Talk:Comparison of Intel processors

Moving this stuff into various "List of XXX microprocessors" pages
This page is sort of like the List of AMD Athlon microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon 64 microprocessors, etc. pages. Perhaps there should be List of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors, List of Intel Pentium M microprocessors, etc. pages. Guy Harris 01:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there now are those pages. Should all this stuff be moved to those pages? Guy Harris 21:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't even know this page exists. Horrible organisation, an even worse name, and it's not linked anywhere. Ugh. How did it survive AfD? Anyway, yeah, I'd support merging in the various extra feature data into the new lists, if there's a way to squeeze it into the table without breaking the page layout (I modelled the tables after the ones in the AMD lists, but the tables are so wide already). Jgp 22:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * List of AMD Athlon microprocessors, List of AMD Athlon XP microprocessors, and List of AMD Duron microprocessors (but not some of the other lists of AMD microprocessors) all have a TDP column, which might be the right place for the "Power" information on this page. Some column or columns for the various features might be useful, too. Guy Harris 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a TDP column to List of Intel Pentium 4 microprocessors, and the others will follow shortly. IMO, adding any more columns will be practically unreadable on anything but huge monitors -- even now, the P4EE table, with both the L3-Cache and TDP columns, looks very bad on my laptop. I just came up with an idea for how to describe the other features, based on the List of AMD Opteron microprocessors page (look at how the 2xx and 8xx series' are differentiated above each table). Jgp 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The P4EE table looks OK on my laptop, but I have a 17" PowerBook. :-) Perhaps abbreviating "Extreme Edition" as "EE" in the individual rows would help there. Guy Harris 20:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, and the TDP additions are complete. I've also added the other features, in another form. Jgp 22:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. The way you added the extra features makes sense (putting it into each row, when the rows would largely be identical, might have been harder to read than the simple summary you put in). Guy Harris 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of the merge tags?
If the merging is done, there's no need for the pages to speak of the proposed merger; removing them might prevent people from voting purely Merge in the AfD, leaving only Delete and Keep as options. Guy Harris 00:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that might help. Good idea. Jgp 00:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

2nd AfD outcome
The result of the 2nd AfD was merge then delete. I am not clear though whether the merging has been done or not. When all the merging is complete the article can be markde for speedy deletion - make sure to reference the AfD outcome in the reasoning. Thryduulf 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has been significantly changed since the AfD started. I beleive that while the article still has problems, many of the concerns have been addressed. Armedblowfish 21:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming
Guy Harris - I decided to move this to "Comparison of Intel processors" rather than "List of Intel processors", because it is more than just a list of names, and the term "comparison" allows for further expansion of a more wordy nature in the future. Also because no one else had moved it. Armedblowfish 21:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no comparison made by the article. This article simply lists (an incomplete list of) Intel processors, accompanied by a range of properties and the values of those properties. Now, you might look at this list, and those properties, and make 'your' comparisons, or evaluations, but that isn't the same as the calling the article itself comparative in nature. In other words, there's no evaluation being made here. It is just a 'list' of facts. 108.82.129.24 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Still needs work
The Xeon row is crowded, confusing, and not really accurate. The 5xxx/7xxx nomenclature only actually encompasses some of the more recent Xeons. I'm not at all sure why Xeons stretching back to the Pentium II Xeon (Drake) are listed, especially when Pentium IIs are not. The Pentium 4 row, again, implies that the 3-digit nomenclature applies to all Pentium 4s, which it does not. And Celerons are still completely excluded. I guess what I'm getting at is I can't figure out what this page is meant to be. Is it supposed to cover the products Intel is currently selling? Historical processors? Aluvus 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And shouldn't the i5 slot have the LGA1155 Socket page link in there too? I'm going to add it, because I've seen i5s that are built for the 1155 Socket. --Someone who you'll only see here once.

Lots of work needed for more modern CPUs as well. The entire i3 / i5 / i7 / i9 range are hopelessly out of date (core count, cache size etc). 13th gen is way off but even 12th gen has multiple errors. Kav2001c (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)kav2001c

Addition of outdated processors?
The page has been mentioned for deletion and merging, but while it's still here, I'd like to request that someone add information about outdated intel processors (Pentium II, etc). If this page is about 'Intel' processors, it should compare all of them, unless it's changed to a more specific name. Benrr101 23:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * there is already a List of Intel microprocessors, so why don't we just rename this to Comparison of Current Intel processors, and and just get rid of all the old outdated models. Paranoidmage 12:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Add performance tests
The table misses results of some benchmark tests (such as benchmarks for fixed point and floating point arithmetics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.58.112 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Explain what the numbers mean
For someone who doesn't understand what all the numbers mean, it would be very useful to add some sort of actual performance comparison of the processors. E.g., for an ordinary user, how do Pentium processors compare with Core 2 Solo processors? Which is faster? How much faster? The bottom line of speed for ordinary users is a very important comparison that is lacking from this page. Also, it would be nice to know which processors are 64 bit compatible, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.182.66 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Major Updates to the Chart?
Apparently, the chart seems a bit confusing. I don't know how...it just seems kind of messy. Also, Intel released Second Generation i3, i5, and i7 processors. Shouldn't they be added to the chart? The i3, i5, and i7 processor rows are a bit messy. I think they should be reorganized into subgroups. For example, the i7...there are different model numbers. The i7 row could be modified to that the first column splits into two rows (one i7-840, and i7-820 (I don't if the numbers are right)). Let me know what you think, and add your thoughts to this! TheApplePi (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians Geez this article has raised some adverse comments!! Personally I've found it very informative but then I'm interested in IT technology that has stood the test of time. For example socket 775 processors. The page should stay.

I concede that the table is hard to use but then who really understands the intricacies of Intel's marketing and manufacturing strategies?

The chart appears relatively up to date however I suggest that the range of Intel Pentium Dual-Core include the E6300, E6500, E6600, E6700 & E6800 http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?series=41586&wapkw=%28Intel+Pentium+Processor+E6600%29 The E6xxx processors have similar specs to the Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E7500 (3M Cache, 2.93 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB) 228 million transistors compared to

Intel® Pentium® Processor E6300 (2M Cache, 2.80 GHz, 1066 MHz FSB)228 million transistors The Intel Pentium Dual-Core E6xxx are listed as Wolfdale's by Intel.

Just a thought. It would be a lot nicer if the processor numbers were clearly linked to the architecture. MMM Happy days Nnoddy (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)