This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pentium (original) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Pentium compatible processor was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 November 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Pentium (original). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 22, 2004. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
It looks like it's canceled. [ Here] And [ Here] It's Going To Be The Pentium E2000, Shouldn't This Be Updated? -- From derangedfirewire --- 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Attention: I removed the expression that MMX was a "major significance". The reason is: the differences between the P54C and the P55C were indeed very little. The MMX had doubled the internal cache, and at the presentation time there were hardly any mmx-optimized applications. As a matter of fact, the transitin to MMX was very light. Initial BIOS didn't even allow the use of MMX (there were to many non-mmx Pentium in stock).-- AlexProfesor 02:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The "numbers can't be trademarked" issue -- how does this compare to Peugeot who registered all 3-digit numbers of the form x0y as trademarks? Is the difference that Peugeot registered then in France? Should also mention why the trademark issue arose -- Intel's 486 line had been dogged by AMD and other clone manufacturers who made similar, cheaper (better?) CPUs, and sought to register "586" as a trademark to distinguish its product. This ties in with the appearance of the ubiquitous "intel inside" sticker. -- Tarquin
I can think of many other products that have numbers as legitimate trademarks: Boeing 747, Levi's 501, Heinz 57 Sauce. There must be more to this than just simply a rejection of numerals as a trademark. Mattnelsen 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Prior art copyright restriction: 386 > 486 > 586 is a logical sequence predictable progression by those in the field. Intel had licenced these companies as second sources for 386 and 486 cpus. So AMD could legally use 486DX4/133, after the ruling it was 5x86DX5/133. Cyrix was licensed via using TIs silicon fab as they had a blanket license from Intel. TaylorLeem ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm whether there was a 266 MHz Pentium MMX meant for laptops? Crusadeonilliteracy
...as the title of this article? I'd rename it promptly save for any protests. -- Wernher 03:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not really too familiar w/ the details I'm about to address, I just know that there's an inconsistency somewhere. The article says:
I hold in my hand a Pentium 133 which just came out of a socket rather clearly marked "Socket 5." Trouble is, the table shows that the 133 speed became available with the P54C series, and hence must have used a Socket 7. So which one is wrong? Bgruber 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I have P55C (Intel Pentium w/ MMX tech. FV80503-200 2.8V). It clearly have 320 pins instead of 321 (this is also shown on the P166 pic on this page), so it definitely can be inserted in Socket 5. I had succesfully tried it with my Socket 5 m/b and was quite surprised that, according to wikipedia, that was impossible. So I corrected the Socket 5 article and I hope this article will be corrected too.
Sorry for my english.
83.149.52.37 ( talk) 05:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me what is this?I'm using this processer on my Sony laptop.Thanks.
Hmm.I have 1496MHz CPU shown on the System Information,but when I use the EAsy System Info(a program of the EA games used to test computers)to test my laptop,it shows only 598MHz?Why is this happening?Is it because of I'm using a Dual-core CPU?And by the way,what is the diffrance between Pentium model 13 and Pentium III? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintei ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
Seems like it's the 6th generation..
70.231.144.169 08:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
P55C 120-150 MHz has a range of dates rather than a single date of introduction. What does this mean exactly? -- Smjg 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The intro paragraph in the current version is
Is it just me or is this an abrupt and somewhat confusing first paragraph to someone looking to simply find out what "Pentium" means?
It strikes me that were it placed a bit later (and in context) it would be fine. Here it just seems badly written.
(Also, it doesn't even mention which specific "microarchitecture's" fifth generation is being discussed. That may seem obvious to us- but it shouldn't be taken for granted). Fourohfour 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree that this article is slightly torn between covering the Pentium brand and the actual P5 Pentium line, the current version of the "Pentium brand" article doesn't do anything that isn't covered just as well in the Pentium article itself. Any thoughts? Fourohfour 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I notice that some people disagreed with the changes I made to the article; fair enough, but I'd prefer that they'd explained any perceived problems in more depth, instead of using intermittent edit summaries.
Regarding the "redundancy, contradictions, irrelevant info; correction of casual language; addition of proper terminology, references instead of their poor repetitions, etc., etc" referred to in this edit by 141.157.253.112:-
In this edit set. some of the English is very bad and confusing:-
Huh?
What is "of only 2007" supposed to refer mean? It doesn't make sense. If you want to criticise my writing, that's your choice; however, a lot of your changes were nonsensical.
(The reference refers to Intel's standardisation of names, but the relevance of this is unclear; the list only needs to include a few non-P1 Pentium names, not all of them).
I also dispute that my use of language was "casual". Please point out where you felt this was the case, because I'm struggling to see why you think that.
Anyway, I'm moving some stuff to Pentium (brand), as this article clearly suffers from trying to cover both the CPU line and the use of the brand as a whole. It makes more sense to separate them. Fourohfour 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I'm seeking a third party opinion on whether the major changes made by 141.157.253.112 ("Anon") are an improvement. (Note also Anon's changes from a previous cycle.)
I don't know if Anon will take part in this discussion. I've made a sincere attempt to address what I saw as major problems with the original opening (see above) and convert it into a proper intro/overview, but there is clearly some problem between us regarding the style of these changes.
I wouldn't mind if Anon raised his/her problems properly, but he/she simply makes vague references to my (supposed) "casual" language via edit summaries, and doesn't explain further (and doesn't contribute to the talk page).
Here are my problems with Anon; I don't think the style of the new version is an improvement. This person has criticised my writing style (which is admittedly far from perfect). Yet they themselves have made spelling mistakes, used weird grammatical constructs, included redundancy and (IMHO) generally obfuscated what is trying to be said.
He/she may have some valid concerns about my version of the article, but rather than raise them properly, Anon just makes radical changes which (IMHO) introduce more problems than they solve.
Fourohfour 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
References
To see the difference compare my corrections with previous versions. How do you know that you may not be sophisticated enough to see the difference? Please, do not subject the whole world to your ego and do not proclaim yourself an ultimate judge!!! Please, do not ruin my effort only, because you feel hurt by corrections of your language. Please, accept the fact that you make mistakes like everyone else including myself.
My objective was only to make a few article headers clear for non-experts, strict, accurate, neutral, complete, and cross-referenced by removing logical errors, using consistently proper terminology, but in a simple and easily understandable way, adding missing critical details and references, e.g. about TDP, and I am practically done, though my style needs correction sometimes; my previous IP address was 151.202.72.24. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 ( talk • contribs).
With reference to these edits by Anon, I'd like to raise some points. If they seem longwinded, it's because I'm trying to explain my problems with the article. IMHO these are mainly issues of style and language, rather than factual disputes. Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Why was the disambiguation line removed?
It was both useful and an absolutely standard Wikipedia way of differentiating two identically-named articles covering different subjects. Pentium specifically describes the P5 chips themselves, whereas the Pentium (brand) article covers the overall use of the brand. Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Introduced on March 22, 1993[3], the Pentium succeeded the Intel486 signifying the fourth-generation.". I tried fixing this before. It was changed. Is this saying that the Pentium signifies the fourth generation? Because that's how it can be read.
"Later, Intel used Pentium in the names of newer generations of x86 processors branded as the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium D. " Does the list really need to be this long? It's not complete anyway, and nor should it be; the article only needs to emphasise that the name was used for later generations, giving enough examples to make this clear. Details on subsequent use are dealt with by Pentium (branding).
A problem with this article is that it mixes the two use of the word "Pentium"; the umbrella brand, and the original i586 "Pentium" line.
I strongly dispute that "Pentium branded CPUs" must only be taken to refer to the original line (or that the "Pentium II" CPUs don't use the Pentium brand).
Examples from a quick Google search on "Pentium brand":-
Specifically in the new version "...the Pentium brand refers to Intel's single core..." is (IMHO) vague. I'm not sure that a widely-used "brand" can refer to anything that specifically. It's arguable that the "Pentium II" chips include the Pentium branding. Would it not be clearer to say that the original i586 Pentiums were *named* simply 'Pentium'.
Since the potential for confusion has been shown to exist, I feel that my version was better because it made clearer that it specifically meant the "P5"/i586 line.
This shows the same problem:- "Although they shared the x86 instruction set with the P5 generation (sometimes also referred to as "Pentium"), their microarchitectures were radically different from the Pentium branded CPUs'." Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Fourohfour, please, try to be constructive. I do not have time for lengthy debates. In short: style is less important than content in encyclopedias, the first sentence shall introduce the topic, articles should be as simple and short as possible (use facts and references, but avoid: repetitions, adjectives, empty phrases, subjective points, etc.), facts should be listed in order of importance, short descriptions should be included for convenience (to avoid over-referencing), but long descriptions should be referenced instead, everything should be strict and logical. Do not believe everything you read, because people do mistakes, often are incompetent, because - lazy and/or lacking capacity to understand complex issues, etc., etc.
Most important, BE CONSTRUCTIVE and patient.
I make mistakes especially stylistic, but, please, do not dismiss my contribution because of it. Please, do not use my stylistic errors as a pretext to deprive readers of vital info I provide in a as strict and logical manner as I can, which may be difficult to correct, because of its density. You waist you time listing my errors in the discussion; just write silent notes in the text (<!—???-->), and I will make corrections.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 ( talk • contribs).
This reply will be as long as I feel is necessary to answer your accusations. Important stuff is in bold if you're really in a hurry.
Fourohfour 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the Pentium trademark was not consistently used for one category of CPUs, as the Xeon or Celeron were, it is impossible to classify it as a name of homogenous and exclusive group beyond the P5 fifth-generation of CPUs, so the only possibility to classify it consistently in its broad meaning seems to be as a trademark, what it actually is.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 ( talk • contribs).
From 141.157.253.112: Fourohfour, all your above assumptions are FALSE!!! You had no base to instigate the discussion on the subject. Sorry, but this article actually is about nuances. I gave the structure and most of wording to intros of Wikipedia's articles about almost all Intel consumer CPUs and x86 (others fixed a few stylistic errors), and so they sound similarly. There are no others to improve on that. I am the "others" and nobody else. I offered you a privilege to decide on "Pentium brands" or "Pentium (trademark)" to be polite on one hand, and to test your capacity on the other suspecting your inability, but respecting your dedication. But your dedication is not enough, and absolutely does not justify your very inappropriate tone and attitude!!! See, how much different the article's intro became to compare with, what you wrote [sic!]. 141.157.253.112 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As with Pentium (brand), I'm refraining from editing this article at present. This isn't an endorsement of the current version- I just don't think that making changes before the problem is solved will be constructive. Going by past experience, any changes I make- for reasons of clarity and readability- will likely be rewritten by 141.157.253.112 ("Anon").
Please don't misread this as "giving in". I still feel strongly about the issue, and after leaving this for a couple of days (to let things settle down), I'll look into more constructive ways of resolving this dispute. Fourohfour 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am led to believe this actually existed (Intel Pentium 50Mhz Q0335 Engineering Sample, later specification number documented by Intel is Q0399). Could we not find some references for this and integrate into the article? 86.158.123.152 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I realize that process or feature size implies this, but it would be nice if the article stated the number of transistors that were on the chip. Pooua ( talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It makes sense to me that we have one article for the family of processors, and one article for the original Pentium, but should the original Pentium be the primary subject of the article named Pentium? It strikes me that someone searching for Pentium is at least as likely to be after one of the other products (when I came here, I was most confused and it took me a while to realise why the article was referring to the Pentiums as only single core). Consider how many years the Pentium brand has been in use, and how most of that time it has referred to later models. Consider also that as time goes on, I think "Pentium" is going to most likely be identified with the range of processors as a whole, not just the original model.
Lots of trademarks refer to different products, but we don't go disambiguating them in article names with "(brand)". For example, the "Macintosh" brand has been used for a a series of computers and operating systems, but that doesn't mean we only cover the original Macintosh at Macintosh, and then have Macintosh (brand) for all the later products (or similarly for Mac OS). It would strike me as ludicrous to do things in that way. Instead, it's the original Mac which is disambiguated to Macintosh 128K.
Can we disambiguate the article for the original Pentium in some way, and so that Pentium can refer to the whole range of Pentium products? Mdwh ( talk) 02:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Pentium now have some Conroe-Based dual core cpus. Well Core 2 Duo is powerful, but pentium dual-core series is served as a minor brand, but it's much cheaper but it's still pentium! so would you guys add pentium and it's dual core stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stannhuang ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Are the clock speeds correct? They seem incredibly slow. Shouldn't they also be listed in GHz for those processors that run at that speed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souch3 ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The article has a significant amount of content about the Pentium OverDrive. There is an entire article dedicated to it at Pentium Overdrive. Just like Pentium II does not have anything about the Pentium II Xeon, which is covered at Xeon, this article should not have anything about the Pentium Overdrive. Comments? Rilak ( talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do I still see brand new Pc's and laptops with Pentium? This article says they don't make Pentium no more... 83.108.225.137 ( talk) 13:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the links pointing to Pentium refer to any Pentium processor or a non-P5 processor, while the page currently is almost exclusively about the initial implmementation, which is often called the "P5 microarchitecture", "Pentium Classic" or "Original Pentium" on other pages.
In Intel P6 (microarchitecture), there is the respective information about all P6 based processors like the Pentium Pro, II, III and M, which all have separate pages as well.
I have tried to change all links to Pentium that specifically mean the original P5 to link to Intel P5 again, separating them from the others. I suggest doing this move in three steps:
Arndbergmann ( talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A major reaon that I forgot to mention is that all new products in the Pentium line are called just Pentium with no qualifier, as Intel has dropped the "Dual-Core" name this year. My guess is that most people arriving at this page are actually looking for the information that is on the "Pentium Dual-Core" page. This can be seen from some of the other sections in this talk page, as well as the visitor numbers for the two pages. I don't care if the (excellent) page gets renamed to P5 (microarchitecture), Pentium (classic) or something like that, but I feel that the page under this name here should not talk about the 15 year old product. Arndbergmann ( talk) 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This would be a resonable name for this kind of article. Other articles could be Pentium (dual core of 2009) for instance. The current "microarchitecture title" is just silly; an absurd attempt to structure concepts that cannot be structured. 83.255.38.101 ( talk) 07:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the current name "Intel P5 (microarchitecture)" is fine. "Pentium (P5)" would work as well, but "Pentium (P5 microarchitecture)" would be more explicit what P5 is about. Pcap ping 13:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I too think the name "P5 (microarchitecture)" is fine. There are already articles on Pentium trademark and Pentium related brands. There is precedent for the P5 naming too as it was an internal name used by Intel to refer to the microarchitecture just like P6 was used for the next microarchitecture incarnation of x86. If you look up in this talk page you can see this was already decided before. If you want to expand on one of the other Pentium related articles or clean this one up to more precisely be just the microarchitecture that would be good but do not try to make this article something it is not. There are other articles for such things (There are several lists of Intel microarchitectures that reference this among others). Uzume ( talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The trademark Pentium need not and should not be in the title of the P5 microarchitecture. Despite the fact that microprocessor cores were initially released under a brand name containing such a trademark this is not the place for that anymore than the Netburst microarchitecure should be named something akin to "Intel Pentium 4 (Netburst microarchitecture)". The Pentium trademark has been used for many different brands and those brands for many different cores from many different microarchitecures. You cause more confusion than you attempt to solve my making such changes. Please discuss on the Talk:Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture) page first. Uzume ( talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a near-duplicate of a past version of this article at P5 (microarchitecture), so I redirected it to this article. Whether the ultimate decision is to call this topic P5 (microarchitecture), Intel P5 (microarchitecture), Original Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture), or Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture), we only need one article on it. Spacepotato ( talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Now there is a suggestion to move one of the copies of the P5 article to Pentium (brand), which seems inappropriate. The Pentium (brand) article has always described the use of the name Pentium over all the generations and was just recently extended with more information and moved to a more appropriate place as the main Pentium article. Whatever the P5 article gets named in the end (there still seems to be a lof ot debate over that), Pentium (brand) is the wrong name. Also, we currently have two almost identical articles as P5 (microarchitecture) and Original_Intel_Pentium_(P5_microarchitecture). Please clean this mess up first, either merging the two again, or making sure that they actually cover distinct aspects and do not have duplicate content. I frankly don't see the point in a split article for these since all of the original Pentiums have the same microarchitecture and nothing else uses that. Arndbergmann ( talk) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
{{movereq|P5 (microarchitecture)|Better naming: article is not about Pentium as ''per se'' but about a microarchitecture first marketed under the Pentium name after Intel failed to trademark 586; This also fits in line with other Intel microarchitecture article names as listed on these pages: [[List of Intel CPU microarchitectures]] and [[:Template:Intel processors]]}}
Original Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture) → P5 (microarchitecture) — Better naming: article is not about Pentium as per se but about a microarchitecture first marketed under the Pentium name after Intel failed to trademark 586; This also fits in line with other Intel microarchitecture article names as listed on these pages: List of Intel CPU microarchitectures and Template:Intel processors Uzume ( talk) 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.A Pentium running at 50MHz never entered production; the Pentium 60 and 66 were the initial releases. This is a PDF of the Pentium Performance Brief from June 1997, once all of the P5 Pentiums had been released. http://www.datasheetarchive.com/indexer.php?file=DSA00372125.pdf&dir=Datasheet-021&keywords=intel+pentium+p5&database=user-highscore#. There is no Pentium running at 50MHz. Also, from personal knowledge and experience I am certain there was no Pentium 50. One may also reference Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PC's line, which has an exclusive listing of all Pentiums, there being no Pentium 50 listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 ( talk) 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
5 volt pentiums had a bug where everything after the 4th decimal was incorrect. Intel had an expensive pentium replacement program, and caused customers to buy non-Intel CPUs. As competitors you fail to mention enhanced 486 cpus eg AMD 5x86-133, IBM Blue Lighting, Cyrix and TI chips. Also note limited P5 support chips and Standards transition from 486VLB with plug and play issues (cf Cobra chipset) to PCI system standards. [PCI considers ISA bus a subset but computers like ATT Globalist the VLB (ISA bus) is master of PCI in bios.] Legal rulings in favor of Intel's competition that they were only cloning 486 which they were licensed for. Important to note Intel licensing (No P5) rather failure to license Pentium to second sources. TaylorLeem ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The error originated from designer uploading code (microcode) for math routines but didn't verify the TaylorLeem ( talk) 21:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
After the 5V Pentium floating point bug intel noted adding programmable microcode so bios can install patch code before boot. I know the microcode patching is on P6 bios, and bios interogation and processor specific (intel competitors) bios settings on P5x boards. WT vs WB cache for instance can scramble data if set incorrectly. TaylorLeem ( talk) 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
i myself have 2 pcs with pentium that does not have mmx. they are 90 mhz and 100 mhz. they are early pentiums while mmx first arrived in the later ones. i tried to run dungeon keeper 2, which requires mmx and that said that they do not have it. 84.212.107.130 ( talk) 12:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Please add RAM support info 99.167.109.7 ( talk) 17:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The claim that the P5 was "the world's first superscalar microprocessor to be in mass production" has been tagged as dubious.
Unless the level at which production is, in this context, deemed to be "mass production" is such that none of the earlier superscalar processors were producted in that quantity, that claim is not just dubious, it's false.
Given that the i960CA was used as an embedded processor, perhaps what that claim means is "it was the first mass-market superscalar computer used in personal computers", but, in that case, what's what it should say. Guy Harris ( talk) 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pentium (original) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Pentium compatible processor was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 November 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Pentium (original). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 22, 2004. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
It looks like it's canceled. [ Here] And [ Here] It's Going To Be The Pentium E2000, Shouldn't This Be Updated? -- From derangedfirewire --- 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Attention: I removed the expression that MMX was a "major significance". The reason is: the differences between the P54C and the P55C were indeed very little. The MMX had doubled the internal cache, and at the presentation time there were hardly any mmx-optimized applications. As a matter of fact, the transitin to MMX was very light. Initial BIOS didn't even allow the use of MMX (there were to many non-mmx Pentium in stock).-- AlexProfesor 02:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The "numbers can't be trademarked" issue -- how does this compare to Peugeot who registered all 3-digit numbers of the form x0y as trademarks? Is the difference that Peugeot registered then in France? Should also mention why the trademark issue arose -- Intel's 486 line had been dogged by AMD and other clone manufacturers who made similar, cheaper (better?) CPUs, and sought to register "586" as a trademark to distinguish its product. This ties in with the appearance of the ubiquitous "intel inside" sticker. -- Tarquin
I can think of many other products that have numbers as legitimate trademarks: Boeing 747, Levi's 501, Heinz 57 Sauce. There must be more to this than just simply a rejection of numerals as a trademark. Mattnelsen 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Prior art copyright restriction: 386 > 486 > 586 is a logical sequence predictable progression by those in the field. Intel had licenced these companies as second sources for 386 and 486 cpus. So AMD could legally use 486DX4/133, after the ruling it was 5x86DX5/133. Cyrix was licensed via using TIs silicon fab as they had a blanket license from Intel. TaylorLeem ( talk) 21:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm whether there was a 266 MHz Pentium MMX meant for laptops? Crusadeonilliteracy
...as the title of this article? I'd rename it promptly save for any protests. -- Wernher 03:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not really too familiar w/ the details I'm about to address, I just know that there's an inconsistency somewhere. The article says:
I hold in my hand a Pentium 133 which just came out of a socket rather clearly marked "Socket 5." Trouble is, the table shows that the 133 speed became available with the P54C series, and hence must have used a Socket 7. So which one is wrong? Bgruber 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I have P55C (Intel Pentium w/ MMX tech. FV80503-200 2.8V). It clearly have 320 pins instead of 321 (this is also shown on the P166 pic on this page), so it definitely can be inserted in Socket 5. I had succesfully tried it with my Socket 5 m/b and was quite surprised that, according to wikipedia, that was impossible. So I corrected the Socket 5 article and I hope this article will be corrected too.
Sorry for my english.
83.149.52.37 ( talk) 05:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Can anybody tell me what is this?I'm using this processer on my Sony laptop.Thanks.
Hmm.I have 1496MHz CPU shown on the System Information,but when I use the EAsy System Info(a program of the EA games used to test computers)to test my laptop,it shows only 598MHz?Why is this happening?Is it because of I'm using a Dual-core CPU?And by the way,what is the diffrance between Pentium model 13 and Pentium III? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vintei ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC).
Seems like it's the 6th generation..
70.231.144.169 08:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
P55C 120-150 MHz has a range of dates rather than a single date of introduction. What does this mean exactly? -- Smjg 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
The intro paragraph in the current version is
Is it just me or is this an abrupt and somewhat confusing first paragraph to someone looking to simply find out what "Pentium" means?
It strikes me that were it placed a bit later (and in context) it would be fine. Here it just seems badly written.
(Also, it doesn't even mention which specific "microarchitecture's" fifth generation is being discussed. That may seem obvious to us- but it shouldn't be taken for granted). Fourohfour 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I agree that this article is slightly torn between covering the Pentium brand and the actual P5 Pentium line, the current version of the "Pentium brand" article doesn't do anything that isn't covered just as well in the Pentium article itself. Any thoughts? Fourohfour 15:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I notice that some people disagreed with the changes I made to the article; fair enough, but I'd prefer that they'd explained any perceived problems in more depth, instead of using intermittent edit summaries.
Regarding the "redundancy, contradictions, irrelevant info; correction of casual language; addition of proper terminology, references instead of their poor repetitions, etc., etc" referred to in this edit by 141.157.253.112:-
In this edit set. some of the English is very bad and confusing:-
Huh?
What is "of only 2007" supposed to refer mean? It doesn't make sense. If you want to criticise my writing, that's your choice; however, a lot of your changes were nonsensical.
(The reference refers to Intel's standardisation of names, but the relevance of this is unclear; the list only needs to include a few non-P1 Pentium names, not all of them).
I also dispute that my use of language was "casual". Please point out where you felt this was the case, because I'm struggling to see why you think that.
Anyway, I'm moving some stuff to Pentium (brand), as this article clearly suffers from trying to cover both the CPU line and the use of the brand as a whole. It makes more sense to separate them. Fourohfour 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I'm seeking a third party opinion on whether the major changes made by 141.157.253.112 ("Anon") are an improvement. (Note also Anon's changes from a previous cycle.)
I don't know if Anon will take part in this discussion. I've made a sincere attempt to address what I saw as major problems with the original opening (see above) and convert it into a proper intro/overview, but there is clearly some problem between us regarding the style of these changes.
I wouldn't mind if Anon raised his/her problems properly, but he/she simply makes vague references to my (supposed) "casual" language via edit summaries, and doesn't explain further (and doesn't contribute to the talk page).
Here are my problems with Anon; I don't think the style of the new version is an improvement. This person has criticised my writing style (which is admittedly far from perfect). Yet they themselves have made spelling mistakes, used weird grammatical constructs, included redundancy and (IMHO) generally obfuscated what is trying to be said.
He/she may have some valid concerns about my version of the article, but rather than raise them properly, Anon just makes radical changes which (IMHO) introduce more problems than they solve.
Fourohfour 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
References
To see the difference compare my corrections with previous versions. How do you know that you may not be sophisticated enough to see the difference? Please, do not subject the whole world to your ego and do not proclaim yourself an ultimate judge!!! Please, do not ruin my effort only, because you feel hurt by corrections of your language. Please, accept the fact that you make mistakes like everyone else including myself.
My objective was only to make a few article headers clear for non-experts, strict, accurate, neutral, complete, and cross-referenced by removing logical errors, using consistently proper terminology, but in a simple and easily understandable way, adding missing critical details and references, e.g. about TDP, and I am practically done, though my style needs correction sometimes; my previous IP address was 151.202.72.24. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 ( talk • contribs).
With reference to these edits by Anon, I'd like to raise some points. If they seem longwinded, it's because I'm trying to explain my problems with the article. IMHO these are mainly issues of style and language, rather than factual disputes. Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Why was the disambiguation line removed?
It was both useful and an absolutely standard Wikipedia way of differentiating two identically-named articles covering different subjects. Pentium specifically describes the P5 chips themselves, whereas the Pentium (brand) article covers the overall use of the brand. Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Introduced on March 22, 1993[3], the Pentium succeeded the Intel486 signifying the fourth-generation.". I tried fixing this before. It was changed. Is this saying that the Pentium signifies the fourth generation? Because that's how it can be read.
"Later, Intel used Pentium in the names of newer generations of x86 processors branded as the Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4, Pentium D. " Does the list really need to be this long? It's not complete anyway, and nor should it be; the article only needs to emphasise that the name was used for later generations, giving enough examples to make this clear. Details on subsequent use are dealt with by Pentium (branding).
A problem with this article is that it mixes the two use of the word "Pentium"; the umbrella brand, and the original i586 "Pentium" line.
I strongly dispute that "Pentium branded CPUs" must only be taken to refer to the original line (or that the "Pentium II" CPUs don't use the Pentium brand).
Examples from a quick Google search on "Pentium brand":-
Specifically in the new version "...the Pentium brand refers to Intel's single core..." is (IMHO) vague. I'm not sure that a widely-used "brand" can refer to anything that specifically. It's arguable that the "Pentium II" chips include the Pentium branding. Would it not be clearer to say that the original i586 Pentiums were *named* simply 'Pentium'.
Since the potential for confusion has been shown to exist, I feel that my version was better because it made clearer that it specifically meant the "P5"/i586 line.
This shows the same problem:- "Although they shared the x86 instruction set with the P5 generation (sometimes also referred to as "Pentium"), their microarchitectures were radically different from the Pentium branded CPUs'." Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Fourohfour, please, try to be constructive. I do not have time for lengthy debates. In short: style is less important than content in encyclopedias, the first sentence shall introduce the topic, articles should be as simple and short as possible (use facts and references, but avoid: repetitions, adjectives, empty phrases, subjective points, etc.), facts should be listed in order of importance, short descriptions should be included for convenience (to avoid over-referencing), but long descriptions should be referenced instead, everything should be strict and logical. Do not believe everything you read, because people do mistakes, often are incompetent, because - lazy and/or lacking capacity to understand complex issues, etc., etc.
Most important, BE CONSTRUCTIVE and patient.
I make mistakes especially stylistic, but, please, do not dismiss my contribution because of it. Please, do not use my stylistic errors as a pretext to deprive readers of vital info I provide in a as strict and logical manner as I can, which may be difficult to correct, because of its density. You waist you time listing my errors in the discussion; just write silent notes in the text (<!—???-->), and I will make corrections.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 ( talk • contribs).
This reply will be as long as I feel is necessary to answer your accusations. Important stuff is in bold if you're really in a hurry.
Fourohfour 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the Pentium trademark was not consistently used for one category of CPUs, as the Xeon or Celeron were, it is impossible to classify it as a name of homogenous and exclusive group beyond the P5 fifth-generation of CPUs, so the only possibility to classify it consistently in its broad meaning seems to be as a trademark, what it actually is.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 ( talk • contribs).
From 141.157.253.112: Fourohfour, all your above assumptions are FALSE!!! You had no base to instigate the discussion on the subject. Sorry, but this article actually is about nuances. I gave the structure and most of wording to intros of Wikipedia's articles about almost all Intel consumer CPUs and x86 (others fixed a few stylistic errors), and so they sound similarly. There are no others to improve on that. I am the "others" and nobody else. I offered you a privilege to decide on "Pentium brands" or "Pentium (trademark)" to be polite on one hand, and to test your capacity on the other suspecting your inability, but respecting your dedication. But your dedication is not enough, and absolutely does not justify your very inappropriate tone and attitude!!! See, how much different the article's intro became to compare with, what you wrote [sic!]. 141.157.253.112 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As with Pentium (brand), I'm refraining from editing this article at present. This isn't an endorsement of the current version- I just don't think that making changes before the problem is solved will be constructive. Going by past experience, any changes I make- for reasons of clarity and readability- will likely be rewritten by 141.157.253.112 ("Anon").
Please don't misread this as "giving in". I still feel strongly about the issue, and after leaving this for a couple of days (to let things settle down), I'll look into more constructive ways of resolving this dispute. Fourohfour 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I am led to believe this actually existed (Intel Pentium 50Mhz Q0335 Engineering Sample, later specification number documented by Intel is Q0399). Could we not find some references for this and integrate into the article? 86.158.123.152 17:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I realize that process or feature size implies this, but it would be nice if the article stated the number of transistors that were on the chip. Pooua ( talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It makes sense to me that we have one article for the family of processors, and one article for the original Pentium, but should the original Pentium be the primary subject of the article named Pentium? It strikes me that someone searching for Pentium is at least as likely to be after one of the other products (when I came here, I was most confused and it took me a while to realise why the article was referring to the Pentiums as only single core). Consider how many years the Pentium brand has been in use, and how most of that time it has referred to later models. Consider also that as time goes on, I think "Pentium" is going to most likely be identified with the range of processors as a whole, not just the original model.
Lots of trademarks refer to different products, but we don't go disambiguating them in article names with "(brand)". For example, the "Macintosh" brand has been used for a a series of computers and operating systems, but that doesn't mean we only cover the original Macintosh at Macintosh, and then have Macintosh (brand) for all the later products (or similarly for Mac OS). It would strike me as ludicrous to do things in that way. Instead, it's the original Mac which is disambiguated to Macintosh 128K.
Can we disambiguate the article for the original Pentium in some way, and so that Pentium can refer to the whole range of Pentium products? Mdwh ( talk) 02:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Pentium now have some Conroe-Based dual core cpus. Well Core 2 Duo is powerful, but pentium dual-core series is served as a minor brand, but it's much cheaper but it's still pentium! so would you guys add pentium and it's dual core stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stannhuang ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Are the clock speeds correct? They seem incredibly slow. Shouldn't they also be listed in GHz for those processors that run at that speed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souch3 ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The article has a significant amount of content about the Pentium OverDrive. There is an entire article dedicated to it at Pentium Overdrive. Just like Pentium II does not have anything about the Pentium II Xeon, which is covered at Xeon, this article should not have anything about the Pentium Overdrive. Comments? Rilak ( talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do I still see brand new Pc's and laptops with Pentium? This article says they don't make Pentium no more... 83.108.225.137 ( talk) 13:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Most of the links pointing to Pentium refer to any Pentium processor or a non-P5 processor, while the page currently is almost exclusively about the initial implmementation, which is often called the "P5 microarchitecture", "Pentium Classic" or "Original Pentium" on other pages.
In Intel P6 (microarchitecture), there is the respective information about all P6 based processors like the Pentium Pro, II, III and M, which all have separate pages as well.
I have tried to change all links to Pentium that specifically mean the original P5 to link to Intel P5 again, separating them from the others. I suggest doing this move in three steps:
Arndbergmann ( talk) 16:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
A major reaon that I forgot to mention is that all new products in the Pentium line are called just Pentium with no qualifier, as Intel has dropped the "Dual-Core" name this year. My guess is that most people arriving at this page are actually looking for the information that is on the "Pentium Dual-Core" page. This can be seen from some of the other sections in this talk page, as well as the visitor numbers for the two pages. I don't care if the (excellent) page gets renamed to P5 (microarchitecture), Pentium (classic) or something like that, but I feel that the page under this name here should not talk about the 15 year old product. Arndbergmann ( talk) 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This would be a resonable name for this kind of article. Other articles could be Pentium (dual core of 2009) for instance. The current "microarchitecture title" is just silly; an absurd attempt to structure concepts that cannot be structured. 83.255.38.101 ( talk) 07:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the current name "Intel P5 (microarchitecture)" is fine. "Pentium (P5)" would work as well, but "Pentium (P5 microarchitecture)" would be more explicit what P5 is about. Pcap ping 13:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I too think the name "P5 (microarchitecture)" is fine. There are already articles on Pentium trademark and Pentium related brands. There is precedent for the P5 naming too as it was an internal name used by Intel to refer to the microarchitecture just like P6 was used for the next microarchitecture incarnation of x86. If you look up in this talk page you can see this was already decided before. If you want to expand on one of the other Pentium related articles or clean this one up to more precisely be just the microarchitecture that would be good but do not try to make this article something it is not. There are other articles for such things (There are several lists of Intel microarchitectures that reference this among others). Uzume ( talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The trademark Pentium need not and should not be in the title of the P5 microarchitecture. Despite the fact that microprocessor cores were initially released under a brand name containing such a trademark this is not the place for that anymore than the Netburst microarchitecure should be named something akin to "Intel Pentium 4 (Netburst microarchitecture)". The Pentium trademark has been used for many different brands and those brands for many different cores from many different microarchitecures. You cause more confusion than you attempt to solve my making such changes. Please discuss on the Talk:Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture) page first. Uzume ( talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a near-duplicate of a past version of this article at P5 (microarchitecture), so I redirected it to this article. Whether the ultimate decision is to call this topic P5 (microarchitecture), Intel P5 (microarchitecture), Original Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture), or Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture), we only need one article on it. Spacepotato ( talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Now there is a suggestion to move one of the copies of the P5 article to Pentium (brand), which seems inappropriate. The Pentium (brand) article has always described the use of the name Pentium over all the generations and was just recently extended with more information and moved to a more appropriate place as the main Pentium article. Whatever the P5 article gets named in the end (there still seems to be a lof ot debate over that), Pentium (brand) is the wrong name. Also, we currently have two almost identical articles as P5 (microarchitecture) and Original_Intel_Pentium_(P5_microarchitecture). Please clean this mess up first, either merging the two again, or making sure that they actually cover distinct aspects and do not have duplicate content. I frankly don't see the point in a split article for these since all of the original Pentiums have the same microarchitecture and nothing else uses that. Arndbergmann ( talk) 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
{{movereq|P5 (microarchitecture)|Better naming: article is not about Pentium as ''per se'' but about a microarchitecture first marketed under the Pentium name after Intel failed to trademark 586; This also fits in line with other Intel microarchitecture article names as listed on these pages: [[List of Intel CPU microarchitectures]] and [[:Template:Intel processors]]}}
Original Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture) → P5 (microarchitecture) — Better naming: article is not about Pentium as per se but about a microarchitecture first marketed under the Pentium name after Intel failed to trademark 586; This also fits in line with other Intel microarchitecture article names as listed on these pages: List of Intel CPU microarchitectures and Template:Intel processors Uzume ( talk) 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.A Pentium running at 50MHz never entered production; the Pentium 60 and 66 were the initial releases. This is a PDF of the Pentium Performance Brief from June 1997, once all of the P5 Pentiums had been released. http://www.datasheetarchive.com/indexer.php?file=DSA00372125.pdf&dir=Datasheet-021&keywords=intel+pentium+p5&database=user-highscore#. There is no Pentium running at 50MHz. Also, from personal knowledge and experience I am certain there was no Pentium 50. One may also reference Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PC's line, which has an exclusive listing of all Pentiums, there being no Pentium 50 listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 ( talk) 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
5 volt pentiums had a bug where everything after the 4th decimal was incorrect. Intel had an expensive pentium replacement program, and caused customers to buy non-Intel CPUs. As competitors you fail to mention enhanced 486 cpus eg AMD 5x86-133, IBM Blue Lighting, Cyrix and TI chips. Also note limited P5 support chips and Standards transition from 486VLB with plug and play issues (cf Cobra chipset) to PCI system standards. [PCI considers ISA bus a subset but computers like ATT Globalist the VLB (ISA bus) is master of PCI in bios.] Legal rulings in favor of Intel's competition that they were only cloning 486 which they were licensed for. Important to note Intel licensing (No P5) rather failure to license Pentium to second sources. TaylorLeem ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The error originated from designer uploading code (microcode) for math routines but didn't verify the TaylorLeem ( talk) 21:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
After the 5V Pentium floating point bug intel noted adding programmable microcode so bios can install patch code before boot. I know the microcode patching is on P6 bios, and bios interogation and processor specific (intel competitors) bios settings on P5x boards. WT vs WB cache for instance can scramble data if set incorrectly. TaylorLeem ( talk) 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
i myself have 2 pcs with pentium that does not have mmx. they are 90 mhz and 100 mhz. they are early pentiums while mmx first arrived in the later ones. i tried to run dungeon keeper 2, which requires mmx and that said that they do not have it. 84.212.107.130 ( talk) 12:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Please add RAM support info 99.167.109.7 ( talk) 17:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The claim that the P5 was "the world's first superscalar microprocessor to be in mass production" has been tagged as dubious.
Unless the level at which production is, in this context, deemed to be "mass production" is such that none of the earlier superscalar processors were producted in that quantity, that claim is not just dubious, it's false.
Given that the i960CA was used as an embedded processor, perhaps what that claim means is "it was the first mass-market superscalar computer used in personal computers", but, in that case, what's what it should say. Guy Harris ( talk) 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)