This template is within the scope of WikiProject Intel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Intel and related topics 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.
CPU microarchitectural core vs. microprocessor/SoC die/package codenames
I added several CPU codenames and removed several die codenames, however, I believe more should probably be done such as in the P6 space (adding Pentium M vs. Banias/Dothan and Enhanced Pentium M vs. Yonah). I understand things get a bit sketchy that far back but at least for now and immediate future I believe the CPU microarchitectural cores should not be conflated with the microprocessor/SoC dies/packages. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
It's too cumbersome to edit the SVG every time the diagram is changed (I wish it was editable like text). So I'm considering using the aforementioned alternate mechanisms. EasyTimeline is not easy at all though, and I don't think it supports non-linear scales. Graphical Timeline is a template monster of dimensions too. I like the EasyTimeline syntax, but the semantics (almost every attribute is mandatory) and it looks bad. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
@Dsimic: the existing horizontal table (as drawn from the original SVG) is starting to become unwieldy as Intel adds more architectures. I propose a vertical format table, but this will require some more careful editing to add new architectures in the future. See my proposed vertical format at the template sandbox, which includes a more fully fleshed-out documentation. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The vertical layout you've proposed does look better, and I don't find the additional editing complexity as a potential downside. The only thing preventing me from saying "yay!" is the amount of whitespace we'd have in the infobox that way, so I'd like to hear opinions from other editors, if you agree. Thank you for preparing the proposal in the first place! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)