -- Aizuku ( talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and merge them. Shentino ( talk) 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
my name is john, can you answer a questian: why is it intel Corei3 processor fitted to some all in one computers, I had one and took it back to pcworld because I fond it to slow, I wanted one with the fastest processor being itel Core i7, is there any all in one computers that have intel core i7 thanks john, email: mottram6@btinternet.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.248.82 ( talk) 10:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Gateway has a laptop that's listed as an i3 quad core, but the table here shows that the i3 only has two cores. http://us.gateway.com/gw/en/US/content/models/nv-series -- 99.110.255.113 ( talk) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
As discussed before, I think it would be much better to be consistent with the Celeron/Pentium/Xeon pages here and only describe the product lines in this place. The three other pages have exactly the same information, but the amount of technical detail specific to one brand name is so low that it doesn't really justify having separate articles. Arndbergmann ( talk) 10:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe give clearer performance indicators of every core so comparison is easier for the general public.
Woutergb ( talk) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It used to be a common thread in discussions about CPUs to include specs like how many equivalent discreet transistors are screened into the dies. I like to saw logs! ( talk) 06:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm confused, some years ago, IBM announced a significantly-different CPU design that they referred to as "Core". Is there a need for disambiguation, or at least a note in this article? Regards, Nikevich 03:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Should this page have the processor logo images to help readers recognize it? Something along the lines from this wiki: de.wikipedia.org
01:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipeater ( talk • contribs)
why is there no mention of hyperthreading? it's the biggest difference between i7 and i5, and some mobile i5s have hyperthreading as well. Aunva6 ( talk) 18:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Sandy Bridge (32 nm) - socket LGA 1155
Ivy Bridge (22 nm) - socket LGA 1155
Haswell (22nm) "tock" release - socket LGA 1150
Hawell also has a six-core Sandy Bridge release, on an LGA 2011 socket, but it's not an i5. Socket 2011 supports quad channel RAM. Infodater ( talk) 19:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Should I create a new "List of Core M microprocessors" page? -- Azul120 ( talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Haswell-E processors are not even mentioned. Should they be added? — Cheba ( talk) 13:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
A section on how Intel labels the generation of processors versus other ways needs to be added - see this article on PCWorld. Hitokage004 ( talk) 07:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
WHAT ABOUR THE I9 PROCESSOR YOU GUYS ARE BEHIND THE TIMEZZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.42.251.15 ( talk) 01:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
What about it? I guess you could consider the world like that for instance. As for my i5, I'm fine. It's just that they do exist, but were never made... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:6502:581B:FE5C:E4B0 ( talk) 00:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
oh no, we are behind times Epicandrew1220 ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Intel Core. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Intel Core. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-- i's --
``Look at the intel before studying these. the i5 works instantly like the Core2 DUO. The 2Solo is an i3. The i7QUAd. Computer check...extreme...nice. Keep studying it. The Core S0l0? it's just a computer man!sk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:2D0:1AA:8BBD:340A:BD14 ( talk) 19:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
For my own purposes, the overview section had become too large to really function in that way, so I supplemented it with a new outline section.
I know (or knew) much of this history in considerable detail, and I made every effort to check each factual assertion as I went along, but it would surely benefit from a proper proofread and perhaps a spit-shine.
It's darn hard to write about branding efforts as real things. What I actually wrote:
Time has also brought improved support for virtualization and a trend toward higher levels of system integration and management functionality through the ongoing evolution of facilities such as Intel Active Management Technology.
What I was actually thinking:
Time has also brought improved support for virtualization and a trend toward higher levels of system integration and management functionality through the ongoing evolution of grab-bag facilities such as Intel Active Management Technology (another Intel branding initiative which promises—at most—what you've already seen).
Perhaps that's just my own sense of humour. In any case, I hope what I just contributed amounts to a worthy addition. — MaxEnt 00:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there some target price for this brand of co-processor? I hear that the only i series has scripted redundancy files to keep..."the dream alive." Suck as for a product that manipulates the eerie extrema "two core" processor. LOL, very very funny people. As the years progress, Windows nine is just called Windows TEN (10). Or if the first line of core...ROTFLMAO. You get my drift. I think the core 2 came after the core. WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.58.156 ( talk) 14:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Intel Core. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Intel's security advisory INTEL-SA-00088 (entitled Speculative Execution and Indirect Branch Prediction Side Channel Analysis Method, which may or may not encompass the whole of Spectre and/or Meltdown) lists the following Core products:
Comparing with the present article, does this mean Nehalem onwards, and that the original Core and Core 2 lines are not affected by one or perhaps both issues? meltdownattack.com reports that "every Intel processor which implements out-of-order execution is potentially affected, which is effectively every processor since 1995 (except Intel Itanium and Intel Atom before 2013). We successfully tested Meltdown on Intel processor generations released as early as 2011." The above details appear consistent with the 2011 date, but not with the 1995 date. Of course it's possible that older chips haven't been fully assessed. ("Intel may modify this list at a later time", and there is no strict implication that anything omitted from the list is OK.) Still, it would be useful to indicate vulnerability in this article, even if it could only be done for the older chips by comparing against the description "implements out-of-order execution" (for Meltdown, and "capable of keeping many instructions in flight" for Spectre). 144.173.39.91 ( talk) 16:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This recent edit to Ryzen by Zerranto brought to my attention that these two articles are inconsistent in their use of "CPUs" vs. "microprocessors" in their short descriptions and the use of "brand" vs "line" vs the term "series" which Zerranto preferred. I started a discussion at Talk:Ryzen#Change of description from "brand" to "series" and short description of "microprocessors" to "CPUs" where this can be discussed. I think we should make these two articles consistent. —DIYeditor ( talk) 23:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do some of the generation sections like 8th generation not include the Core i9s? Is this on purpose because of something I don't understand or did no one feel like it? Alexysun ( talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
so this means the 8th gen i9 are not counted as Core i9s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexysun ( talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I propose merging:
into Intel Core.
I think the content in these individual list articles represents a huge source of duplication (which leads to many inconsistencies, and more often than not, errors as well), and can easily be explained in the context of Intel Core. A merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Intel Core, so as long as this article remains an overview of the whole Intel Core family of products, containing, for each generation:
Please let me know what you think. ~ Arkhandar ( message me) 12:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I have ended up running into a major "brick wall" here as I copied over all the templates and info from the Core 2, i3, i5, i7, and i9 pages over into List of Intel Core processors.
On Special:PermaLink/1152644928#"Penryn",_"Penryn-3M"_(medium-voltage,_45_nm), every single template from the "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards is not rendering correctly like it should. It seems the cause for this is exceeding the post-expand include size limit.
So I suppose there are two ways we can go about this.
The first, and most obvious one, is to split up the articles on the basis of timeline, so article 1 covers 1st to 5th gen, article 2 covers 6th gen to 10th gen, etc.
The second, is to convert all the tables based on {{ Cpulist}} templates to regular wikitables. The wikitables would render correctly as long as the raw page size is not exceeded (currently the page is ~500 KB big, as of writing this, and the limit is 2 MB).
Let me know of your thoughts on the best solution here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Intel introduced new brand name for Core series as shown at ' Intel Announces Major Brand Update Ahead of Upcoming Meteor Lake Launch'. Rjluna2 ( talk) 17:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The first line of this entry starts with: "Intel Core is a line of streamlined midrange consumer, workstation and enthusiast". Why the "midrange"? Since something like a Core i9 is definitely not a midrange processor, but a high-end one, I assume the idea was that the word "midrange" only refers to the word "consumer" and not to the words "workstation" and "enthusiast", but, at least with respect to "workstation", you CAN have a midrange workstation processor (some workstation processors are more powerful than other workstation processors...). With respect to "enthusiast", I think that's not the best term: you can go for high-end processor for your computer without being an enthusiast (you might just want a fast computer that will handle demanding tasks well). So, in my opinion, a better opening line would be something like: "Intel Core is a line of streamlined mid- and high-range computer central processing units (CPUs) marketed by Intel Corporation". ZiggyMercury ( talk) 20:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox CPU at the top includes the merged information on around 18 generations of CPUs which makes a lot in it useless. For example: "Max. CPU clock rate 400 MHz to 6.2 GHz FSB speeds 533 MT/s to 1.6 GT/s QPI speeds 4.8 GT/s to 6.4 GT/s DMI speeds 2.0 GT/s to 16 GT/s". This says essentially nothing except that Intel has been using this brand name for a long time.
AMD Ryzen has a similar though less extreme issue.
IMHO it would be entirely reasonable to remove most entries from this infobox, specifically those which relate to specific features of each generation (such as FSB/QPI/DMI speeds and cache sizes). Leaving the maximum clock in there might be reasonable just to show the evolution, though on that matter, what's the source on the "400 MHz" claim as the maximum clock for a released Intel Core brand CPU? Phiarc ( talk) 14:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
All of the wikitables in this article are inconstant and might not be understandable for the average person. Thus I recommend changing all of the wikitables to the same format. I cannot do this at this time because I am working on adding a 14th generation CPU wikitable, hence I ask for contributions for this work. ThisUsernameThatIsNowTaken ( talk) 00:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)