The contents of the List of Intel Core M processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i9 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i7 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i5 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i3 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core 2 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the Pentium M stuff from Intel processor confusion be moved into here? That'd mean adding additional columns for the fab technology, power, presence of EIST, presence of EM64T support, presence of XD bit, hyperthreading support, and virtualization (or perhaps with all the various technologies given as a list of items). If all the stuff from that page is moved into x86 processor list pages, that page could be removed. Guy Harris 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to change the TDP column to reflect a range. I measured the power consumption of some Intel CPUs and would like to suggest the following:
Min: Stop Grant Power at LFM
Max: TDP
(as given on page 80- of http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30922106.pdf)
Donellani 10:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So far, I have found the Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2130 @ 1.86 GHz with 1 MB cache. This is all I can tell so far. Note listed at Intel's site, but sitting in front of me nonetheless. Axion22 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone ruined the layout near the last table. Can someone fix it? I've tried, but failed ;)-- 147.230.14.231 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I see a note saying: Note: Intel has also released a Celeron Dual-Core Mobile processors with the model numbers T1400 and T1500
But I see on the official website that the numbers are correct but it's not T1400 but E1400 <-Celeron Dual Core —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorsontrial ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
When I look up part numbers with web search, I find that the SL8VN (C0) SL9JN (D0) Socket M LF80539 GF0482M Is also available in Socket 479. Is there a way to determine the Socket by the part number? -- Flyswatting ( talk) 17:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody!
I am intending to make the following changes to the tables in the List of Intel Core processors article:
Let me know what you think of the plan above. By making all of these changes, altogether the tables become significantly more readable, encyclopaedic, more accessible, easier to read on smaller displays, as well as take up significantly less data footprint on the list article, thus increasing the number of CPU generations that a list article can have, or even making it unnecessary to split up the List of Core processors article for the time being.
The final product will look akin to the tables on List of AMD Ryzen, as well as those on Rocket Lake. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Extec286 (
talk)
23:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "sSpec and Part numbers will be removed from all the tables, as part of the plan here to significantly reduce the size of the tables and the article overall. These are rarely useful, rather unencyclopaedic information" FWIW - I and many other resellers use these part numbers on a regular basis, and their removal is extremely disappointing. You're not even saving a single KB of data by removing them, and instead making us now click on the ARK links, which wastes a bunch of time, a bunch of bandwidth, and half the time the links are broken. A better option to remove would be things that are legitimately useless, like the I/O Bus and the SLP at release.
You're not even saving a single KB of data by removing them→ If you look at the article right now, every table from the "Kaby Lake-H" (14 nm) section onwards is not rendering correctly. This is because the post-expand include size limit of the page has been exceeded with the article in its current state. I am slowly going through and converting the tables to the new layout as written in the thread above, I actually did some measurements in a sandbox comparing the size of the old table layout to the new one, and mind you this was for just one table – the Sandy Bridge desktop processors list. Here are the results:
Page Info
|
No table | Before redesign (Cpulist) | After redesign (wikitables) |
---|---|---|---|
Raw page size | 17,273 bytes | 26,777 bytes | 24,748 bytes |
Preprocessor visited node count | 1,304 | 20,116 | 1,572 |
PEIS size | 32,971 bytes | 150,489 bytes | 38,877 bytes |
Template argument size | 1,589 bytes | 37,802 bytes | 1,589 bytes |
Unstrip PEIS | 35,851 bytes | 66,000 bytes | 39,279 bytes |
Lua memory usage | 5,178,610 bytes | 6,260,756 bytes | 5,872,177 bytes |
This is probably due to the table redesign. The (mobile) "Coffee Lake-H" table is missing on the page. It is in the sources, so it is probably a syntax error or similar. In other words, the i7-9850H CPU is listed in the page source, but is not displayed on the actual page. Xerces8 ( talk) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Now that Intel is changing the branding/model naming from Core i3/5/7/9 to Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9, do we continue adding them to the "List of Core i3/5/7/9 processors" pages? Or create new list pages? Or don't bother with separate lists anymore and use only this page? Then there's the generic new "Intel Processor" N### and U### series, which seem to replace the Pentium line. Maybe just link to them from the Pentium list? -- Vossanova o< 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have finally completed the merge of the List of Intel Core 2, i3, i5, i7, i9, M list articles into this article, per the proposal over at Talk:Intel Core § Merger proposal, a discussion which was opened in January 2023.
However, long since that point in time, in early 2024 Intel has introduced a new naming system for its processors called "Core 3", "Core 5", "Core Ultra 7", "Core Ultra 9", etc.
I feel like we should put the i3, i5, i7, i9 combined tables into a new page called "List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors" (as one other editor at the merge proposal was in favour of having them combined, with no objections), and then start a new page called "List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors" or similar, for all the processors under the new naming system to go under.
This page as well as the Core 2 and Core M pages would then be returned to being original lists as before.
I think such an arrangement of split-up articles would make sense for the following reasons:
To make things clear, the split proposal goes as follows:
— AP 499D25 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why the Low-Power Efficient Cores on Meteor Lake are missing from the specs? - Extec286 ( talk) 23:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It is easier to look at a specific cpu series than look at all of them 112.207.113.92 ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the new Core Ultra Series 1 processors list the 45W and 15W models but skip the 28W models? - Extec286 ( talk) 23:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The contents of the List of Intel Core M processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i9 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i7 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i5 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core i3 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the List of Intel Core 2 processors page were merged into List of Intel Core processors on 11 May 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the Pentium M stuff from Intel processor confusion be moved into here? That'd mean adding additional columns for the fab technology, power, presence of EIST, presence of EM64T support, presence of XD bit, hyperthreading support, and virtualization (or perhaps with all the various technologies given as a list of items). If all the stuff from that page is moved into x86 processor list pages, that page could be removed. Guy Harris 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to change the TDP column to reflect a range. I measured the power consumption of some Intel CPUs and would like to suggest the following:
Min: Stop Grant Power at LFM
Max: TDP
(as given on page 80- of http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30922106.pdf)
Donellani 10:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So far, I have found the Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2130 @ 1.86 GHz with 1 MB cache. This is all I can tell so far. Note listed at Intel's site, but sitting in front of me nonetheless. Axion22 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone ruined the layout near the last table. Can someone fix it? I've tried, but failed ;)-- 147.230.14.231 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I see a note saying: Note: Intel has also released a Celeron Dual-Core Mobile processors with the model numbers T1400 and T1500
But I see on the official website that the numbers are correct but it's not T1400 but E1400 <-Celeron Dual Core —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorsontrial ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
When I look up part numbers with web search, I find that the SL8VN (C0) SL9JN (D0) Socket M LF80539 GF0482M Is also available in Socket 479. Is there a way to determine the Socket by the part number? -- Flyswatting ( talk) 17:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello everybody!
I am intending to make the following changes to the tables in the List of Intel Core processors article:
Let me know what you think of the plan above. By making all of these changes, altogether the tables become significantly more readable, encyclopaedic, more accessible, easier to read on smaller displays, as well as take up significantly less data footprint on the list article, thus increasing the number of CPU generations that a list article can have, or even making it unnecessary to split up the List of Core processors article for the time being.
The final product will look akin to the tables on List of AMD Ryzen, as well as those on Rocket Lake. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Extec286 (
talk)
23:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "sSpec and Part numbers will be removed from all the tables, as part of the plan here to significantly reduce the size of the tables and the article overall. These are rarely useful, rather unencyclopaedic information" FWIW - I and many other resellers use these part numbers on a regular basis, and their removal is extremely disappointing. You're not even saving a single KB of data by removing them, and instead making us now click on the ARK links, which wastes a bunch of time, a bunch of bandwidth, and half the time the links are broken. A better option to remove would be things that are legitimately useless, like the I/O Bus and the SLP at release.
You're not even saving a single KB of data by removing them→ If you look at the article right now, every table from the "Kaby Lake-H" (14 nm) section onwards is not rendering correctly. This is because the post-expand include size limit of the page has been exceeded with the article in its current state. I am slowly going through and converting the tables to the new layout as written in the thread above, I actually did some measurements in a sandbox comparing the size of the old table layout to the new one, and mind you this was for just one table – the Sandy Bridge desktop processors list. Here are the results:
Page Info
|
No table | Before redesign (Cpulist) | After redesign (wikitables) |
---|---|---|---|
Raw page size | 17,273 bytes | 26,777 bytes | 24,748 bytes |
Preprocessor visited node count | 1,304 | 20,116 | 1,572 |
PEIS size | 32,971 bytes | 150,489 bytes | 38,877 bytes |
Template argument size | 1,589 bytes | 37,802 bytes | 1,589 bytes |
Unstrip PEIS | 35,851 bytes | 66,000 bytes | 39,279 bytes |
Lua memory usage | 5,178,610 bytes | 6,260,756 bytes | 5,872,177 bytes |
This is probably due to the table redesign. The (mobile) "Coffee Lake-H" table is missing on the page. It is in the sources, so it is probably a syntax error or similar. In other words, the i7-9850H CPU is listed in the page source, but is not displayed on the actual page. Xerces8 ( talk) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Now that Intel is changing the branding/model naming from Core i3/5/7/9 to Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9, do we continue adding them to the "List of Core i3/5/7/9 processors" pages? Or create new list pages? Or don't bother with separate lists anymore and use only this page? Then there's the generic new "Intel Processor" N### and U### series, which seem to replace the Pentium line. Maybe just link to them from the Pentium list? -- Vossanova o< 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have finally completed the merge of the List of Intel Core 2, i3, i5, i7, i9, M list articles into this article, per the proposal over at Talk:Intel Core § Merger proposal, a discussion which was opened in January 2023.
However, long since that point in time, in early 2024 Intel has introduced a new naming system for its processors called "Core 3", "Core 5", "Core Ultra 7", "Core Ultra 9", etc.
I feel like we should put the i3, i5, i7, i9 combined tables into a new page called "List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors" (as one other editor at the merge proposal was in favour of having them combined, with no objections), and then start a new page called "List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors" or similar, for all the processors under the new naming system to go under.
This page as well as the Core 2 and Core M pages would then be returned to being original lists as before.
I think such an arrangement of split-up articles would make sense for the following reasons:
To make things clear, the split proposal goes as follows:
— AP 499D25 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason why the Low-Power Efficient Cores on Meteor Lake are missing from the specs? - Extec286 ( talk) 23:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It is easier to look at a specific cpu series than look at all of them 112.207.113.92 ( talk) 23:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the new Core Ultra Series 1 processors list the 45W and 15W models but skip the 28W models? - Extec286 ( talk) 23:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)