Talk:Intel Arc

Series article titles
I changed the names of the main articles for the series to simply "Arc Alchemist" and so on rather than "Arc Alchemist series". I understand that for the numbered Nvidia series the articles are titled this way, but I think in that case "GeForce 3000" would not be meaningful and is not ever used in that manner. With the number the "series" becomes necessary in a way I don't think is needed for "Arc Alchemist". There is an "Arc Alchemist" (as an idea anyway) but there is not a "GeForce 3000" there is only a "GeForce 3060" etc. I don't think articles about things that are series intrinsically need the suffix "series" any more than they would need the suffix "brand" or "line" or such. The first sentence is where to indicate that it is a series (or brand, or line). Opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Templates
The templates overuse color and list the processors in ascending order, contrary to Intel CPU pages.Azul120 (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with RM12 that the tables should be kept in the templates, instead of placed directly on the articles. This is to "deduplicate" tables between multiple articles that may have the same table, for example I'm pretty sure those tables are also used on List of Intel GPUs. When you update a table to add a new GPU, you don't have to make the same edit two or three times over the various articles that have the same table, instead you edit the template once, and the change goes "live" on all the articles that have the template, simultaneously.
 * However, I'm with Azul120 on the overuse of colour part. Quite easy for me to remove, actually.
 * The part I'm not so sure with is the listing of the GPUs in descending order instead of ascending order. This one I'm stuck on, as while the Intel CPU and even AMD CPU tables are in descending order, Nvidia and AMD GPU tables however are all in ascending order, so whichever way we go here, there's always going to be a big inconsistency between Intel Arc and either CPU or other GPU tables.
 * I kind of support ascending order here, for a uniform look between all the GPU tables. So CPUs go fastest to slowest, while GPUs go slowest to fastest.
 * I feel like changing all the AMD and Nvidia GPU lists to also use 9→1 order is going to require significant community wide consensus (or spark up immediate controversy otherwise), plus it's an awful lot of work to do, as look at how many Nvidia and ATI/AMD GPU tables there are.
 * Let me know what you think of how we should do the table order, I'm going to go ahead with the removal of the coloured branding rows from the Intel Arc GPU templates now, replacing them with branding columns. — AP 499D25  (talk)  08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree on the colors but didn't care enough to change it or start a discussion. The use of the templates should be continued though. The Nvidia lists and articles don't use them and it creates a lot of mismatched information and style inconsistency. RM12 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The templates being "garish" is a personal opinion and certainly not a good reason to not use them outright. If you don't like the templates, improve them instead of duplicating this information. While pages about Intel CPUs may be listed in descending order, for pages about GPUs, that isn't the case. Nvidia and AMD pages list their GPUs in ascending order. Given that comparing a GPU with a CPU makes little sense, especially over comparing a GPU to another GPU, I'd argue we should be consistent within the market, not within the brand. If any consistency changes must be made, it would even be more logical to reverse the order of CPU tables instead of the other way around.--YannickFran (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Intel quietly steps out of the shadows with two new GPUs
Here is an article from MSN/Digital Trends about Intel quietly steps out of the shadows with two new GPUs. Rjluna2 (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)