Talk:Intel Core 2

Front side bus quantities: MHz or MT/s?
In the past, I have gone through and edited the unit of measure used to quantify the speed of each CPU's front side bus from "MT/s" (megatransfers per second) to "MHz." Usually my edits would be reverted within the hour, back to "MT/s." I haven't bothered to change anything here this time, but I have to ask: Why are we using that unit of measure, and moreover, why are we using it incorrectly?

The Wikipedia page for Megatransfer states, quote: "The units usually refer to the "effective" number of transfers, or transfers perceived from "outside" of a system or component, as opposed to the internal speed or rate of the clock of the system. One example is a computer bus running at double data rate where data is transferred on both the rising and falling edge of the clock signal. If its internal clock runs at 100 MHz, then the effective rate is 200 MT/s, because there are 100 million rising edges per second and 100 million falling edges per second of a clock signal running at 100 MHz."

Well, the Core 2 line of processors uses an AGTL+ "quad-pumped" Front side bus, which performs four transfers per clock cycle. This would mean that a Core 2 Duo T7400 (2.16 GHz core clockspeed, 667 MHz front side bus clockspeed) would NOT (as this article indicates) possess a front side bus capable of 667 MT/s, but rather would possess a front side bus capable of 2668 MT/s (4 * 667).

Apart from being wholly incorrect, the use of MT/s for measuring the speed of the front side bus of the Core 2 processors is simply wrong. Intel's own materials clearly show processor specifications listed in MHz, not MT/s. Why do we insist on MT/s? A Pickle (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First a T7200 667 mhz fsb IS a quadpumped 166mhz FSB, The northbridge and the cpu are at 667mhz but transfer in between is at 166mhz.--Transisto (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The actual clock driving the bus in your T7400 example is 166 MHz. This is then quad-pumped to 667 MT/s (or as quoted by Intel, 667 MHz).  Intel (and AMD) chose to continue describing bus speeds in MHz because it was familiar to customers, even though with the advent of double-pumping it was no longer precisely accurate (and, as your example shows, can be very confusing even to people familiar with the topic).  Wikipedia articles on this topic use the unambiguous but less familiar "MT/s" units.  Whatever the relative merits of either approach, the way the units are used in this and other Wikipedia articles is technically correct. —  Aluvus  t/c 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated summary for Merom-2M/Allendale die and the Core 2 Duo ULV CPUs
I added the information about the L2 and M0 stepping Merom-2M die and the Core 2 Duo ULV CPUs to the "Merom" section. I also updated the main summary to include the lowest speed of the ULV CPU (1.06 GHz, U7500) as well as adding the micro-FCBGA interface for the C2D LV, ULV, and some T5000 series CPUs and updated the core names to include the 2 MB dies' core names. Pgk1 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

SSE4
According to this (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/page4.html) SSE4 is supported in VirtualDub already. Update time for "SSE4 is not yet supported in any app"! Just a little reminder! 76.227.11.127 16:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How can 2 (or 4) processors share the same memory?
I was hoping to find the answer in this article, but no luck. Seems to me that the processors would be constantly "butting heads" trying to access memory at the same time (thus forcing one of the processors to wait & stop execution). How does Intel get around this problem? - Theaveng (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See SMP "Access to RAM is serialized" or "Non-Uniform_Memory_Access". The "butting heads" problem has to be handled in software (typically the OS) but it is only really a problem for writing. Accessing the same memory does not really mean, they are accessing the same memory ranges at the same time but rather they share the same memory in contrast to having dedicated memory each. The advantage is that you do not have to transfer between the processors which would require more bandwidth and be slower than synchronisation via semaphores or similar mechanisms. --217.87.87.117 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Clovertown missing
Where are the core 2 xeon clovertown cpu specs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spydercanopus (talk • contribs) 02:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because Clovertown is a Xeon and is therefore discussed in the Intel Xeon article instead.Coldpower27 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Core 2 Octo
With the advance of the 45nm fabrication process, and the resultant decrease in heat emission by the CPU's transistors, can 8-core 45nm Core 2 CPUs become a reality? If Intel decides to release some Core 2 Octo CPUs, will they be compatible with the current chipsets (Intel Bearlake chipsets)? Will they require special voltage regulators that may not be present on current LGA775 motherboards?

Or will 8-core CPUs be realized only on the post Core 2 architecture (Nehalem, if I'm correct here)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellcat fighter (talk • contribs) 16:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Core i7 - I believe it is 4 physical cores hyperthreaded, which makes "8" cores. ShaggyDope (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)ShaggyDope

Will they make Core 2 Trio? I bet they will make a triple core processor at one point... Dragon798 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WAIT A MINUTE... I just remembered something! The Mac Pro desktop has two quad core xeons (not quite core 2 octo, though) giving it 8 cores. Dragon798 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible inaccuracy about Conroe and Allendale cores
The article states that "The currently available Core 2 Duo E4300 only uses an Allendale core, released on January 21, 2007."

Yet, I appear to have a piece of hardware on my hands that defies this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.8.197 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All L2 Stepping cores are indeed Allendale SKU's, CPU-Z sometimes doesn't read accurately. L2 or M0 Steppings are Allendale while B2, G0 steppings are Conroe. That is more accurate and CPU-Z won't screw that up.Coldpower27 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

MacWorld
What is the processor announced by Intel at MacWorld today that was 4MB, 1.6 or 1.8GHz Core 2 and shrunk 60%? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A rather special Merom. — Aluvus  t/c 00:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a Merom core with a TDP of 20W so between Low voltage and Standard voltage, which uses the pacakaging technology designed for the SFF Montevina platform due to come out in the middle of this year. Originally it was to be used only with Penryn's, but for Apple Intel designed something special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldpower27 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Real World Comparisons
There is a lot of great tech jargon to talk shop with in this article, but what is the improvement in speed for each chip in real terms ? A chart and a link at the end of it to one or more test comparison sites would be appreciated by many readers. (And, if not for this article, can anyone direct me to a site that gives some kind of statistical comparison?) I am going to buy a new high-end laptop for graphic design. The current processor options are: T9500 (2.6 GHz), T9300 (2.5 GHz) T8300 (2.4 GHz), T8100 (2.1 GHz), X7900 (2.8 GHz), T7800 (2.6 GHz), T7700 (2.4 GHz), or a T7500 (2.2 GHz). - - (Today is 10 fevr. 2008) - - These chip options come on the Sony AR line, LG W1 Line, and Dell Precision line, supposedly their best laptops. - - Is an X7900 faster than a T9500?

This article needs someway for me and other readers to evaluate the bang-for-buck factor in these chips. What is the real incremental speed improvement in each one anyway? Charvex (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You will need a way to define faster. Some tasks dont benifit from multiple cores, some do. Some tasks can be optimised with new CPU instructions, some can't, some arn't. Some tasks are limited in speed by hard disk throughput, harddisk seek time, memory size, memory speed, cache size, network speed, network latency etc. --87.127.117.246 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

KiB, MiB, etc. and reverts
One or two users continue to revert my edits where I change these terms to the traditional variants. Exactly zero percent of the referenced sources use these terms. Indeed, only two minor pieces of documentation on intel.com make use of 'kib' and 'mib,' and neither consistently, let alone the x86 architecture documents! When I can find these terms in the Oxford English Dictionary, I'll consider them valid. Objections? Give your arguments here. Regards, 130.49.2.244 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Common use of MB/KB does not mean they are correct, they are even plain wrong. 1 KB means 1000 Bytes but actually it's 1024 Bytes thus 1 KiB. Did you ever try o read the articles like Kibibyte ? --Denniss (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed to death at WP:MOSNUM, where the current compromise phrasing includes, "There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other". The general sense there is that articles should continue using whichever set of units have become "established" in that particular article.  If you disagree, take it up there and not here.  Everyone will be happier if we don't have yet another edit war over this.  —  Aluvus  t/c 04:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've read nearly the entire discussion on the use of the IEC prefixes, and it seems to me that the argument 'against' is certainly the stronger case. I understand the merits of compromise, but why would I take up further discussion there when this matter concerns this "particular article" (in your own words)? I'm also not sure what you mean by "established," because from reviewing the edit history, a number of editors have tried to change this article to the traditional prefixes to have their changes reverted. If you don't want an edit war, then we can discuss compromise here, until there is a consensus that doesn't include the phrasing "particular article." If you refuse to debate the matter on this "particular article," then I almost certainly have the stronger case.


 * Remember, Wikipedia is not for things that the IEC made up one day, ten years ago (Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day). Perhaps in the interest of 'disambiguation' an enterprising editor should take it upon himself to replace all homonyms in the English language with less-ambiguous equivalents. Sounds ridiculous, right? Aside from adoption, which is very limited, that seems to be precisely what you're trying to do here. 130.49.2.244 (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with what is in MOSNUM, take it up at MOSNUM. In the past year or so of edits (around 1,500 individual edits) since the last big project-wide fight over the issue, outside of some hit-and-run edit warring (which usually involved changing just a handful of instances of MiB to MB), this article has consistently used KiB and MiB.  Even discounting that, the literal phrasing of the text at MOSNUM comes down directly in opposition to edits that swap one of the styles for the other.  If you dislike what MOSNUM says (and there are plenty of reasons to do so), then bring it up at WT:MOSNUM. —  Aluvus  t/c 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll give you this one, because the other articles on Intel microprocessors also use the IEC prefixes and I simply don't have the time to support an edit war on all articles. In any case, if you're going to quote this (flawed) policy, you better make sure that "consistent" or "established" are very well defined. 130.49.2.244 (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A very good definition of "consistent" is "the same style is used throughout the article". I'm not going to take a position on xB vs. xiB, but I will take a position on an article using {K,M,G,T}B in some places, and {K,M,G,T}iB in other places, to mean {2^10,2^20,2^30,2^40}B, which is that it's a Very Bad Idea.  I.e., if somebody wants to change the notation used, they should change all instances where xiB is used, or all instances where xB is used to refer to a power of 2, rather than leaving the usage mixed.  (The Manual Of Style speaks of a consensus that the existing style of an article shouldn't be changed:


 * There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units. There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other, especially if there is uncertainty as to which term is appropriate within the context—one must be certain whether "100 GB" means binary not decimal units in the material at hand before disambiguation. When this is certain the use of parentheses for binary prefixes, for example "256 KB (256&times;210bytes)", is acceptable, as is the use of footnotes to disambiguate prefixes. Use of IEC prefixes is also acceptable for disambigation (256 KiB). When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor. Prefixes in directly quoted passages are never changed; if explanation is necessary, use a more exact measurement in square brackets.


 * which is a consensus that should, if nothing else, fend off edit wars.) Guy Harris (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not a very good definition because it only refers to the particular article. If an article is in the context of an encyclopedia, it should share the same general style as comparable articles. Now there is clearly an issue with policy here, compare the articles for iBook and MacBook for instance. How can you possibly defend a policy that effectively says that you should look no further than the particular article and it's "established" usage to decide which usage is appropriate? Here's an exercise in thought: how many featured articles in computing Featured_articles use the IEC prefixes? 130.49.2.244 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not for stuff you, i.e. the contributor, or your friends, i.e. the contributor's friends, made up one day, as the page you cited says. It does include stuff somebody made up at one point, as that page notes ("Of course, everything in Wikipedia was made up by someone at some point in time"), such as calculus, general relativity, quantum mechanics, the C programming language, etc., so that is, by itself, not sufficient reason to avoid the IEC prefixes.  Now, that page also does indicate that some degree of notability is required - but that page is primarily intended to keep people from putting up pages about the club they and their friends started last week at school.  The IEC is, I suspect, not known to the majority of the educated populace, and probably not even to the majority of the technically-educated populace, but they're not exactly an obscure body of whom nobody has heard and that has no influence, either.  Guy Harris (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't deem my reasoning up to this point to avoid the IEC prefixes sufficient either, since this has mostly been a discussion on policy. There are many other reasons, but that one is very well suited to analogy. I'm not going to argue with you over what is 'implied' by that page, or what you think is "primarily intended." Though, if you read the second sentence, it does mention "not yet become well known to the rest of the world." This goes hand in hand with 'notable'. 130.49.2.244 (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue is currently being discussed here on Talk:MOSNUM (as well as here, here, here, and here) on the same forum. Greg L (my talk) 01:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Merom etymology
The article claims that: ''Merom (מרום) is the Hebrew word for a higher plane of existence or a level of heaven, BaMerom (במרום) means "in the heavens". The name was chosen by the Intel team in Haifa, Israel, who designed this processor.'' Are you positive? Any reference on that? Because there is also a biblical lake Merom which was situtated in what is today Hula Valley, and my gumption tells me that it's thence the processor code name is derived from. Thanks, Maikel (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) PS:  I wish they'd just number the f*ckers.

Yorkfield released
Yorkfield has been released, At least in the US, and in OEM form.

http://www.tankguys.com/product_info.php?products_id=1817

Not sure about elsewhere.

Thus, this article should be updated soon to reflect this.

67.224.19.160 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've updated it with the most recent information so far. --GuitarFreak (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

MiB and KiB v.s. MB and KB
Note. For interested authors, debate and a vote is ongoing on Talk:MOSNUM regarding a proposal that would deprecate the use of computer terms like “kibibyte” (symbol “KiB”), “mebibyte” (symbol “MiB”), and kibibit (symbol “Kib”). It would no longer be permissible to use terminology like a “a SODIMM card with a capacity of two gibibytes (2 GiB) first became available…” and instead, the terminology currently used by manufacturers of computer equipment and general-circulation computer magazines (“two gigabytes, or 2 GB”) would be used. Voting on the proposal is ongoing here. Greg L (my talk) 21:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Core 2 Duo
I'm just wondering why this article isn't named Core 2 Duo, since this is the name Intel uses on their product website and general marketing. 82.74.182.58 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it also covers the Core 2 Solo, Core 2 Quad, and Core 2 Extreme. — Aluvus  t/c 19:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't really cover Core2 Solo. No hot-link to any wikipedia article about Core2 solo like there is for duo, quad, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.142.200 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

ia64 is NOT the same as x86-64
Please read ia64 (now called itanium) as it explicitly (and correctly) states that it differs from x86-64 which is AMD's proprietary instruction set. Sadly, I spotted the first instance of x86-64 (in the article summary) yet discovered that several more errors follow. intel corporation's own specification I don't have time to fix the rest of the mistakes right now (sorry) Kuzetsa (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Core 2 has x86-64 (AMD64) named as Intel 64. IA64 is the Itanium stuff completely diferent from x86-64. --Denniss (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good Call... but technically core 2 has EM64T (which redirects thanks to the x86-64

, the "Intel64" section *wink*
 * Quote:"contribs) (52,043 bytes) (Undid revision 219798520 by Kuzetsa (talk) ia64 = Itanium, x86-64 (AMD64) is what the Core 2 has)"
 * I now understand / accept that you removed revision 219798520 and reverted to a link to the x86-64 article, though I must admit that several "marketing speak" had me really confused:
 * Couldn't hurt to give the "marketing speak" known as "Intel® 64 architecture" a bit of clarification in the x86-64 article or otherwise (highlighted for emphasis)
 * Intel's own Core 2 spec page says "Intel® 64 architecture" seems to be a real case of "marketing speak (see last bullet)"
 * The core 2 spec sheet contains a link to the specs for Intel® 64 architecture (more "marketing speak") which then...
 * has a "products" tab listing the core 2 and several others intel processors as using the architecture that is over generalized as "Intel® 64 architecture" (for which no article exists)
 * It seems the article you linked to is not specific to AMD (I'll yeild there)
 * This AMD whitepaper explains the AMD64 specs quite well
 * ... thugh x86-64 (AMD64) code is not universilly portible to "Intel® 64 architecture"
 * Despite the "marketing speak" it seems that intel wrote seperate code for the two distinct sets of instructions found under the "Intel® 64 architecture" umbrella (namely mkl\9.0\em64t\bin Contains DLLs for applications running on processors with Intel® EM64T and then distinctly different code for mkl\9.0\ia64\bin Contains DLLs for Itanium® 2-based applications
 * I suppose my real beef is that the x86-64 article has an external link to the "Intel® 64 architecture" marketing speak (bottom link in x86-64 and the label is even "Intel 64 Architecture")
 * I appologize for the confusion regading all the "marketing speak" ... ironicly I just realized (in the previous bullet / "the beef") it was even already at the bottom of the x86-64 article though ... wow, they consider core2 and itanium to both be "Intel 64 Architecture" for "marketing speak" purposes
 * So, I blame the "marketing speak" (code: marketing speak ) for my "itch to edit" (I realize now that the x86-64 does actually ecompass EM64T) ---RAWR!--- Kuzetsa (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: "wow, they consider core2 and itanium to both be "Intel 64 Architecture" for "marketing speak" purposes". No, they do not.  The name Intel 64 is used only for x86-64 products (Xeon, Core 2, etc.).  Itanium uses a completely different architecture (IA-64) that is totally separate from the x86 lineage, and Intel never describes any Itanium product as "Intel 64". —  Aluvus  t/c 00:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, intel truely does use the same term of "Intel® 64 architecture" with the itanium processor. Feel free to scroll to the bottom of intel's spec page for itanium processors ... Incidentally, my links in this wikipedia talk page have broken some time in the past month. I am uncertain how long it will take for the redirect to stop working entirely. --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read it again. All I could see is Itanium supports Intel VT (stated above the table) with a general explanation below, this general explanation (inludes Intel 64, Intel VT and Intel TXT but Itanium only has VT). If Itanium would use Intel 64 then it would be listed above the table next to Intel VT. --Denniss (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I read it again, and at the very top of the intel's spec sheet for itanium processors it says "64-bit support" and here's the quote from the bottom I was referring to:

Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT), Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (Intel® TXT), and Intel® 64 architecture require a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, enabling software and/or operating system, device drivers and applications designed for these features. Performance will vary depending on your configuration. Contact your vendor for more information.


 * I don't understand your suggestion that I read it again. Itanium uses the confusing terms "64-bit" and "Intel 64 architecture" so... am I really the only one confused? --Kuzetsa (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Intel 64" appears on that page as part of a boilerplate notice. You may note that the Itanium products on that page also do not support Intel TXT, which appears in the same note.  And use of the term "64-bit" in connection with Itanium is quite correct; that term is not at all exclusive to 64-bit x86.  64-bit is a general description of a product's properties.  Sun's UltraSPARC has been 64-bit for years, and is nothing like 64-bit x86.  The Nintendo 64's processor was also 64-bit, and again had no connection to 64-bit x86.  —  Aluvus  t/c 23:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bandwidth share
"Analagous to the Pentium D branded CPUs, the Kentsfields comprise two separate silicon dies (each equivalent to a single Core 2 duo) on one MCM[27]. This results in lower costs but lesser share of the bandwidth from each of the CPUs to the northbridge than if the dies were each to sit in separate sockets as is the case for example with the AMD Quad FX platform[28]." This seems wrong... According to the article quoted, the bandwidth share is 50% either way. With AMD example, this is 1 HyperTransport channel per CPU where the total for both CPUs is 2 HyperTransport channels, whereas for intel it is 1/2 of FSB per core, with a total for both is 1 FSB. So how exactly is this an advantage to justify the "but"?--194.249.198.32 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Some Intel chipsets intended for multiprocessor Xeon setups now have a dual front side bus, which is perhaps what this passage is trying to get across. Multicore desktop chips do not get this speed boost.  It's difficult to figure out what exactly this text is supposed to be saying.  —  Aluvus  t/c 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Matched Memory section
I found this section awfully confusing, as it indicates that a single-channel DDR-266 will be matched to a 1066 MT/s FSB. That's ludicrous -- that memory will only deliver 50% of the bandwidth that the FSB needs. Similarly it indicates that a dual-channel DDR3-1066 is matched to 533 MT/s FSB; that's a serious overkill, as the memory will be used at 25% capacity. A better approach is to separate the table by FSB bandwidth and memory type:

533 MT/s FSB --> dual-channel DDR-266 or single-channel DDR2-533

667 MT/s FSB --> dual-channel DDR-333 or single-channel DDR2-667

800 MT/s FSB --> dual-channel DDR-400 or single-channel DDR2-800

1066 MT/s FSB --> dual-channel DDR2-533 or single-channel DDR2-1066 or single-channel DDR3-1066

1333 MT/s FSB --> dual-channel DDR2-667 or single-channel DDR3-1333

1600 MT/s FSB --> dual-channel DDR2-800 or dual-channel DDR3-800 or single-channel DDR3-1600

Keep in mind, just because the FSB clock matches the memory clock, it doesn't mean that they are "matched". You need to take into account the bandwidth. It doesn't help having the poor sod thinking that he needs anything more than very inexpensive dual-channel DDR2-533 for his E6300. Just my 2 cents -- thanks.

12:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing that I have come across recently (to my cost) is that a lot of motherboards seemingly cannot deal with DDR2-533MHz memory any more. I have an MSI G31M3-F (Intel G31 chipset) bought just this week, to run a Core 2 E7300, and an Asus P5K-E (Intel P35 chipset) bought at the beginning of 2008 to run a Core 2 Quad Q6600 and neither will accept DDR2-533MHz (the latter does gamely try to force the memory to run faster, which worked in one example). Both of these chips should want 533MHz memory in order to be matched up properly, but both refuse to, forcing me to run less well-matched DDR2-667MHz. Did Intel find a magic way around this matching issue, or is this an oversight on their part? --GetThePapersGetThePapers (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Conroe L or Merom?
I have a laptop with a Celeron 530 M. According to the article on the Celeron series that should be the Merom core, yet CPU-Z says it's a Conroe L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 07:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Q8000 not in article
I believe the Q8000 series was a reduced version of the Yorkfield (Q9000). According to this article it was made to compete on price with the Phenom X3. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

does the core 2 line support multi socket boards
or does only the xeon line support that? Plugwash (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

core 2 duo prossesor perfomence
core 2 deo 2.80 processor working and betterments next modal core 2 deo...... kbalakr@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.252.252.124 (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Duo
Remember. I and my brother own the two Wolfdales (E8400). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Conversation
It's been around and all over that this CPU isn't core. I don't know why? There are A LOT of core CPUs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop the Press
I find there is no such thing. I own the Core 2 Duo E8400. It's just a basic Core! like i3 i5 i7 solo duo quad EP (Extreme Processor) etc... Look up my emblem and you can see. Then look up the other emblems and see what you think about the Corei3 now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7751:160:1D1C:5C29:ED0:86C0 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"Core 2 vpro"-Logo
I think this logo should feature in this wiki page, but don't know how to include it here.

New Logo - http://orig15.deviantart.net/8994/f/2014/045/5/9/_original_logo__v_3__intel_inside_core_2_vpro_by_18cjoj-d72e916.png

Old Logo - https://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q377/StockersPics/Core2VProInside.jpg -- Alexey Topol (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Fatal Sales
I could ask you if you had any doubt whereas the most modern of living style could contain enough information that comes with a "SEQUAL." This is what you are referring to correct? Labels have that says "CORPORATE." There is this one company in Salt Lake City, Utah, but it is closed now and run down. If for any particular reason the implant here serves as a listening device, maybe such handheld devices might work out for you. Face to face calling exists these days and not a single person seemed to have noticed it's emergence. For that matter I would hope the container for the laughing that ensues about how we came across combing a video card and a CPU came about. I would hope you had a better chance, at that may you, while you scurry about looking for these 'computers.' Did you ever notice that CPU-Z shells out an aquiline equation for not just only the multi, but also Sigel `core` usage that derives a similar outcome for less expensive companies, such as Predon Corporation that does it's security net on bot Core & Dual Core. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.58.156 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intel Core 2. 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/20070911222341/http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33708/135/ to http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33708/135/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926232224/http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33234/122/ to http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33234/122/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)