Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by InternetArchiveBot (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 25 December 2017 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Computing List‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Isn't Westmere just a shrink?

I thought Westmere was only a 32nm shrink of Nehalem, in the same way that Penryn is a 45nm shrink of Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest. If that is the case, then surely it's not a proper CPU microarchitecture?

--Masud 15:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I made them seperate entries because although Penryn is a 45nm shrink of Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest, there are several changes made. There is more cache, improved power management, faster divisor, etc. Westmere will probably be similar in changes, so I listed it as a sperate uarch. If you don't like how I have it, maybe we could indent those two lines to show that they are improved versions of Core and Nehalem. Imperator3733 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have two issues.

Firstly, assuming we keep Westmere on the list, Penryn should also feature on the list. This is because they are both shrinks.

Secondly, Intel's "tick-tock" strategy is about introducing a new μarch every two years, and moving to the next manufacturing process in between new architectures. Nehalem is very different from Core, with the QuickPath (formerly called CSI) technology, and interchangeable cores to feature on the same piece of silicon, and more, as I'm sure you know. Compare the difference between Nehalem and Core μarchs, and the difference between Penryn and Core. I can only assume that Westmere will feature incremental improvements to Nehalem in the same way that Penryn features incremental improvements to Core.

My recommendation would be to keep Westmere on this page, indent it as you described, but not call it a microarchitecture, but just a shrink. Also, we should add Penryn to this page, also indented, and also describe it as a shrink. Of course, if there is any Intel documentation that describes Westmere as a separate μarch from Nehalem, then we should keep it as you have done it.

--Masud 11:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Intel Tick-Tock merge proposal

Someone proposed merging this article and Intel Tick-Tock. I just wanted to state my agreement for such and plans to carry such out in the future if there are is not a consensus against such a move. I believe the Tick-Tock is descriptive of Intel's committed cadence across a number of their more recent CPU microarchitectural and fabrication technology developments and as such makes sense to incorporate it as one or more section(s) within this article (an argument could be made to incorporate this into a list of their fabrication technologies as well but since there is no such article and it so far only applies to their CPU microarchitectures I believe this is currently the most appropriate place). It could further be generalized in to a general roadmap table including parts that have not been part of their tick-tock cadence. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

My 2 cents: "tick-tock" is obscure/jargony; by contrast "list of Intel CPU microarchitectures" seems clearer. Feldercarb (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Merged as new section 68.165.77.79 (talk) 04:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Indentation = shrink ("tock")?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures&diff=570526280&oldid=570517480 if it's a tock, please revert. "2-way coarse-grained multithreading per core (not simultaneous)" seems to be quite different. Can it still be the same microarchitecture? When is it a new one, if there are tweaks? Always? See also Pendium M and Enhanched Pentium M (take out indent?). Not only a shrink. But minor enhanchments? New instructions(? SSE3 and SSE2) can hardly be minor enhanchments as they imply "new"/enhanched microarchitecture? Maybe th "tock" always includes something more that a shrink? comp.arch (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarkdale/Arrandale?

SO I have an Arrandale cpu in my laptop. By the Wiki article, its desktop counterpart is the Clarkdale. However, its nopwhere to be found on the list. Why is this?207.81.0.235 (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)BeeCier

Clarkdale (microprocessor) and Arrandale (microprocessor) are not microarchitectures, but microarchitectures variants. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Move from Tick/Tock to Process/Architecture/Optimisation

Is it time to rename the Tick, Tock and semi-Tock to Process, Architecture and Optimisation? Seems to be the new roadmap Intel has adopted. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10183/intels-tick-tock-seemingly-dead-becomes-process-architecture-optimization

Cambookpro (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Generational chronology road map ?

Even in all Wiki articles about Intel's CPU, there are many references to generational chronology. 8th generation this, 6th generation that... But I can't find any article relating code names to generations, nor exposing such generational chronology by itself. IMHO this article should include it. Simply by adding the column... Thanks. --24.200.214.47 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Intel CPU microarchitectures. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131114063059/http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/video/pcw/docs/569/575/p2.pdf to http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/video/pcw/docs/569/575/p2.pdf

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) 18:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• List-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• List-Class Computer hardware articles
• Low-importance Computer hardware articles
• List-Class Computer hardware articles of Low-importance
• All Computing articles