Talk:Infineon AURIX

Untitled
This articles really needs editing to remove the marketing speak as it sounds like it was written by a marketing droid who only has access to the products datasheet. Infineons chips are of note in the automotive industry and it would be good to place this family in relation to other TriCore chips produced by Infineon, but as it stands this is a terrible article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.125.180.133 (talk) 20 July 2015‎ 11:01 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I was recently involved with this family of processors at work and it deserves much better than just a rehash of one of the manufacturer's more superficial brochures. There is an immense amount of stuff that would be more interesting.


 * Warning! Studying the Infineon data sheets to see what is really there is extremely time-consuming because there is a LOT. I do hope that someone will take up the task of rewriting this properly. We have a very significant architecture (possibly the largest share of the high end automotive market) which is neither ARM nor X86 nor anything else that is common in other industries. That makes it notable and worth some effort. Sadly I am not the one to do it. Tiger99 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Just had a thought. A competing, albeit slightly downmarket, product "Hercules (processors)" has the sort of content I would expect albeit still much too brief, and in need of expansion itself. But it might give someone some inspiration. The two product lines represent most of the safety microprocessor market and a comparison article might also be in order. Tiger99 (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree, a lot of the current details should be covered on the official product site instead. For starters, I have removed the blatant linkfarm of partner companies. Wikipedia is not a host for product leaflets and partner databases. As always, significant information based on independent sources can be added of course. GermanJoe (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Misprints
The platform is uses up to ...

This seems to be a misprint.

--143.164.102.14 (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)