Talk:Intel Core

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (marked as High-importance).
 


Not an ad[edit]

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.

Core i5, Nehalem section[edit]

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???

Core i9[edit]

Why is there no mention in the article of the future Core i9?-- Nahum (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is sold as i7. Check the article on Gulftown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.67.239 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Core i3[edit]

I support the split of the Core i3 section into its own article. --Aizuku (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That would mean adding another pointless stub. I would recommend doing the opposite: move the small Core i5 and i7 articles into the common Intel Core page. We could actually move much of the contents of Intel Core 2 into Core (microarchitecture) and move the rest into this page as well. This would reflect what we have in the Celeron and Xeon pages. Arndbergmann (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be consistency. Shentino (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and merge them. Shentino (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

intel Corei3 processor, why not intel Core i7[edit]

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)

This page is for discussion about the article, not about the product it describes. Anyway, all-in-one computers typically have a low maximum TDP, like laptops, so it's reasonable that they can use e.g. only 2xxxT models, which don't exist as Core i7. Arndbergmann (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Quad i3?[edit]

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)

Merging core i3/i5/i7 pages into this one[edit]

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)

Ratings[edit]

Maybe give clearer performance indicators of every core so comparison is easier for the general public.

Woutergb (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Number of Transistors?[edit]

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)

Those numbers should be in the pages describing the cores in detail, although they are sometimes missing there. This article is about a brand name that is used for very different chips, so I think it should not get lost in the details. Arndbergmann (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

IBM's Core architecture?[edit]

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)

Core I Series Images[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

hyperthreading[edit]

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)

Update article to include Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge[edit]

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)

several things are wrong here:
A- haswell and sandy bridge are completely different architectures.
B- there are no i5 lga 2011 cpu's; they are all xeon or i7, and all the i7's have hyperthreading.
C- Ivy bridge E has yet to be released, even for servers.
D- there are not even Ivy bridge-EP xeons. see newegg 2011 socket xeons
so, the only correct statement in there is that there is haswell lga 1150 cpus. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 22:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Core M[edit]

Should I create a new "List of Core M microprocessors" page? --Azul120 (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone seem to have created it... I added it to summary at top, position might need some work... MoHaG (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Haswell-E Processors[edit]

Haswell-E processors are not even mentioned. Should they be added? — Cheba (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)