Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/80486dx2-large.jpg

80486DX2




After a very unsuccessful search for a good (Free) shot of a microprocessor die for the CPU article, I decided to make one myself. After preparing the die, I gave it to a friend who took this photograph. The brightness and contrast are modified slightly for better detail, and I did some touchup in GIMP to remove a few specs of dust that made their way into the picture. I'm very pleased with the outcome and think it fits really nicely into the article where it is used. Thanks to User:Zocky for removing some strands of cotton that appeared around the image border.


 * Nominate and support (the first version). - uberpenguin 02:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The silicon die itself is a bit murky, so I selectively gamma-corrected that and sharpened it a little, see version 2. --Janke | Talk 09:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the colours in the first picture are definitely more correct (the die itself doesn't reflect a whole lot of light), but I'll leave it up to the voters as to which version they like. -- uberpenguin 13:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I like the first one...the color/contrast has that electronic circuitry feel. I'm not sure if it makes any sense. --vaeiou 21:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and cleaned up the original version a bit more, mostly improving the sharpness and contrast. I think this one looks very good, and the colours are much more real and less washed out looking than on the very high contrast version -- uberpenguin 21:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nice work. --vaeiou 23:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support first version. --vaeiou 14:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice picture.  The Hooded Man 21:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Good, now that version 1 is a bit sharpened. I'll support either version. --Janke | Talk 08:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be nice to accompany this image with an annotated version which indicated the various major subunits present on the die. I've seen these for many microprocessors (Byte magazine used to publish them) but can't immediately find one.  If someone can find a (non free) version, I can produce a free version based on this image. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I debated over this a bit personally... Similarly to the PDP-8/I image I'm using in the CPU article, you need to view the image at full resolution to actually be able to read any useful annotation.  Thumbnails of a high-res annotated images look poor and aren't as visually arresting to the reader, which is why I've opted to keep images in this form for the article.  That being said, I'm totally for annotating versions of these images and linking them from the article and the untouched image pages, so people can get more meaning out of the image than simply "oh, that's neat looking."  I'll dig around Intel's site a bit tomorrow to see if I can find some die layout diagrams.  Unfortunately those aren't typically the sorts of things that Intel likes to release and it can be difficult to accurately guess which portions of the die do what (other than the very obvious things like cache and general area of functional units, control units, data busses, etc)... -- uberpenguin 19:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support version 2 (I like the lighter version). Very nice image, not many of these kind of photos on Wikipedia. A valuable addition to the Intel 80486 article. Also, see 80486DX2_arch.png. --mdd4696 02:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to support either version. &#126; MDD4696 (talk &bull; contribs) 00:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Original version. Detailed and sharp enough for me. Agree that annotation could help but I don't think it should be in the picture itself. Diliff 22:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the second. Good work. It's a little easier to see the details in the second, which is lighter. Enochlau 15:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support the first as it more accurately depicts the subject matter. Enochlau 01:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ( + ) Support Version 2 - lighter is usually better. --Fir0002 21:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even over colour accuracy? Anyway, if the second version DOES get promoted it should be redone from the lossless source; you can see JPEG recompression artifacts in the area of the cache. -- uberpenguin 22:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh? The first is closer to the correct colour? Enochlau 22:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes; see my comments above. It's not that the second version is bad, but photolithographed dies don't actually reflect a whole lot of light, so the second one looks pretty washed out and grainy compared to what the die actually looks like up close, even under bright lighting. -- uberpenguin 23:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Support - ZeWrestler   Talk 15:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support first Oppose second. Accuracy above all other considerations. We are, after all, an encyclopedia. I have an opened up SX25 here and the color in the first is consistant with the appearence here. Plus, the second just looks washed out to me. --Gmaxwell 16:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support first. Sharpness is sufficient and color is superior. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support first. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 17:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (first version)