Talk:Athlon/Archives/2020

competitors

so I don't know what this list was trying to do or what the criteria was, so removing it until/if that can clarified. I personally think a list like this is unnecessary, since competitors can be mentioned in history if it's a notable rivalry, not just being marketed on the same pricing tier at around the same time. 67.243.16.158 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Here's the list:

Athlon competitors

• Intel Pentium III, Pentium 4, and Celeron
• VIA C3 and C7
• Transmeta Efficeon

Split proposal

While the article for Intel's ex-flagship brand Pentium describes the brand from its first incarnation through current one as a budget-oriented brand, this article solely deals with the K7 microarchitecture, while the later incarnations (since 10h) are scattered across all of their respective microarchitecture articles. So here are my proposals:

• Make this article a "portal" for all of Athlon processor generations (K7 up to Zen), with the older flagships have its own brief description and a link to their respective articles, and the newer budget processors have an explanation about how it different from Phenom/FX/A-series/Zen processors using the same microarchitecture.
• Move all of the K7-based Athlons to its own article (either K7 (microarchitecture) or Athlon (original)), some content from Duron may be added to the new article if it is based on the K7.

What do you guys think? NotCory (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be about Athlon as it's used today (a brand for CPUs/APUs) rather than a single microarchitecture. IMO the the best way to do this would be moving the contents of this page to K7 (microarchitecture) and changing the lead and some of the headings there to reflect the change. This page could then become a page for the brand, with contents like you proposed. --Veikk0.ma 10:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Against at this point, glancing through the page. I certainly see the sense in wanting the original Athlon to have special coverage, but looking at the content on that currently, most of it is unsourced and I would argue too detailed and technical at this point to be accessible to readers who aren't hardcore overclockers. I'll try and clean up what's here, and then take another look. If sourcing and streamlining the older Athlon info balances things out, a split might just be entirely unneeded. 67.243.16.158 (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Still against splitting after a cleanup, and going to be bold and remove the tag. I'm not against a new discussion about the spruced up page, though, since the idea above about eventually creating a K7 (microarchitecture) isn't a bad one, especially if more content gets added over time. Just as is, the paragraphs on architecture look much slimmer, i.e.I don't think they totally swamp or unbalance the rest of the page. 67.243.16.158 (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)