Talk:List of Intel Core 2 microprocessors/Archive 1

Prices
Could someone add columns such as "Price on the above date of the release", and/or "Expected price on 22 July 2006" and "Expected price on Q4 2006" etc? These prices were available in the previous version of the Intel Core 2 article. MureninC 14:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's really no need for a prices column. Prices will fluctuate upon release, and adding another column will just clutter the tables up and make everything word wrap. Not everyone has screens with huge resolution. jgp (T|C) 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree: I think it is important to see the price, its distribution, and the fact that the lowest processor is going to cost less than 200 USD. It doesn't matter that it's going to fluctuate, there are official prices published by Intel, and they change only once in a while, not even every month, but just a few times a year. See . MureninC 12:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have addeded the release pricing since that can't change and could be of historical interest. I wish people had bothered to record the release prices of older CPUs.  How much did a brand new 486DX-33 cost back in the day? Dgies 21:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Table Formatting
User:Jgp and I are about to get into a revert war over table formatting. I decided to post both versions here and let people vote on what they think should be used. Please vote only once and refrain from "canvassing" other users to vote your way. Dgies 02:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

'''Do you prefer... Merged'''

Merged
Or Split

"Conroe" (dual-core, 65 nm)

 * Strongest Possible Split. Let's see...no other table in any processor list has that merged crap. That kind of inconsistency is horribly glaring and makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. The merged formatting also just looks horrible and amateurish. It's also factually inaccurate, and violates the purpose of tables: putting such information in an ordinary table cell leads users to believe that, for example, ""Conroe" (dual core, 65 nm) " is an aggregate of a model number, frequency, L2 cache, FSB, multiplier, voltage, socket, release date, part number, and release price. It's not the case, and thus it is factually inaccurate. Using table cells for layout purposes is an abuse of table syntax. jgp TC 04:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Merging the table conserves space and saves having 2 nearly identical tables for the same sort of data. A merged table ensures changes to one data set propagate and keep it consistent.  Nobody could possibly be confused to think the heading lines are really cell data for the columns.  Also, there's no policy against using table for formatting, in fact it's pretty near standard in web design.  And quit violating the three-revert-rule until we get a concensus. Dgies 06:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Split, if only for the sake of the other pages it would impact. Swapping styles would mean editing all of the other similar pages for consistency; pages like the one for the Celeron would be rendered unreadable.  Different cores represent substantial transitions (sometimes, at least), and it is very useful to be able to clearly separate them.  The merged format as previously done also doesn't use headings, and therefore does not create entries in the TOC (nor does it allow easy editing of just that chunk of the page), making it much harder to seek out a particular core.  The split format also better accomodates notes about feature support (MMX, SSE, etc.), which is valuable. —  Aluvus  t/ c  17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge looks good and saves space. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  MrWizard6600 (talk • contribs).
 * Split What he said. Guy Harris 23:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Core 2 Duo T7600G (Merom/Merom XE)?????
Dell XPS M1710

On El Reg

I know that the dell mobo allows the FSB to be fiddled, but I'm not sure if it's multiplier locked or not? Intel have made no announcements about it at all! And Dell don't say it's overclockable, but the extra £300 must be for something.

BigglesPiP
 * I've seen a number of reports that indicate it is multiplier-unlocked, but otherwise the same as the normal T7600. Also, please sign your comments with ~ so that important information like the date is automatically included. —  Aluvus  t/ c  04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing said about L2300, L2400 and U2500.Iodine Galaxy 13:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is because those products are part of the Intel Core series, not the Intel Core 2 series. They are all mentioned in the List of Intel Core microprocessors. —  Aluvus  t/ c  14:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the L2*00 and U2*00 are Core, not Core 2. However two L7*00 chips have appeared. PiP 11:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

L7200 and L7400, low voltage mobile chips
http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=884337,884339&familyID=2

Check it out, not enough detail known to add them to the list yet. :( PiP 11:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

L7400: found Product Number on http://www.intel.com/design/intarch/core2duo/spec.htm Donellani 9:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

L7xxx: found Voltage on http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31407803.pdf Donellani 9:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Cache size
Cache sizes should be in Mega bytes, not kilo bytes - Frank Phelan - Curtiss-Wright —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.152.169.99 (talk • contribs) 00:49, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

BigglesPiP They aren't in Kilobytes, they are in Kibibytes, which is the SI unit to a suitable level of notation.

Frank is right about the Cache size it should be in Mega Bytes not Kibibytes, look at the Product detail from Intel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.183.184.25 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember that is you change the units, please changes the values, too. Don't change 2048 MiB to 2048 GB. It should be 2 GB or 2GiB instead. Please go back over your edits and make sure you haven't put in ridiculously large cache sizes, which you seem to still be doing. -- Schapel 03:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for future products
I'm seeing a little warring going on over whether or not to include information on future or speculated future processors. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and things must be verifiable. On the other hand, there are an awful lot of things at Category:Future_products. I propose the following compromise: If something has been officially announced by Intel or an Intel representative, it warrants inclusion whether or not all its details are yet known. If it exists only as speculation or "anonymous rumors" from Taiwanese OEMs, it doesn't belong. --Dgies 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

BigglesPiP: How about a totally new section ("Desktop Processors", "Mobile Processors", and now; "Future Processors") for the unreleased chips, and an extra column in the table with a link to the source. Also, what about the T7600G? It exists in laptops that are being sold now, but intel have not announced it.


 * I would say we should have a consolidated page for listing the Future processors, like "List of Intel Future microprocessors" with the section being divided into desktop, server and mobile. Regarding what to put on there, it would be a lot of hear say and rumor but you should at least quote the source. Newer articles should also take preference over the older ones. Coldpower27 01:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mulitplier and Steppings
Very nice overview, still two things could be explained more in the article: Andreas Kaufmann 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What does Mulitplier column mean?
 * What does Steppings mean?
 * I added wiki links for the first occurrences of "Mult" and "Steppings" in the article. "Clock multiplier" is also mentioned and linked toward the end. --Vossanova o&lt; 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Merom XE is coming
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/03/12/intel_plans_extreme_update/

In the form of the X7800, I wonder if this is related to the the T7600G? PiP 13:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Allendale
What happened to this codename? Originally, it was going to be used for the half-cache version of Conroe (I can think of two pages that mention it), but the codename has disappeared from all recent roadmappery. I was thinking of splitting up the current Conroe section into Conroe and Allendale, but if there's a reason the Allendale codename is no longer used, then there would be no reason to split the section, so I'm asking here. What is the deal with Allendale's disappearance from roadmaps? jgp 20:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently, CPU-Z considers the half-cache version to be Allendale, as evidenced by, so I'm updating the list. Also see . jgp 00:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought E6300 and E6400 are NOT Allendale. Allendale is slated to be released on Q1 '07 with 2MB of cache natively. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_2 agrees with this and so does the source cited by the article http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=1.
 * I've put a couple posts in forums asking this. Everyonest just as confused as we are, but it is generally accepted that Core 2 Duos w/ half the cache of a Conroe proc (even if its just dusabled) is an Allendale. Toledo -> Manchester anyone?

And generally speaking, the People at CPU ID are pretty smart. I would go w/ what they say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.162.203 (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Will this chip be able to run on the Intel 915 chipset seeing that the FSB is only 800mhz?
 * I doubt it. FSB is not a problem as evidenced by the 975X chipset, but BIOS and VRM support is probably lacking.  See Intel Core 2. --Dgies 18:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone chnaged the table... now only E4300 is considered allendale. (which is wrong)--68.147.0.191 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone listen up, do not revert the E6300 and E6400 Allendale SKU understand? They now currently exist as it is now March 2007, and the Allendale stepping has been released, initially the E6300 and E6400 were both Conroe's with disabled LV2 cache, but now they also come in the native Allendale version which only has 2MB with nothing to disable. This is not something new, AMD did this with releasing the 4200+ and 4600+ in Toledo form and disabling the cache, while the Manchester core didn't come later with the introduction of the 3800+ and then it was retroactively applied to the 4200+ and 4600+, so Manchester and Toledo versions exist for those SKU's, just like how Allendale and Conroe versions exist for E6300 and E6400, which they can be identified with the L2 Stepping. L2 = Allendale, B2 = Conroe. Coldpower27 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But the E6300 and E6400 are not "Allendale" processors, they're "conroe" codenamed according to intel. http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q3/e6300-vs-sff/index.x?pg=1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.101.115.99 (talk • contribs).
 * That article is now out of date and there are BOTH Allendale AND Conroe E6300 and E6400, they can be identified with L2 or B2 Stepping.Coldpower27 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

E6300 and E6400 have been confirmed time and time again as allendales. I tried to edit but someone reversed it.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.97.203.58 (talk • contribs).


 * Unless somebody has evidence to indicate that either 1) the E6300 and E6400 were Allendales from the beginning or 2) the E6300 and E6400 are still only Conroes, please leave things as they are; there is nothing that says that Intel can't sell Conroes as E6300's and E6400's at time T and then sell Allendales as E6300's and E6400's at time T+delta T. Guy Harris 18:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Orginally E6300 and E6400 were only Conroe with disabled LV2, that has changed since January 2007, and they are both Allendale and Conroe NOW depending on which stepping it is. Coldpower27 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Coldpower27 is correct. There are both Allendale and Conroe versions of the E6300 and E6400. The original "B2" stepping was Conroe and the new "L2" stepping is Allendale. The main differences are in the voltage range, and that the Conroe E6300/6400 have half of the 4MB cache disabled, while the Allendale only has 2MB cache to begin with. Here is Intel's list of Core 2 Duo Exxxx processors. techreport.com is not "according to intel". --Vossanova o&lt; 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair that article was correct at the time of it's release, but it has since became outdated past the January 2007 point when Intel released the L2 Stepping Allendale core, so at the time, it WAS only Conroe, but NOW it is both Allendale and Conroe. I still don't understand why people find this point so HARD to grasp. Coldpower27 19:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a verifiable Intel-sourced reference for the "allendale" E6300 and E6400s, then? 145.229.156.40 11:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * processorfinder.intel.com. B2 = Conroe, L2 = Allendale. --Vossanova o&lt; 13:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Double Dual Core nonsense
Intel has Quad Core processors, anything in 1 socket with 4 processing engines is considered Quad Core, regardless of how it is implemented. Coldpower27 21:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Merom XE is released
Merom XE was released today as the Core 2 Extreme X6800. The Core 2 Extreme X6850 was also released today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.239.120 (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Official Release Date
The official release date is July 27. Stop changing the official release date, TheInquirer is not a reliable site, and if the official release date had really changed to the 14th, other sites would have reported on this by now. Dionyseus 23:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've found the Inquirer to be one of the most reliable news sources out there. jgp (T|C) 23:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it isn't. Also, if the release date really was changed to the 14th it would have been reported everywhere but no other site has reported it.  Dionyseus 00:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Inquirer is a perfectly legitimate source. Lying that it is unreliable in order to further some agenda doesn't wash here. jgp (T|C) 00:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What agenda? I'm planning on getting an E6300 on launch date.  If the 14th was the actual launch date, other sites would have reported it by now.  I wish it were true that it would launch on the 14th, but that simply isn't the official launch date.  Hold off on including that date until it is reported by other sites.  TheInquirer is a tech tabloid  Dionyseus 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like The Inquirer really isn't reliable: --Paul1337 02:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * July 14th is the day the NDA lifts on releasing performance figures and architecture details on Core 2, July 23rd will be the day where processor will be available for purchase, July 27th is going to be the day where Intel officially announce availability of Core 2. Hope I cleared some things up. Coldpower27 06:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060727comp.htm count as an official release notice of the Mobile processors on the Intel site? If so, the changes everybody seems to want to make to this page shouldn't be reverted.

Release date of E4500 (July 2007)
E4500s have been available for sale for quite a while now in Australia (and throughout parts of Asia I believe), even though the 'official' release date (which I suspect is specific to the U.S.) is not until July 22. It seems silly to me that a product that is widely available for sale in Australia, a major English speaking country, is kept off the English Wikipedia page for that product simply because the product is yet to be released in the United States. I suggest that products be added to this page as soon as they are widely available in most stores of ANY english speaking country. mmj 08:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. They should be added when Intel has them listed on their website.  While a press release will do, it would be best to wait until the processor appears at processorfinder.intel.com with full specs.  If there were an Australian Intel website with the processor listed, then I believe it could have been added with a footnote.  --Vossanova o&lt; 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on the Intel website in a number of places such as here: Intel Core 2 Duo processor. It's available for sale, people are reviewing it already, and it's listed on the Intel website. I think it should be on Wikipedia.  It seems the only reason WP is blocking it is because of an arbitrary launch date, which doesn't seem to be relevant given people are actually buying them. mmj 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rearranged the order
I have rearranged the order of the entries to make it more logical (Desktop or Mobile, then brand name, then codename, with number of cores with the process technology). Let me know what you think. Imperator3733 19:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This just make its so the lower headings have to be expanded longer to convey more information, the previous way was easier as Number cores and sector was conveyed in a Single line not to mention this setting was already tried before, and was changed to the current one in use.Coldpower27 21:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument is that with your format, if I want to see all the Core 2 Extremes, I have to look in two places. My format is set up by whether it is a desktop or mobile processor, and then by brand name.  Therefore, if I want to see all the C2Es, I look at the C2E section and I see ConroeXE and right below it KentsfieldXE.  They are sold under the same brand, so they should be grouped together.  I think that all the desktop chips should be under one heading, then the brand name, and then the cores.  We could go and have whether it is a dual or quad core next to the brand name (ex.  "Core 2 Duo (Dual core)", "Core 2 Extreme (Dual Core)", "Core 2 Extreme (Quad Core)").  With this set up, there would be two C2E sections, but that would be okay because they would be right next to each other.  Also, with your format, it isn't obvious that there are just desktop and mobile processors -- there are three level 1 headings and those start with either "Dual-Core" or "Quad-Core", not "Desktop" or "Mobile".  I feel that in lists of processors, they should be grouped by platform (desktop, mobile, server, etc.), then by brand name, then by codename.  The number of cores is a characteristic of the codename, so that is why I prefer my format.  Imperator3733 14:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean if you want to see all the Core 2 Extreme's on the desktop you want to look in one place, permissable, though I still believe we should keep the number of Cores in the main heading, we could simply switch around the title and go Mobile Dual-Core instead of Dual-Core Mobile, that way you see the desktop word first.Coldpower27 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

T5300
No mention on this article more information here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.148.130 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merom SFF
Merom Small Form Factor, as implemented into the MacBook Air should get some mention. However I'm not sure enough to do this myself. More details on the chip, see http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3201 Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The pair of chips used in the MacBook Air are very likely miniaturized versions of the 65nm Core 2 Duo LV L7500 and L7700 (anonymous 1/18/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.215.66 (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sort by release date or Model number
It makes more sense to sort by release date, as there are more aspects of the chip which go in a linear order that way, such as cache size, bus speed etc, than if sorting by the model number. The models numbers are not designed to be used in a numerical order, and in other wikipedia articles, chronoligical order is the norm. --Rebroad (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep the sort by model number. That is the first column in the tables, and thus the main point of reference.  If you want to see them sorted by date, simply click on the date column, as all the tables are sortable by any field. --Vossanova o&lt; 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Vossanova, thanks for the tip there. I'd not realised clicking on the columns was possible! Regarding the default sorting, would you be happier if the release date field were moved to be the left-most column? I'd have no problem with that. --Rebroad (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think the primary field should be the model number, not the date. Maybe if this article was about the history of Intel Core 2 CPUs, it could be.  The focus of this list is on all the types and models of Core 2; date is an afterthought. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vossanova. If someone is looking for a specific CPU, they would look for it by the model number, not the date that it was released (which they may not know).  This page is on the CPUs, not the release dates.  -- Imperator3733 (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Chip properties are not much more linear when organized by date than when organized by model number. CPU makers don't just constantly introduce better versions of their products; sometimes later products have lower clock speeds or less cache, to fill gaps.  Model number schemes generally handle these somewhat gracefully, but certainly not perfectly.  They at least limit discontinuities in clock speed, which is the primary figure of interest to most people (for better or worse).


 * There are three other factors to consider here. The first is that sorting by date currently doesn't do much good as the dates are not ISO format.  You get an alphabetical sort, which is not helpful.  The second is that any change here should be replicated in the other "list of X microprocessors" articles.  The third is that exact release dates can be hard to pin down (several Pentium 4s lack any release date information in that list), and that gets more problematic the farther back in time you go.  Just some thoughts on the issue. —  Aluvus  t/c 02:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point to note is that some webbrowsers cannot perform the table sort option mentioned above, and can only show the default order. Secondly, if someone were looking for a specific CPU, they would perform a word search on the article, so the order for finding the CPU is not important. Whereas once the CPU has been found, it is entirely possible and probably that the user who performed the search would want to easily see how old the CPU is, and by how many CPUs it has been superceeded etc. - this would be possible only if it sorted by date. The standard on wikipedia is usually to put things in some sort of order, either chronological or alphabetical. In this case, chronological is the more obvious solution since that provide more benefit to the reader (given that text searching is most likely to be used by anyone trying to find a particular CPU, especially considering there are so many sections the CPU could be in. If you really wanted to make an article such that people can find the CPU name they are looking for, they should be listed all in one table entirely. I don't recommend this either!). --Rebroad (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be sorted by model number because that way chips in the same market segment would be close together. If someone wanted to sort them by the release date, they can always click the sort button, but as mentioned above by Aluvus, the dates aren't in the right format for that to be done.  It would take a lot of work to convert the dates, and you would have to do it for all the pages.  I think it should just stay how it is.  -- Imperator3733 (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Added Wolfdale CPUs
So... i added them: (List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Wolfdale). Source

Some really needed help: Go to Core_2 and move them from future processors to and move them to Current processors.

Also you should go to List of future Intel Core 2 microprocessors and remove them from the article. Iulian28ti (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the E8200 and E8500 have been pushed back (reports suggest April 2008 release). Only the E8400 of the Wolfdale is currently available for puchase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.43.249 (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Intel the wolfdale doesn't seem to support virtualisation... The Yorkfield on the other hand does. http://compare.intel.com/pcc/showchart.aspx?mmID=33882,33869&familyID=1&culture=en-US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.34.181 (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/chart/core2duo.htm says that Wolfdale supports virtualisation. 217.140.96.21 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Max case temp column?
How about adding a column, just after TDP, showing max Case temp for each CPU (from intel specs)?

I realise it might seem overkill for an article like this, but i think it could be a valuable resource for systems builders, and for those trying to establish if they are running too hot?

just a thought, cheers. 87.194.223.183 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The E6540 does not support Intel's Trusted Execution Technology - why?

 * Note: The E6540 does not support Intel's Trusted Execution Technology.

That's weird that only one CPU in this whole section doesn't. Why? Can someone add a note as to why? Tempshill (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know the difference(s), if any, there are between the E7200's two versions - SLAVN & SLAPC; such as different manufacturing facility or other?
Unable to find any difference on Intel, Google, other than some believing (incorrectly that there is a C0 version. (Due to older versions of CPU-Z & Everest for example reading it as such. CPU-Z version 1.44.2 and up reads it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.79.63 (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Voltage
The voltages given on this page are not accurate to the letter. For my processor E6400 SL9T9, voltage given on Intel's page is 0.85V – 1.5V, the listed is 1.225 - 1.325 V. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidvector (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

T8300 with multiplier of 13
Here's a post that indicates there are T8300s with a multiplier of 13. Perhaps the OP there will post more info about the CPU and where he got it, if he changed the multi or if it was 13x stock. I know I know, it's just a screenshot, but it may be genuine. Someone look at the pixels! :p --Nofxjunkee (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

e2xxx?
What about the e2xxx core 2 duos. I believe they are Allendale processors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.129.174 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They aren't Core 2 Duos - they belong to the Pentium Dual-Core brand. --91.139.47.12 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Prices
Has per Wikipedia policies prices must be removed from the article. Read --SkyWalker (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless of course you accept the premise that showing prices for these (and other) products makes it possible to see trends over time (analogous to the example of "historical discussion of economic inflation"). The additional prohibition at WP:NOT against street prices does not apply, as the prices used in this list are (supposed to be) official prices from Intel.  So maybe yes, and maybe no. —  Aluvus  t/c 04:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If the prices are from Intel source it. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Core 2 Duo P7350
The C2D P7350 does not support Trusted Execution and has been noted as such in the header information below the list of the Penryn-3M Medium Voltage Pxxxx CPUs.

Geforcefly (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Q6x00 & Trusted Execution Technology
The article states that the Q6600 and the Q6700 support Intel's Trusted Execution Technology. However, on Intel's website, the opposite is stated. I also own a Q6600 myself (the G0 version), but I don't remember seeing TXT as Enabled in Everest. What is the truth? Do B3 Q6600's actually have TXT enabled? --91.139.47.12 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops... I forgot to log in before posting that comment. --NetRolller 3D  21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO we should edit according to what Intel says unless the source contradicting Intel is more reliable, but I doubt that is the case.
 * As a last resort we could check the processor's manual. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦  01:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It says on intel's site here that the Q6600 and Q6700 don't have TXT, so I'll remove the statement on the main page --ch424 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

List is incomplete (missing some Quad Core CPU)
Hi, i never edited Wikipedia, i'm a bit lost and don't have the time to look on how to do it correctly, but i just wanted to mention that the list of quad core is somehow incomplete, it's missing the Q9450 and Q9550, and the Q9300; more information on intel official website at http://www.intel.com/support/processors/core2quad/sb/CS-025351.htm. As for the release date of those processors, i really don't know (but they are recent since they are 45 nm CPU) and i don't know either where to find that kind of information.

Thanks. And long live to Wikipedia and Intel Core 2 processors. :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.145.172 (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, take a look at the future list of Intel CPUs article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Quad-Core_Desktop_processors. --Masud (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Gosh, sorry for this :S. I should have check better, i though that if the processor were listed on the link I gave, it was because it was already out, which is wrong. Guess we can remove this "post" now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.145.172 (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it not confirmed that the first batch of mobile C2Qs are going to be using Socket P and not the Socket P' that people referred to previously? 142.151.169.176 (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

What about the Core 2 Duo U9400? How does it fit into the list -- it's not mentioned. 84.191.251.161 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

T6400
It seems to be an underpowered Penryn-3M standard voltage with 2MB of cache and an 800MT/s FSB. The specific model operates at 2GHz. I need confirmed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superweapons (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

E4200
What happened to this processor? I remember Intel used to sell this one (200MHz FSB, Allendale-2MB, 1.6GHz) Tigerfishdaisy (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever -- forget about it; Turns out it didn't exist Tigerfishdaisy (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

vt technology
It would be nice to see which processors support vt (virtualization technology) instead of making statements that some processors support it (imho). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.7.187 (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

FCBGA is not a Socket
In my opinion, the relevant CPUs should be separated in Socket 956 and Socket 479 (and others, if there are such). E.G SP9300 is a 956 and P8400 is a 479. 77.2.128.180 (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Need for Simpler Comparisons
Not that I wish to give away that I have neither read the whole article, or am interested in most of the tecnical information it contains, *but* I think that it would be a good idea to have a general (and, hence, overly simplified) ranking of all the processor types according to raw computing power (in what would be expected from the "equivalent hertz value" of some pre-existing, relatively sensible processor standard - perhaps making use of FLOPS?) versus actual power comsumption (in WATTS).

Does this sound like a good idea to cut through the complexity (I imagine that it would also be useful for other articles).

ConcernedScientist (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page is highly confusing, but I fear that sorting by performance would not be helpful at all as there is no strict order to performance when you consider cache size and bus clock, both of which have a highly application specific impact on performance. There is no accepted benchmark that could be used here.

The other major problem I see is that the distinction of core 2 processors and the respective versions of xeon, pentium and celeron processors is rather arbitrary and those would need to be added for the complete picture as well.

195.212.29.179 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to agree. This method is already being used for the comparison of nVidia graphics cards (Here for instance). The best method for me would be Intel's own GFLOPS estimations.

79.103.218.80 (talk) 06:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Problematic speed of Front Side Bus
I can't believe my eyes. Please correct me if I'm wrong. There seems something to be seriously wrong with the speed of Front Side Bus of processors, on this page and all other pages that list processors of other generations! The numeric speed is right but it's in MT/s, while it should be MHz.

Example: Core 2 Duo E4300, listed on this page, its FSB is 800 MT/s BUT THAT'S WRONG it's should be 800 MHz MT/s is a totally different measurement, even according to Wikipedia. To confirm any specifications about processors on this page or others, type the processor name in the official Intel webpage: ark.intel.com

I hope someone can prove me wrong or let's all help each other to fix this major technical mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorsontrial (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the description on Front Side Bus that explains the difference between MT/s and Mhz. 1 Hz is strictly speaking 1 per second, so when Intel talks about a 1333 Mhz FSB, they argue that this is correct because it is 1333 words per second, but the base clock of that bus is still 333 Mhz. They like to use the higher number because it looks better in marketing. Using MT/s here at least makes it unabiguous. Arndbergmann (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but I'm still totally confused because for example (which applies to all models here):

E4300 on Wikipedia is 800 MT/s,    BUT...

E4300 on ark.intel.com is 800 MHz

One of them has to be wrong, and I believe it's not the official Intel website. Thanks for your input. Colorsontrial (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As explained above, Intel is basically stretching the definition of what "MHz" means (which is not to say that they are the only ones), in a way that is confusing in some contexts. For better or worse, Wikipedia has collectively elected to use "MT/s" instead, which is more precise but less common. —  Aluvus  t/c 00:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, friend, for your response, I have no problem with Wikipedia using MT/s. But if you look at my paragraph, they are both the same numerical values while using different measurements!! Are you telling me that 1 MT/s = 1 MHz. In other words, in the context of FSB, 800 MT/s = 800 MHz ?? I really tried to find an answer on the web but to no avail and it seems like they are treated here as equivalents. Either tell me the numerical values are wrong here or they are equivalents. That is all I want to know. Colorsontrial (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1 MHz, as used by the chip makers in this context, is equivalent to 1 MT/s. — Aluvus  t/c 01:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Aluvus. END OF DEBATE. Colorsontrial (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

T6500
This one is used in my dad's Sony Vaio. Runs @ 2.10GHz. Dual core. Has a windows experience index rating of 4.9 calcs per sec- probably a 45nm morem-3m me thinks. KittenKiller (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)KittenKiller

Merge request
We currently have two "Penryn-3M" (standard-voltage, 45 nm) sections, perhaps we should have that merged into one section? I dunno how to do it. --112.203.113.31 (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, being more consistent with how Merom-2M (T5000/T7000) is listed. On a more global discussion, I would question the sorting scheme by chip/voltage/formfactor. For example the T8100 comes in two different sockets and two different chips (Penryn/Penryn-3M), but with identical software behaviour, they are indistiguishable. To follow the current scheme religiously would mean we have to split up the section into separate Penryn and Penryn-3M lists, but leave T6000 and T8000 chips together in the same category. I guess that this confuses more people than the current split.

Similarly, the split between Celeron/Pentium/Core2/Xeon lists is questionable, because some of them are basically identical (Celeron 7xx -- Core 2 Solo SU3xxx, Xeon 33xx -- Core 2 Quad Q9xxx). Arndbergmann (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that comment did not inspire the misguided changes by Special:Contributions/203.115.71.21 merging sections of different chips under random names. I restored the previous state now (with the changes discussed above left intact). Reorganizations like that are probably more complicated. Arndbergmann (talk) 11:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Penryn-3M
Doing a comparison of the SU9000 and SU7000 series on intel's site, and there seem to be a number minor differences in feature set (Thermal Sensor 2, Intel Smart Cache). However, I'm not sure I trust the comparison, as the SU7000 page is not linked from the main list, and it could be a case of the same data being entered differently. Can anyone find a better spec page on the intel site for these two chips, for a more trusted comparison, before I make any edits? --TFk (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

P7550 - no VTx
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42014#specs Intel says, VTx is not supported —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.81.254 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Core 2 Duo T6570 has IDA (Intel Dynamic Acceleration)?
This pages says the T6570 has IDA, but its not mentioned on Intels product page. Is there a source for this? 87.127.117.246 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

E6500?
Exists, but I don't know the details —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToneEQ (talk • contribs) 18:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a Pentium Processor, not Core 2. It is supposed to be over here List_of_Intel_Pentium_Dual-Core_microprocessors. --70.76.83.163 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

FC-BGA478
Please confirm whether "FC-BGA478" is correct, or should it be Micro-FCBGA 479? Or "μBGA 479" as in the box at the top of the Intel Core 2 article? —DIV (138.194.11.244 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC))