Talk:List of Intel processors

Hail the great 8085! :-)

The 8085 was the greatest, of course that's not NPOV :)!

Heh -- well, at least it was a better 8080 than the 8080 :-) --Wernher 21:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it can be said that the 8085 is the final evolution of 8-bit microprocessors. Too bad it didn't make it into the early home computers. Many were manufactured but ended up as mainframe I/O controllers and various early PC peripherals.

P4 -- a new generation? (G7?)

Wasn't the Pentium4 finally a leap into generation 7? ANyone care to put headings in, eg "486 generation" / "generation 4" / whatever the correct term is? -- Tarquin

Calling the Pentium 4 7th generation is a bit amusing considering it is inferior to the 'previous generation'. It was a redesigned core for the purposes of scaling high MHz, not speed. A Pentium III at 2.4GHz with 800MHz FSB would probably run rings around a P4EE. All creations for marketing, like how the Pentium Pro was sold under ~5 different names. Crusadeonilliteracy

List clutter fixed

The old list was pretty cluttered and hard to read (at least to me). I've formatted most of it as nested lists, which helps readability, but now we've got a pretty long page. Any ideas how to break this up? By year of production maybe? Or generations? -- Wapcaplet

Listbox proposal

How about something like this for the processors' individual articles? (486 example shown) Crusadeonilliteracy 14:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Preceded by: Intel 80386

Intel microprocessors

Succeeded by: Intel Pentium

As you might have seen, there is now a listbox with roughly all the Intel µPs on it; hopefully that's just as informative (maybe even more?) as the proposal you mention above. --Wernher 18:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

StrongARM/XScale here?

Should the StrongARM/XScale chips be listed here since Intel makes them now? Ckape 08:22, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would say no, since those processors are based on designs from other companies (ARM both?), only manufactured and possibly developed further by Intel. Perhaps they should be put in a list or listbox for ARM? --Wernher 18:55, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

StrongARM was originally designed by Digital Equipment Corporation, then acquired by Intel. XScale was designed totally by Intel. Dyl 20:08, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Why the aggressive cleanup?

The recent cleanup removed lots of useful information, and no reason was noted. My favorite quirky processor, the iAPX 432 went down the drain... Yaron 22:24, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

But that's simply outrageous. Doesn't people have any sense of tech history at all? I say we reenter the relevant 'cleaned up' information. Perhaps one should put it into a more legible form first (?), but reentered it must be. --Wernher 04:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. What's the purpose of an encyclopedia, if not to hold historical and perhaps some obscure information? If articles were to hold info only about the well-known, then why not just use Intel's website? Dyl 20:34, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I added info on the iAPX 432, 376, 860, and 960, then noticed this discussion. There was no good reason for the information to be removed, and I would even dispute the value of having it in a "non-mainstream" section. If you're going to have such a section, arguably even the 4004, 4040, and 8008 belong there, as they never were widely used other than in embedded systems. --Brouhaha 00:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Corrected 4004 clock speed again.

See my comment on this topic in the discussion section of the 4004.

--Colin Douglas Howell 00:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i860 (80860)

The i860 (80860) is currently listed as a 32-bit processor, but it was in fact Intel's first 64-bit microprocessor. I'd have fixed this myself but am not sure how best to do it. The processors are currently listed in order of introduction, and I didn't want to change that section heading to say "32-bit and 64-bit microprocessors". --Brouhaha 19:33, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I think the 860 was more of a 32/64-bit processor, given its 32-bit integer ALU(s); I guess Intel would want to market it as a 64-bit one due to the FPU and buses. Anyway, the 64-bit feature should be noted by the 860's ___location in the listing, as you suggest.

To address the article's chrono vs "class" ordering problem, I'm currently working on a combined scheme: the µPs will be ordered by "class", i.e. wordlength as well as "mainstreaminess" (the latter an issue with the 432, i960 and i860), but within each "class" there'll be release date notes (between the processor items) for those other-class processors released in the same time window. --Wernher 23:14, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See the following thread for the continuation of the chrono vs "class" ordering discussion. --Wernher 02:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chrono vs "class" ordering

So there; I've made the change to "class" ordering with chronological entries. Phew, some job, if I may say so. :-) Please go check whether I've introduced any typos/brainos (might just happen, you know). --Wernher 02:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intel386 EX release date

Title says it all... Anybody have definite info regarding that date? The earliest possible date I've got so far, after googling around for a bit, is August 1994 (from an Intel386 Embedded Processor Update) --Wernher 15:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have now also found refs to September 1994 in misc datasheets (i.e., date of initial datasheet publication -- rev 0), so I think the Aug '94 release date may be correct. I'll settle for that one until told otherwise. --Wernher 15:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does the Intel 8051/52 belong here?

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed the page about the Intel_8051 isn't connected to this collection of Intel microprocessors. Is that an intentional distinction between microprocessors and microcontrollers? Or an oversight?

An oversight, I think. Mirror Vax 02:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er, nope. That is, I, for one, in my work on this list, have consciously made a distinction between µPs and µCs---in line with the Intel µP list box. We might perhaps add a separate List of Intel microcontrollers, or maybe it would be better to put the µCs in a separate section in the present µP list. For the Motorola chips, we have a common list but two distinct templates, 1 and 2. --Wernher 01:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see the microcontrollers, too - 8031, 8748, and all the other little chips. For a while every Macintosh sold had an Intel chip in it...in the keyboard. Guess I'll have to take a rainy weekend and hit my old Intel manuals. --Wtshymanski 17:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

List split?

This page is now 31kb, and ~45 page-downs long on an 800x600 screen, if no-one objects, I think I shall split it into a few slightly overlapping lists(eg: list of intel x86 processors, list of non-x86 intel processors, chronological list of intel processors, etc.).

Does anyone have any ideas as to what good lists would be? --Boffy b

Completely off the top of my head (so please don't take it to conclusively), I'd say that one suitable split would be a 'techno-chronological' one, resulting in the following articles, for example:

• "List of Intel 8-bit and 16-bit processors"
• "List of Intel 32-bit non-Pentium processors"
• "List of Intel 32-bit Pentium processors" (split into the following two lists if necessary)
  • "List of Intel Pentium I, Pro, II, and III processors"
  • "List of Intel 32-bit Pentium 4 processors"
• "List of Intel 64-bit processors" (or "List of Intel 64-bit Pentium and Itanium processors")

The split of the 32-bit Pentium lists may be necessary due to size, and technically desirable anyway since the P4's microarchitecture is quite different from the PII/III's. I'm not sure if I like the (overly long?) article names, but it's just a thought... At least, these titles are reasonably intuitive (or?).

Of course, the x86/non-x86 dividing line that you propose is quite logical too, but some intra-"Pentium X" list splits like I have suggested above would also be needed if list size are to be significantly reduced. --Wernher 5 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

Inappropriateness

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have deleted the title of section one of this article, as it was wildly inappropriate. I am not sure of what it is meant to be, so I have temporarily assigned it a title noting the change. The original title was: KEVIN SUCKS BALLS A LOT AND HE LIKES IT A LOT HE ALSO EATS CRAP

I think you'll agree with my change.

NOTE: More cleanups now...

===Pentium ("ClassicDCRAP")===(ALSO CRAP)

has been changed to

Pentium

Section 7 has been removed. The full text was as follows:

well this is as follows

Oh my god!! THIS IS CRAP

Not needed, guys.

KEVIN SUCKS CRAP KEVIN GO SUCK CRAP

Removed from See Also section

80486DX's speeds were listed as crap speeds, now fixed. Also, gigaCRAPS changed to gigabytes. "Used in Desktop computing and crap servers" changed to "Used in Desktop computing and servers". "Level 1 crap cache on chip" changed to "Level 1 cache on chip".

Pentium, "Bus width 64 craps" changed to "Bus width 64 bits". "Number of transistors 3.1 million craps" changed to "Number of transistors 3.1 million".

Someone has a crap fetish, so says Bryan Jones

Thanks for trying to fix things here. However, there's still a lot that 64.30.49.146 has removed today that's not been added back, so I'm just going to revert things to the last good version. Jgp 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Pentium M in 64 bit section?

Why to put Pentium M (32 bit only) in Section 9: The 64-bit processors: IA64 and EM64T?

It's one of the "chronological entries"; I guess the idea is to show what other stuff was going on at the time. Guy Harris 08:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I also find this really confusing. I suggest moving it. Riki 13:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you mean removing it; there's already an entry for Pentium M in the 32-bit section - the entry in the 64-bit section indicates what time it came out relative to the times various 64-bit processors came out, and that entry points to the main entry. Guy Harris 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Which processor do you think was the turning point in Intel's line of processors?

Question

Intel has developed so many processors today and is the most successful company in this field.

Which processor do you think was the turning point in the life of Intel?

Susam Pal
Infosys Technolgies Ltd.
India