Template talk:Intel processor roadmap

CPU microarchitectural core vs. microprocessor/SoC die/package codenames
I added several CPU codenames and removed several die codenames, however, I believe more should probably be done such as in the P6 space (adding Pentium M vs. Banias/Dothan and Enhanced Pentium M vs. Yonah). I understand things get a bit sketchy that far back but at least for now and immediate future I believe the CPU microarchitectural cores should not be conflated with the microprocessor/SoC dies/packages. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Shift from SVG to Template:Graphical timeline or EasyTimeline
It's too cumbersome to edit the SVG every time the diagram is changed (I wish it was editable like text). So I'm considering using the aforementioned alternate mechanisms. EasyTimeline is not easy at all though, and I don't think it supports non-linear scales. Graphical Timeline is a template monster of dimensions too. I like the EasyTimeline syntax, but the semantics (almost every attribute is mandatory) and it looks bad. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest moving to mw:Extension:EasyTimeline but I agree the transition would be nontrivial (though it might prove more maintainable after such). Too bad we do not have something like mw:Extension:Inline SVG extension available. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

2013-08 border cell
Please add border cell (for color blind people). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Done! Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Vertical table format
the existing horizontal table (as drawn from the original SVG) is starting to become unwieldy as Intel adds more architectures. I propose a vertical format table, but this will require some more careful editing to add new architectures in the future. See my proposed vertical format at the template sandbox, which includes a more fully fleshed-out documentation. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello! The vertical layout you've proposed does look better, and I don't find the additional editing complexity as a potential downside.  The only thing preventing me from saying "yay!" is the amount of whitespace we'd have in the infobox that way, so I'd like to hear opinions from other editors, if you agree.  Thank you for preparing the proposal in the first place! &mdash; Dsimic (talk &#124; contribs) 18:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cascade Lake (microarchitecture)
Where does the Cascade Lake (microarchitecture) goes in the list here? Rjluna2 (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it should be added since it seems to be for servers. Atm the template is ordered by structure size instead of time. So if this is kept, Cascade Lake would go between Whiskey Lake and Cannon Lake. Chronological order might be less confusing though, in this case Cannon Lake would need to be moved between Coffee Lake and Whiskey Lake while making it clear that Cannon Lake is 10 nm.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The Cascade Lake (microarchitecture) still have 14 nm process, so it is still at the Skylake (microarchitecture) section. Rjluna2 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

SoC-(Lakefield)
column 4 thru 6 are not labled, do they need 2b --GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴 10:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkouklis(2) (talk • contribs)
 * Should this be on new row since it's system on chip vice just a cpu?

Redundant?
The difference between this template and Template:Intel processors seems to be minor, except that the latter covers even older architectures. So maybe Template:Intel processor roadmap should be removed or replaced with a redirect to Template:Intel processors? Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Template:Intel processor roadmap and Template:Intel processors are a little different. In my opinion, Template:Intel processor roadmap should be keep. In my opinion, Template:Intel processor roadmap should be displayed in at least List of Intel CPU microarchitectures and Tick–tock model. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup tag
The cleanup tag on this template is causing all the articles that use it to be marked for cleanup. Is there a better way to do this? RJFJR (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, added noinclude tags.Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Add cascade lake
It is optimization of sky lake. Article exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1405:700:5981:987C:100B:B1A8 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

2022-02 removal of some Intel processor families
I do not want to overload the template, so i ask and everybody: Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Can & should the processor families which are only for laptop (such Amber Lake, Whiskey Lake, Cannon Lake) be displayed in the table?
 * Can & should the processor families which are only for server or workstation (such Cascade Lake, Cooper Lake, Sapphire Rapids) be displayed in the table?


 * To be honest it's the first time I see this template. Where is it used? I'm not against laptop and server architectures but to be honest I'd only leave basic architectures and forget about iterations, e.g. SkyLake has a ton of descendants which are still SkyLake (Kaby, Coffer, Comet, Whisky, etc.) with minor improvements. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * « Where is it used » ==> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Intel_processor_roadmap&hidelinks=1&hideredirs=1 Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Other processor families that are currently mentionned in Template:Intel processor roadmap and that are laptop only: Banias, Dothan, Yonah. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding server families could be done by adding lines, or like this

or by a dedicaced column like this

Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Compatibility with dark mode of Vector 2022
I've attempted to add this here, though the problem is that the spacer columns and comment area use the same background colour as normal table cells. The better option is to keep the original design of the table (intended for light mode), and use the Dark mode toggle gadget in the preferences, which works better than the dark mode of Vector 2022. Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading the Diff article about Wikipedia's dark mode, it turns out that the gadget Dark mode toggle has the disadvantage that colours aren't accurate in dark mode. Pizzahut2 (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Intel 10nm and Intel 7
AFAIK, while Intel 7 is a refined version of Intel 10nm, the transistor density and measurements have not changed. Intel used the name Intel 7 because their 10nm process always was comparable to their competitors 7nm processes, which lead to confusion. So when I put 10nm in quotation marks, I meant that the actual (physical) feature size of the transistors on Intel 10nm matches that of Intel 7 and is comparable to the competitors 7nm processes as well. Due to this I added ~7nm, as in "comparable with 7nm". Pizzahut2 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)