Template talk:Intel processor roadmap
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intel processor roadmap template.
|This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Shift from SVG to Template:Graphical timeline or meta:EasyTimeline
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)
- I was going to suggest moving to mw:Extension:EasyTimeline but I agree the transition would be nontrivial (though it might prove more maintainable after such). Too bad we do not have something like mw:Extension:Inline SVG extension available. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
2013-08 border cell
Vertical table format
@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)
What could be done to keep the horizontal table small is removing older generations (Netburst and P6). See User:Pizzahut2/sandbox. However some Netburst and P6 articles use the roadmap, so it's not ideal. I like the vertical format though, I'd say go for it. -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Core / Merom / Penryn ref
About the ref  which lead to Core being replaced with Merom in Tick-Tock_model#Roadmap and in this template. Perhaps with this roadmap image (in the CNET article) Intel just meant that Merom was the first processor to use the new Intel Core architecture, and not that the whole platform (mobile, desktop, server) is called Merom. And same with Penryn - maybe it just happened to be the first 45nm CPU of the Intel Core architecture? So this would make the column with Merom and Penryn the "first implementation" (table heading for your mind).
What's my point? I'm trying to figure out if it's better to a) put all code names in this column (desktop, mobile, server), b) put only desktop code names in there (if there is a desktop implementation) or c) stick with the codename of whichever CPU came first. -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)