 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The contents of the List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors page were merged into List of Intel Pentium microprocessors on 2014-03-14. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The chips are beginning to show up in laptops, and on Intel's chart linked from the bottom of this page. For whatever reason, some third parties are identifying them as Core Duo, though they support EM64T. They are not yet listed in Processor Spec Finder. I am assuming they are Merom parts, with all but 1 MB of the L2 cache disabled. — Aluvus t/ c 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have listed them on the future Intel Pentium-Dual Core processor page for now, they are probably based on 1/2 cache Merom-2M dies which is the mobile version of the Allendale core, it makes sense as Yonah production winds down that Intel would replace the older Pentium Dual-Core with Yonah core with the newer Merom-2M model. Intel is really firing on all cylinders with their Core based architecture, I wonder when we will see some Dual Core Celeron M's.
Coldpower27 03:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quarter 1, 2008 for dual core Celerons (
[1]. --
Imperator3733 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I have already seen that link, I linked it myself I believe for the future Celeron page, I was wondering when there would be Dual Core Mobile Celerons as that would pretty much transistion Intel's complete lineup, Server, Desktop, Mobile, Enterprise to Dual Core minimum. Coldpower27 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quarter 1, 2008 for dual core Celerons (
[1]. --
Imperator3733 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please go with the denotation of Intel as the manufacturer! KiB may be the 'correct' physical denotation, but the commonly 'used' one is still KByte! Or show me on any Intel Specs Sheet the KiB denotation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.191.33 ( talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Intel has discontinued the 'Pentium Dual-Core' brand and renamed the existing processors to simply 'Pentium'. They have also introduced single core processors under the same brand, meaning that they don't fit in here any more, but they also don't fit into the 'Pentium' category, which refers to the ancient Pentium. It's hard to find a good way out for this article, the best I could think of is:
- Move Yonah based Pentium Dual-Cores to List of Intel Pentium M microprocessors
- Move all Core based processors to a new page
- turn this one into a disambiguation page, pointing to those two and to List of Intel Pentium D microprocessors
- Add future Nehalem based processors to a different page.
Alternatively, it could be merged with the lists of Pentium II, III, 4, D and M processors. That would be a really long page, but be more in line with List of Intel Xeon microprocessors and List of Intel Celeron microprocessors Arndbergmann ( talk) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a new List of Intel Pentium microprocessors to serve as a global overview. This should solve most of the problems without a major reorganization. I've also added SU2700 to that list, in lack of a better place. We might want to move T4000 and E6000 Pentiums over there as well, but that could also create more confusion. Opinions? Arndbergmann ( talk) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is missing an information, that all dual-cores are using two CPU cores. Shouldn't this be added? OK, if you know it, it's obvious. But over the last years Intel is confusing more and more customers with their namings and sometimes it's really difficult to know, how many cores are sharing the workload. Michilans ( talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is for discussion about merging from List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors to List of Intel Pentium microprocessors. In light of the apparent rebranding and abandonment of the brand "Pentium Dual-Core" in 2009, and the fact that some of the same processors have been sold under both names and new ones seem to continue to come out (last on this page as late as November 2010), I am proposing this merging. This is no worse than "Pentium with MMX technology" aka "Pentium MMX" or other briefly used sub-brands of "Pentium" and it seems to have caused a lot of confusion for readers (who have tried to add data to one article or the other that probably should be on the opposite, etc.). 173.50.233.227 ( talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree to Merge both together, as was the case originally before someone decided to split the dual-core section off on it's own, which I never really understood or agreed with. The architecture is the same across the PDC chips and the newer branded "Pentium" chips. Had the PDC article been rather lengthy then there may have been justification solely on the arguement that merged would cause a single article to become too massive, however this isn't the case here.
- I'm surprised there has been no other comments since this was suggested over 3 months ago though!
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 09:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's somewhat asymmetric today, as all Xeon CPUs are in one article, as are all Celeron CPUs. For Pentium and Core, the lists are split to a number of articles. I guess it would be reasonable to merge them, but then I would suggest merging the Pentium II/III/4, Pentium D, Pentium M and Pentium Pro lists as well, not just the Pentium Dual-Core. Right now, the Pentium list is totally bogus because it contains the oldest and the newest CPUs, but none in the middle. Moving some of the more recent ones in there but leaving all the others would not be an improvement IMHO. The same argument goes for the five Core CPU lists. Arndbergmann ( talk) 11:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge! Where is the question? Almost the same CPU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.145.206 ( talk) 23:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
| The contents of the List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors page were merged into List of Intel Pentium microprocessors on 2014-03-14. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The chips are beginning to show up in laptops, and on Intel's chart linked from the bottom of this page. For whatever reason, some third parties are identifying them as Core Duo, though they support EM64T. They are not yet listed in Processor Spec Finder. I am assuming they are Merom parts, with all but 1 MB of the L2 cache disabled. — Aluvus t/ c 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have listed them on the future Intel Pentium-Dual Core processor page for now, they are probably based on 1/2 cache Merom-2M dies which is the mobile version of the Allendale core, it makes sense as Yonah production winds down that Intel would replace the older Pentium Dual-Core with Yonah core with the newer Merom-2M model. Intel is really firing on all cylinders with their Core based architecture, I wonder when we will see some Dual Core Celeron M's.
Coldpower27 03:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quarter 1, 2008 for dual core Celerons (
[1]. --
Imperator3733 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I have already seen that link, I linked it myself I believe for the future Celeron page, I was wondering when there would be Dual Core Mobile Celerons as that would pretty much transistion Intel's complete lineup, Server, Desktop, Mobile, Enterprise to Dual Core minimum. Coldpower27 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quarter 1, 2008 for dual core Celerons (
[1]. --
Imperator3733 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please go with the denotation of Intel as the manufacturer! KiB may be the 'correct' physical denotation, but the commonly 'used' one is still KByte! Or show me on any Intel Specs Sheet the KiB denotation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.225.191.33 ( talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Intel has discontinued the 'Pentium Dual-Core' brand and renamed the existing processors to simply 'Pentium'. They have also introduced single core processors under the same brand, meaning that they don't fit in here any more, but they also don't fit into the 'Pentium' category, which refers to the ancient Pentium. It's hard to find a good way out for this article, the best I could think of is:
- Move Yonah based Pentium Dual-Cores to List of Intel Pentium M microprocessors
- Move all Core based processors to a new page
- turn this one into a disambiguation page, pointing to those two and to List of Intel Pentium D microprocessors
- Add future Nehalem based processors to a different page.
Alternatively, it could be merged with the lists of Pentium II, III, 4, D and M processors. That would be a really long page, but be more in line with List of Intel Xeon microprocessors and List of Intel Celeron microprocessors Arndbergmann ( talk) 17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've added a new List of Intel Pentium microprocessors to serve as a global overview. This should solve most of the problems without a major reorganization. I've also added SU2700 to that list, in lack of a better place. We might want to move T4000 and E6000 Pentiums over there as well, but that could also create more confusion. Opinions? Arndbergmann ( talk) 17:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is missing an information, that all dual-cores are using two CPU cores. Shouldn't this be added? OK, if you know it, it's obvious. But over the last years Intel is confusing more and more customers with their namings and sometimes it's really difficult to know, how many cores are sharing the workload. Michilans ( talk) 15:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is for discussion about merging from List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors to List of Intel Pentium microprocessors. In light of the apparent rebranding and abandonment of the brand "Pentium Dual-Core" in 2009, and the fact that some of the same processors have been sold under both names and new ones seem to continue to come out (last on this page as late as November 2010), I am proposing this merging. This is no worse than "Pentium with MMX technology" aka "Pentium MMX" or other briefly used sub-brands of "Pentium" and it seems to have caused a lot of confusion for readers (who have tried to add data to one article or the other that probably should be on the opposite, etc.). 173.50.233.227 ( talk) 17:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree to Merge both together, as was the case originally before someone decided to split the dual-core section off on it's own, which I never really understood or agreed with. The architecture is the same across the PDC chips and the newer branded "Pentium" chips. Had the PDC article been rather lengthy then there may have been justification solely on the arguement that merged would cause a single article to become too massive, however this isn't the case here.
- I'm surprised there has been no other comments since this was suggested over 3 months ago though!
Bungle (
talk •
contribs) 09:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's somewhat asymmetric today, as all Xeon CPUs are in one article, as are all Celeron CPUs. For Pentium and Core, the lists are split to a number of articles. I guess it would be reasonable to merge them, but then I would suggest merging the Pentium II/III/4, Pentium D, Pentium M and Pentium Pro lists as well, not just the Pentium Dual-Core. Right now, the Pentium list is totally bogus because it contains the oldest and the newest CPUs, but none in the middle. Moving some of the more recent ones in there but leaving all the others would not be an improvement IMHO. The same argument goes for the five Core CPU lists. Arndbergmann ( talk) 11:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge! Where is the question? Almost the same CPU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.145.206 ( talk) 23:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)