Talk:Intel Core

Computing B‑class Mid‑importance

	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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Intel Unassessed (defunct)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intel, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.IntelWikipedia:WikiProject IntelTemplate:WikiProject IntelIntel articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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.

Wrong Classification

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.

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)[reply]

Not an ad

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Core i3

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

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)[reply]

I think there should be consistency. Shentino (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

intel Corei3 processor, why not intel Core i7

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quad i3?

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)[reply]

Merging core i3/i5/i7 pages into this one

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)[reply]

Ratings

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

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

Number of Transistors?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IBM's Core architecture?

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)

You might be thinking of Cell. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Core I Series Images

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)

hyperthreading

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)[reply]

Update article to include Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge

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)[reply]

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. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Core M

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

Someone seem to have created it..., position might need some work... MoHaG (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haswell-E Processors

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

Processor generations

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)[reply]

cORE I9

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

oh no, we are behind times Epicandrew1220 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- 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) [reply]

Outline

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)[reply]

Macy's

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)[reply]

External links modified

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre, Meltdown vulnerability

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:

Intel® Core™ i3 processor (45nm and 32nm)
Intel® Core™ i5 processor (45nm and 32nm)
Intel® Core™ i7 processor (45nm and 32nm)
Intel® Core™ M processor family (45nm and 32nm)
2nd generation Intel® Core™ processors
3rd generation Intel® Core™ processors
4th generation Intel® Core™ processors
5th generation Intel® Core™ processors
6th generation Intel® Core™ processors
7th generation Intel® Core™ processors
8th generation Intel® Core™ processors
Intel® Core™ X-series Processor Family for Intel® X99 platforms
Intel® Core™ X-series Processor Family for Intel® X299 platforms

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)[reply]

Well, as far as I understood, the core and core 2 duo-series (and older) are not affected by meltdown and spectre 1 and 2. Its "Out Of Order Execution"-technology is very different (more simple) from the newer core i3/i5/i7/XEON/Pentium-Series . That is what a specialist explained me. But I did not see a official statement from Intel that it is not affected by any of these "bugs", still waiting for more sources. --Oecherjong (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]