Talk:List of Mac models grouped by CPU type

iMac/eMac G4s
There seems to be a little difficulty ascertaining the specific model of G4 processor used in the LCD iMac and eMac. Apple doesn't specify in either their developer publications. Not having hands on access I'm unable to run utilities which might divulge that information.

What utility would you run? I have a G4 15" SuperDrive (800MHz) iMac- david
 * I would think Apple System Profiler would do it... - Hephaestos 00:29, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

68040s
Some of the Macs listed in the 68040 category actually used the 68LC040 processor (no FPU). Unfortunately some models could have either one, depending on the configuration in which you bought it -- a given Centris 650 might have either one.


 * Yes, I'm sure my Performa 636CD came with an LC040 processor. As far as I'm aware, that was the only configuration, but I'm not certain enough to make the change myself. Dcrosby 03:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Performas
There are an awful lot of Performa models which probably ought to be listed.

Edit of the 68030 macs section
I edited the 68030 macs section a bit with the correct info, my sources are

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_lc/index.html

Click on the links from there on each sytem,

The info on everymac is quite accurate.

When i first edited this articl i changed the listed speed of the LC III, i know the speed is 25mhz also becuse i owned one.

The LCIII+ was just missing, it a boosted version of the LCIII with a faster processor and an fpu.

Twood1130 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Intel CoreDuo chip.jpg
Image:Intel CoreDuo chip.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PC compatibility cards
Ought we to mention these in the article as well? --92.17.45.229 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you make that table in Word? Did Microsoft ... added a Wikipedia output mode?


 * The source code, which defies all rational explanation:

Reorganization of the Intel chip section
I am not (yet) an expert at the intel architecture, but the overview table seems to be organized by process die size and has no entry for 32 mn process chips that follow on from Nehalem such as Westmere, Gulftown, Clarkdale or Arrandale. Am I missing something or can someone confirm this should be split differently? Bmike8 (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

M1 generation
Regarding the Apple Silicon chips: Should the M1 Pro and M1 Max be considered part of the same CPU generation as the original M1, and therefore be part of the same table? They appear to be using the same CPU IP based on the A14 as the M1 does, as noted by Anandtech, rather than being rebased on the A15. I think they are probably best thought of variants of the same overall generation, just as the PPC 7400, 7410, etc are shown together as variants of the overall PPC G4 generation further up the page (and likewise akin to the generations of the various 68k and x86 chips as well). Tomiĉo (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also consider them variants of the same generation since, as far as I know, they have the same microarchitecture but arranged differently (more cores, memory channels, whatever). --typhoon (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
This article has been proposed for deletion because: "No assertion for why CPU type is a notable characteristic per LISTN to highlight these; runs afoul of WP:DIRECTORY and is unsourced."

I object for the following reason(s):

There is a lot of interesting info here, seems to be a shame to lose it. Exact specifics are not actionable anyway. DGerman (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Although it is true that there is no assertion of a notable characteristic, I will edit the article to insert that assertion.
 * It does not run afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It has a unique and important context and is not merely a simple listing or index.  CPUs are the most important factor in the quality of the items listed and there typing is a key characteristic of the items.
 * It is not true that it is unsourced. There is an explicit section "Sources" with 5 sources in it, as well as 8 linked references.  —GoldRingChip 12:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Gold. In terms of being a notable characteristic, are there sources outside of directory-type listings/price guides or lists of Mac models where these are treated as notable things worth discussing? There's lots of "Intel processors" and "Apple silicon" talk in the aggregate, and the sources you added to the top again demonstrate the importance of talking about chips in Apple's computers, but that's outside the scope of literally listing every single chip.
 * Secondly, WP:V requires inline or site-specific reliable sourcing. Much of the content in the list is beyond stuff like Apple's specifications (which need to be specifically cited, not just "go check these sites" which is what the article currently does) and Everymac and MacTracker (which sources from Everymac) aren't really reliable sources for our purposes, anyhow—they're personal historical blogs that don't have any editorial policies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 15:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right, that there needs to be more (and better) in-line citations! I've added some to a reliable (enough) source.  I (or other editors, please!) could do more, but that's a start, I hope. —GoldRingChip 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the solution is simply to copy/paste the article onto an Apple-specific wiki (if they want it) and let Wikipedia delete whatever they want. I don't think it's worth editing this site anymore; all of the broad topics are generally well covered, and covering anything in depth is probably a waste of time since someone will come along and delete it eventually. --typhoon (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Fv Arifulislam2121 (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)