Talk:List of Intel Core processors

message: Should the Pentium M stuff from Intel processor confusion be moved into here?  That'd mean adding additional columns for the fab technology, power, presence of EIST, presence of EM64T support, presence of XD bit, hyperthreading support, and virtualization (or perhaps with all the various technologies given as a list of items).  If all the stuff from that page is moved into x86 processor list pages, that page could be removed. Guy Harris 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and it's been done. Guy Harris 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yo man u still alive? 37.236.158.115 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Intel processor confusion]] into this 

message: I would like to suggest to change the TDP column to reflect a range.
I measured the power consumption of some Intel CPUs and would like to suggest the following:
Min: Stop Grant Power at LFM
Max: TDP
(as given on page 80- of http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30922106.pdf)
Donellani 10:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yo man u still alive? 37.236.158.115 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  TDP Range 

message: So far, I have found the Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2130 @ 1.86 GHz with 1 MB cache. This is all I can tell so far. Note listed at Intel's site, but sitting in front of me nonetheless.
Axion22 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The T2130 is sold under the Pentium Dual Core brand, not Core.  It's already listed at List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors. — Aluvus t/c 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New CPUs to add 

message: Someone ruined the layout near the last table. Can someone fix it? I've tried, but failed ;)--147.230.14.231 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruined Layout 

message: I see a note saying: 
Note: Intel has also released a Celeron Dual-Core Mobile processors with the model numbers T1400 and T1500 
But I see on the official website that the numbers are correct but it's not T1400 but E1400 <-Celeron Dual Core  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorsontrial (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this note about similar codenames correct? 

message: When I look up part numbers with web search, I find that the 
SL8VN (C0)
SL9JN (D0) 	Socket M 	LF80539 GF0482M
Is also available in Socket 479.  Is there a way to determine the Socket by the part number? --Flyswatting (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockets 

message: This is probably due to the table redesign. The (mobile) "Coffee Lake-H" table is missing on the page. It is in the sources, so it is probably a syntax error or similar. In other words, the i7-9850H CPU is listed in the page source, but is not displayed on the actual page. Xerces8 (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of this problem, it should be resolved now after my recent edit to the page that published the new table layouts for 1st to 5th gen mobile processors, which got the post-expand include size of the page down to below the limit, thus making all the templates working again. The actual cause of the PEIS limit being exceeded was the merging of the Core i3, i5, i7, i9 tables all in their original form (i.e. before the reworks), into this article. The redesign significantly reduces the footprints, especially the PEIS, of the tables. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some tables are broken 

message: I have finally completed the merge of the List of Intel Core 2, i3, i5, i7, i9, M list articles into this article, per the proposal over at Talk:Intel Core § Merger proposal, a discussion which was opened in January 2023.
However, long since that point in time, in early 2024 Intel has introduced a new naming system for its processors called "Core 3", "Core 5", "Core Ultra 7", "Core Ultra 9", etc.
I feel like we should put the i3, i5, i7, i9 combined tables into a new page called "List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors" (as one other editor at the merge proposal was in favour of having them combined, with no objections), and then start a new page called "List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors" or similar, for all the processors under the new naming system to go under.
This page as well as the Core 2 and Core M pages would then be returned to being original lists as before.
I think such an arrangement of split-up articles would make sense for the following reasons:
* It would make finding a specific processor series easier (e.g. the Core 3/5/7), as they are in separate pages rather than all of them being in one page.
* It would make navigating through the separate list articles more comfortable and easier due to the shorter page size.
* We can make some of the section headings shorter (e.g. removing the "Core i" disambiguator) as they are now under specific "Core ____" articles rather than all of them being in one page under an ambiguous title.
To make things clear, the split proposal goes as follows:
* List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors (new page)
* List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors (new page)
* List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core 2 processors (convert back into separate list)
* List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core M processors (convert back into separate list)
— AP 499D25 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal 

message: Is there a specific reason why the Low-Power Efficient Cores on Meteor Lake are missing from the specs?  - Extec286 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, they are located in the "Common features" bulletpoint list, above the table. That list has all the details that typically apply to every CPU across the range (e.g. L1/L2 cache, socket, RAM support). — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  LP E-Cores on Meteor Lake