Talk:Pentium (original)

message: It looks like it's canceled.
[Here] And [Here]
It's Going To Be The Pentium E2000, Shouldn't This Be Updated? -- From derangedfirewire --- 20:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pentium E1000

message: The "numbers can't be trademarked" issue -- how does this compare to Peugeot who registered all 3-digit numbers of the form x0y as trademarks? Is the difference that Peugeot registered then in France? Should also mention why the trademark issue arose -- Intel's 486 line had been dogged by AMD and other clone manufacturers who made similar, cheaper (better?) CPUs, and sought to register "586" as a trademark to distinguish its product. This ties in with the appearance of the ubiquitous "intel inside" sticker. -- Tarquin
I can think of many other products that have numbers as legitimate trademarks: Boeing 747, Levi's 501, Heinz 57 Sauce. There must be more to this than just simply a rejection of numerals as a trademark. Mattnelsen 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boeing 747, Levi's 501 and Heinz 57 Sauce are all trademarkable. 747, 501 and 57 are not. I suspect the Peugeot trademarks are all "Peugeot x0y", not "x0y".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Pentium vs "586" name

message: ...as the title of this article? I'd rename it promptly save for any protests. --Wernher 03:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not "Intel Pentium"?

message: Seems like it's the 6th generation..
*1 - 8086
*2 - 80186
*3 - 80286
*4 - 80386
*5 - 80486
*6 - Pentium
70.231.144.169 08:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "5th generation" term comes from ignoring the 80186 - I don't remember whether IBM made any 80186/80188-based machines, but I don't think they did; I forget what clone makers were around at the time, but I think they went straight to the 80286 as well.  Guy Harris 08:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it seems the 186 wasn't exactly a radical change but just a replacement of some of the slower microcode with dedicated hardware.  Plugwash 15:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There weren't any 186-based pure PC clones due to the 186's on-board timers, DMA and interrupt controllers being mapped differently to those of the PC/XT architecture. However there were some 186 quasi-clones like the RM Nimbus and the Tandy 2000 running MS-DOS with a custom BIOS. Letdorf 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The 80186 and 80286 belong to the same (second) generation as they were contemporary, and very similar at the implementation level. That's why Pentium would be fifth generation. HenkeB (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm.... the 186 may have been contemporaneous with the 286 but IIRC, it was closer to the 8086 architecturally, as it lacked Protected Mode. Letdorf (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, architecturally, but not entirely regarding low level implementation techniques. Both the 80186 and the 80286 had dedicated address calculation hardware and a hardware multiplier, which made both of them significantly faster than the 8086 in many situations (even if the 80186 inherited a multiplexed bus and some other attributes from the 8086). HenkeB (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  8086, as its name don't have a 1, should be "Oth Generation", although "0th" is rarely used. 113.253.22.172 (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "0th" anything. There's the first and the second and so forth. 89.239.195.102 (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th generation? 

message: P55C 120-150 MHz has a range of dates rather than a single date of introduction.  What does this mean exactly? -- Smjg 15:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduced over a range of dates? 

message: The intro paragraph in the current version is
: The Pentium brand name initially referred only to the fifth-generation microarchitecture of microprocessors from Intel, called Intel P5 and described here, but later it covered also subsequent generations. So, the Pentium as Intel P5, considered here, was a successor to the 486 line, and was first shipped on March 22, 1993.
Is it just me or is this an abrupt and somewhat confusing first paragraph to someone looking to simply find out what "Pentium" means?
It strikes me that were it placed a bit later (and in context) it would be fine. Here it just seems badly written.
(Also, it doesn't even mention which specific "microarchitecture's" fifth generation is being discussed. That may seem obvious to us- but it shouldn't be taken for granted). Fourohfour 14:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworked the intro/overview and moved some stuff elsewhere. It's not perfect- IMHO there are still some bits that arguably belong in their own sections. However, I reckon it's better organised now. Let me know what you think, thanks. Fourohfour 15:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: With reference to these edits by Anon, I'd like to raise some points. If they seem longwinded, it's because I'm trying to explain my problems with the article. IMHO these are mainly issues of style and language, rather than factual disputes. Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points of dispute 

message: Why was the disambiguation line removed?
It was both useful and an absolutely standard Wikipedia way of differentiating two identically-named articles covering different subjects. Pentium specifically describes the P5 chips themselves, whereas the Pentium (brand) article covers the overall use of the brand. Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dab line

message: A problem with this article is that it mixes the two use of the word "Pentium"; the umbrella brand, and the original i586 "Pentium" line.
I strongly dispute that "Pentium branded CPUs" must only be taken to refer to the original line (or that the "Pentium II" CPUs don't use the Pentium brand).
Examples from a quick Google search on "Pentium brand":-
* "Fifteen years of the Pentium brand came to an end today". Clearly, "Pentium brand" isn't being used to refer to the original "P5" generation here.
* Pentium brand returns, but it's really a Core 2.
* Intel drops Pentium brand (in January 2006?!)
Specifically in the new version "...the Pentium brand refers to Intel's single core..." is (IMHO) vague. I'm not sure that a widely-used "brand" can refer to anything that specifically. It's arguable that the "Pentium II" chips include the Pentium branding. Would it not be clearer to say that the original i586 Pentiums were *named* simply 'Pentium'.
Since the potential for confusion has been shown to exist, I feel that my version was better because it made clearer that it specifically meant the "P5"/i586 line.
This shows the same problem:- "Although they shared the x86 instruction set with the P5 generation (sometimes also referred to as "Pentium"), their microarchitectures were radically different from the Pentium branded CPUs'." Fourohfour 21:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of expression "Pentium brand" to refer specifically to original i586s

message: Fourohfour, please, try to be constructive.  I do not have time for lengthy debates.  In short: style is less important than content in encyclopedias, the first sentence shall introduce the topic, articles should be as simple and short as possible (use facts and references, but avoid: repetitions, adjectives, empty phrases, subjective points, etc.), facts should be listed in order of importance, short descriptions should be included for convenience (to avoid over-referencing), but long descriptions should be referenced instead, everything should be strict and logical.  Do not believe everything you read, because people do mistakes, often are incompetent, because - lazy and/or lacking capacity to understand complex issues, etc., etc.
Most important, BE CONSTRUCTIVE and patient.
I make mistakes especially stylistic, but, please, do not dismiss my contribution because of it.  Please, do not use my stylistic errors as a pretext to deprive readers of vital info I provide in a as strict and logical manner as I can, which may be difficult to correct, because of its density.  You waist you time listing my errors in the discussion; just write silent notes in the text (<!—???-->), and I will make corrections.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 (talk • contribs).
This reply will be as long as I feel is necessary to answer your accusations. Important stuff is in bold if you're really in a hurry.
# I resent being accused of not being "constructive". Aiming to improve the legibility of the opening paragraph was constructive. Attempting to engage you in discussion was constructive. Please assume good faith. Although I disagree with many of your edits, I have always assumed that you did them for what you thought were good reasons. Please extend the same courtesy to me. 
# When you say that "style is less important than content in encyclopedias", I believe you misunderstand what writing style means here. Perhaps you associate "style" with superficiality. It simply refers to a way of writing; writing style here should be concerned with legibility, understandability, organisation (i.e. accessibility) and precision. Exactly the things you were concerned about.
# I did not try to remove your material- I tried to tidy it up. I explain my reasons for this via the summary; I wish you would too because it's a pain in the backside trying to figure out your reasons for changing text.
# I have never "dismissed your contribution"; if you still think this, you have blinkers on. My changes to your edits were mostly issues of wording and legibility. Only when I could not see the purpose of your further edits (and you did not explain them) did I revert them.
#I have never used your stylistic errors as an excuse to dismiss the factual content of your edits. (Unless it was so badly written that I couldn't understand what it meant).
#It is ironic that you admit that your writing style is not perfect, and yet you appear to be lecturing me on this *and* reverting my attempted improvements to your style. 
#Discussions should be conducted on the talk page, not via article comments. At most, comments should be used to note a persistent problem that may otherwise be overlooked. In such cases, they should be short, and refer the user to the talk page if necessary.
# Talking of comments, Why should I leave comments for you to tidy your own work up anyway? Spend more time writing it better in the first place if you think it's not good enough. You accuse me of "playing God" and being proprietorial, but what's the problem you have with me editing your comments for reasons of style/clarity?!
# What has the title of this section "Solution: Rename "Pentium (brand)" to "Pentium brands" got to do with the rest of it? 
Fourohfour 19:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution: Rename "Pentium (brand)" to "Pentium brands". 

message: Since the Pentium trademark was not consistently used for one category of CPUs, as the Xeon or Celeron were, it is impossible to classify it as a name of homogenous and exclusive group beyond the P5 fifth-generation of CPUs, so the only possibility to classify it consistently in its broad meaning seems to be as a trademark, what it actually is.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.253.112 (talk • contribs).
: If you are talking about the Pentium (brand) article, the name of the brand or trademark is Pentium, so it should be Pentium (brand) or Pentium (brands) or Pentium (trademark), or whatever. That's the way articles are titled on WP.
: With respect, are you aware of the precise meanings and usages of words such as "brand" and "trademark", and the nuances and differences between them? I'm not, and I see no sign that you are either. So conducting a discussion and/or editing the article as if we (or you) do is silly and misleading.
: I do not claim expertise in this area, but if it is a problem, perhaps we should ask others with more experience. Fourohfour 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename "Pentium (brand)" to "Pentium (trademark)". 

message: As with Pentium (brand), I'm refraining from editing this article at present. This isn't an endorsement of the current version- I just don't think that making changes before the problem is solved will be constructive. Going by past experience, any changes I make- for reasons of clarity and readability- will likely be rewritten by 141.157.253.112 ("Anon").
Please don't misread this as "giving in". I still feel strongly about the issue, and
after leaving this for a couple of days (to let things settle down), I'll look into more constructive ways of resolving this dispute. Fourohfour 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: I realize that process or feature size implies this, but it would be nice if the article stated the number of transistors that were on the chip. Pooua (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Transistors

message: It makes sense to me that we have one article for the family of processors, and one article for the original Pentium, but should the original Pentium be the primary subject of the article named Pentium? It strikes me that someone searching for Pentium is at least as likely to be after one of the other products (when I came here, I was most confused and it took me a while to realise why the article was referring to the Pentiums as only single core). Consider how many years the Pentium brand has been in use, and how most of that time it has referred to later models. Consider also that as time goes on, I think "Pentium" is going to most likely be identified with the range of processors as a whole, not just the original model.
Lots of trademarks refer to different products, but we don't go disambiguating them in article names with "(brand)". For example, the "Macintosh" brand has been used for a a series of computers and operating systems, but that doesn't mean we only cover the original Macintosh at Macintosh, and then have Macintosh (brand) for all the later products (or similarly for Mac OS). It would strike me as ludicrous to do things in that way. Instead, it's the original Mac which is disambiguated to Macintosh 128K.
Can we disambiguate the article for the original Pentium in some way, and so that Pentium can refer to the whole range of Pentium products? Mdwh (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article names of [[Pentium]] and [[Pentium (brand)]] 

message: Pentium now have some Conroe-Based dual core cpus. Well Core 2 Duo is powerful, but pentium dual-core series is served as a minor brand, but it's much cheaper but it's still pentium! so would you guys add pentium and it's dual core stuff?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stannhuang (talk • contribs) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article only covers the first-generation Pentium and Pentium MMX processors. There is a separate Pentium Dual-Core article. Letdorf (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentium have Dual-Core now! 

message: Are the clock speeds correct?  They seem incredibly slow.  Shouldn't they also be listed in GHz for those processors that run at that speed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Souch3 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the frequencies are entirely correct. This article is about the original Pentium and Pentium MMX microprocessors that were produced from 1993 to 1999. CPU clocks are a lot faster nowadays than they were then! Have a look at List of Intel microprocessors for a historical overview of Intel CPUs. Letdorf (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy 

message: The article has a significant amount of content about the Pentium OverDrive. There is an entire article dedicated to it at Pentium Overdrive. Just like Pentium II does not have anything about the Pentium II Xeon, which is covered at Xeon, this article should not have anything about the Pentium Overdrive. Comments? Rilak (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable, given the close relationship, to briefly mention the Overdrive in this article, with a  link to the Pentium Overdrive article. 13:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentium Overdrive 

message: Why do I still see brand new Pc's and laptops with Pentium? This article says they don't make Pentium no more... 83.108.225.137 (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Pentium (brand) - this article is about the original (P5, P54, P55) Pentium processor. Later "Pentium" branded processors are quite different. Letdorf (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should rename this article to "Pentium_(P5)" to make that much clearer. Intel has started naming their current processors simply "Pentium" again, after "Pentium D" and "Pentium Dual-Core", so having this one as the main Pentium article does not make any sense. Arndbergmann (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more? 

message: This would be a resonable name for this kind of article.
Other articles could be Pentium (dual core of 2009) for instance.
The current "microarchitecture title" is just silly; an absurd attempt to structure concepts that cannot be structured.
83.255.38.101 (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Pentium (P5), with the implicit assumption that "P5" includes P54, P55 etc? Actually I've just realised that the "(microarchitecture)" suffix in the current title implies there is another article entitled "Intel P5" and "(microarchitecture)" is required to disambiguate (per WP:PRECISION), which is not the case. Likewise for "Intel P6 (microarchitecture)". Letdorf (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, "Pentium (P5)" would be good, almost as natural as "Pentium (original)", as I see it. 83.255.42.127 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I have now changed the name to "Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture)" as a compromise acceptable to everyone, regardless of whether you want to keep the original name "Pentium" (like me), or emphasize that retroactive and non-official naming of the microarchitecture, "P5". HenkeB (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I have now changed the name to "Original Intel Pentium (P5 microarchitecture)". Please consider the logical nature of that naming before starting an edit-war ;) HenkeB (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentium (original of 1993) 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support Since I made the proposal I obviously support renaming but I thought I would add the proposed naming is more precise (what the article is really about) concise (the current name is long and confuses the topic with the Pentium brands) and consistent (is in line with other Intel microarchitectural articles) than the current naming and there is precedent for using the P5 name as Intel did use this name as even included it as the first part of most of microprocessor cores based on this microarchitecture. Uzume (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: A Pentium running at 50MHz never entered production; the Pentium 60 and 66 were the initial releases.  This is a PDF of the Pentium Performance Brief from June 1997, once all of the P5 Pentiums had been released.  http://www.datasheetarchive.com/indexer.php?file=DSA00372125.pdf&dir=Datasheet-021&keywords=intel+pentium+p5&database=user-highscore#.  There is no Pentium running at 50MHz.  Also, from personal knowledge and experience I am certain there was no Pentium 50.  One may also reference Scott Mueller's Upgrading and Repairing PC's line, which has an exclusive listing of all Pentiums, there being no Pentium 50 listed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I didn't add it to the table, but added a note about it and if you check the link I added, you can see that it actually did exist - even with a CPUID. But it probably never came out on the market and therefore you can of couse discuss if it should appear here. I don't know if there are other models like this that have been designed, but never "been sold" and therefore if they should be added - or this one removed. But regarding your heading that there is "No such beast as the P50", I don't agree :-) /PatrikN (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: ES should got to listings like List of Intel Pentium microprocessors but not into a model overview, implicating a production model (unless the notes are read). --Denniss (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you think that it shall be removed from this page/article? Well, I agree. A little research sent me to an Intel support page about Intel Engineering Sample Processors, where I learned that the "sSpec" (Qspec) code for engineering samples start with Q and production processors usually begin with S. A lookup at CPU World's list of Intel Pentium spec numbers, shows that there is about 150 engineering samples (CPU's with a Qspec code), just for the (original) Pentium series! So, shall we remove it from this list? It's OK for me. /PatrikN (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As you implied, we cannot be listing every single engineering sample.  It would be overly verbose, not aid in greater understanding of the architecture, and would be of very niche interest to those interested in the very fine details of the processor design period.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No such beast as the P50 

message: 5 volt pentiums had a bug where everything after the 4th decimal was incorrect. Intel had an expensive pentium replacement program, and caused customers to buy non-Intel CPUs. As competitors you fail to mention enhanced 486 cpus eg AMD 5x86-133, IBM Blue Lighting, Cyrix and TI chips. Also note limited P5 support chips and Standards transition from 486VLB with plug and play issues (cf Cobra chipset) to PCI system standards. [PCI considers ISA bus a subset but computers like ATT Globalist the VLB (ISA bus) is master of PCI in bios.]
Legal rulings in favor of Intel's competition that they were only cloning 486 which they were licensed for. Important to note Intel licensing (No P5) rather failure to license Pentium to second sources. TaylorLeem (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is info on P5 floating point bug. 

message: After the 5V Pentium floating point bug intel noted adding programmable microcode so bios can install patch code before boot. I know the microcode patching is on P6 bios, and bios interogation and processor specific (intel competitors) bios settings on P5x boards. WT vs WB cache for instance can scramble data if set incorrectly. TaylorLeem (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programmable Microcode 

message: i myself have 2 pcs with pentium that does not have mmx. they are 90 mhz and 100 mhz. they are early pentiums while mmx first arrived in the later ones. i tried to run dungeon keeper 2, which requires mmx and that said that they do not have it.84.212.107.130 (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  not all pentiums had mmx 

message: Please add RAM support info 99.167.109.7 (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAM 

message: The claim that the P5 was "the world's first superscalar microprocessor to be in mass production" has been tagged as dubious.
Unless the level at which production is, in this context, deemed to be "mass production" is such that none of the earlier superscalar processors were producted in that quantity, that claim is not just dubious, it's false.
Given that the i960CA was used as an embedded processor, perhaps what that claim means is "it was the first mass-market superscalar computer used in personal computers", but, in that case, what's what it should say. Guy Harris (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  P5 as "the world's first superscalar microprocessor to be in mass production"