Talk:List of Intel Pentium processors

"Pentium microarchitectures" ???

I don't think something like a Pentium microarchitecture exists, so we shouldn't need a list of them ;-). The original Pentium (P5) had its own microarchitecture, everything after that had a microarchitecture that was shared with at least Celeron and Xeon processors. I started the list as an overview of all the previous models, and as a place to list the current Pentium models that are no longer called Pentium Dual-Core. The single processors have now been moved (incorrectly) to List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors, including the single-core models and the Nehalem based G6950 that is not at really related to the earlier ones with the Dual-Core name! Since this article is complementary to what is currently named Pentium (brand), I really think the two should be named appropriately. I can see two ways to improve the current situation:

1. Rename Pentium (brand) to Pentium, rename List of Intel Pentium microarchitectures back to List of Intel Pentium microprocessors or Overview of Intel Pentium microprocessors
2. Remove this page, and integrate its content into Pentium (brand), optionally renaming it to Pentium. Possibly start a new List of Intel Pentium microprocessors with all models from List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors that are not named Dual-Core and a dablink to Pentium.

Arndbergmann (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I never much liked the idea of Ravbr's moving this to a list of microarchitectures either. That said this article's content is very different from the other Intel microprocessor lists. For one, this seems to mostly be a list of core names by microarchitecture not processor models by core names so I can see why Ravbr did what he did.

I also never liked the later single core Pentiums in the Pentium Dual-core article either as the other microprocessor lists are based on branding (list of models by core names within a branding) and I do not think Intel branded any of the single core models as Pentium Dual-Core (as that does not make sense).

Your proposal to merge this in to the Pentium branding article is a good idea though I do believe we need a list of Pentium branded microprocessor models by core name (including moving those that are incorrectly in the Pentium Dual-Core article). This information in a different set of formats might also be very useful on the microarchitecture articles not unlike the list of core code names (with brandings) in Intel Core microarchitecture article (and if you can get stepping information for these as well, all the better too). Note: You might have to also rename the current Pentium article to Pentium (disambiguation) or something too.

Out of your two options I vote for the second one. That said I also believe the Pentium (brand) article needs work and should be relegated to just the Pentium brand and not about the family of Pentium brands (including Pentium Pro and Pentium Dual-Core, etc.). That article needs to be carved up to the appropriate branding articles and the list updated into a disambiguation article (which already exists but is named simply Pentium right now).

This how I see it:

1. Pentium should be the trademark/disambiguation article discussing the history of the trademark much of the content can come from the current Pentium (brand) article
2. Pentium (brand) should be the brand article analogous to Pentium Pro, Pentium Dual-Core, etc.
3. List of Intel Pentium microprocessors should be the list of processor models by core within the Pentium brand (not trademark which is used in several brands)

As a side note it seems Pentium Dual-Core is now discontinued and processors are again being issues under the Pentium brand (this affects Template:Intel processors)

Uzume (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Top-level categories for microarchitecture

Instead of grouping the chips by number of cores and target market, I'd vote for a layout similar to List of Intel Xeon microprocessors. I think this will be less confusing because the P5 and Core/Nehalem microarchitectures are extremely different. I'd also suggest doing the same for List of Intel Celeron microprocessors, but that is another story. Arndbergmann (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! I have no issues with such. I was more concerned with getting the articles organized right vs. the article content ordering. I also thought about reorganizing such. Thanks for Template:Cpulist/p5 Uzume (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No offence, but this is not make sense to merge quite different architectures, i suggests to move list of Core/Nahalem to "Pentium since Core microarch" or to create two separate articles: Pentium (Core based), Pentium (Nahalem based). Ravbr (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this any different from List of Intel Celeron microprocessors or List of Intel Xeon microprocessors (which both go back to P6)? Should we also have Celeron since Core and Xeon since Core lists? Why since Core--why use that line in the sand? This article is a list of processor models by core and microarchitecture that were released with the plain Pentium brand name (and not a derivative brand that also uses the Pentium trademark like Pentium Pro, etc.) One could argue the Pentium MMX processors should go elsewhere since it is a derivative brand but these were actually marketed as "Pentium" and then in small type "with MMX". Also, so far, there is no other place to put these (if you want to make the argument for moving such feel free). I agree the naming is sort of messed up but this is how Intel has done it and there is no good way to editorialize this to make it better (every method has its deficiencies; the current method aligns itself with how it is done in other related articles). Uzume (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, You're right, i propose to merge all articles which contain a lists of Pentium processors in a single article, as someone has already done Yesterday, but instead referers to other articles, insert the content of these articles, and eliminate those.
To Arndbergmann (talk) --> I think the layout, which makes sense in the List of Intel Xeon microprocessors, which contains only the server processors, there is no point in the List of Intel Pentium microprocessors or List of Intel Celeron microprocessors because this list includes desktop processors as well as mobile.
When you need a processor, the first thing to know is the type of processor: mobile or desktop. When you go to the store to buy a processor, decides to buy a Core-based for example, then you're wondering whether to buy a desktop or mobile. I think the opposite. First, you decide to buy a desktop processor, then then you think "Core or Nahalem".
I'm wathing this article and i think this layout is quite messy(no offence), I'd vote for the layout, the top-level category is a target market, the second category is a micro-architecture, the third category is the number of cores. As well the same for List of Intel Celeron microprocessors.
--Ravbr (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the microarchitecture or the target market should be the top level in the hierarchy, the main point of my change to the Celeron article was to make the microarchitecture a category by itself. If there is consensus about keeping desktop and mobile processors separate in there, please revert the second change I did there.

I understand your point about having the desktop/mobile category first, but there are also reasons for doing it the opposite way:

* The list is not primarily meant as a shopping help, so people might be interested in other kinds of information, such as the differences between CPUs of a certain microarchitecture. Since e.g. conroe and merom are the same chip in different packages, it makes sense to list them in one place.

* The categories are not clear-cut all the time. Some of the chips may be considered as 'embedded' market as opposed to mobile or desktop, and embedded can be defined is a number of ways, some chips are actually server CPUs (e.g. 445 and P1053).

FWIW, I think the 'embedded' category in this article is just wrong, it seems to refer to chips with an extended life time (what Intel sometime calls embedded), not actually a different kind of processor.

As I said, I'm ok with either way, but I think there is no obviously correct way to do it. Arndbergmann (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I too do not care too much about the top level organization. My issue was to move all the Pentium branded processors onto one page and my initial organization was just the simplest method to do that when merging from Pentium Dual-Core.

As for the "embedded" list here, I just had data on those separate and just wanted to get the data dumped into the article sooner than later (already way overdue); it can be massaged to make it better over time. I also still know some more data and such that can and should likely be in here but have not had the time to dump it in. Uzume (talk)

I see you already merged the embedded Pentiums but I am not sure how silly such a section actually was since these were actually repackaged differently (e.g., mobile cores with desktop PGA packaging, etc.) and also in light of documentation where Intel actually refers to these as embedded: Intel(R) Pentium(R) Processor for Embedded Applications Specification Update. Uzume (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Model numbers

What is the deal with the 1st-gen Pentium names, such as "Pentium 510\60"? It does not explain where the "510" comes from -- I've always seen them named 60, 66, etc. If it's something internal to Intel, it doesn't belong there (names should be publicly known). --Vossanova ^o< 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed them, as there's no explanation for them, they're not mentioned on any of the Intel docs listed, and I've never heard of this before. Alereon (talk) 06:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

They seem to refer to the iCOMP values, not to model numbers. This definitely was an obscurity back in its day, and the markup in the table was not helpful either. If someone wants to put them back in, I'd suggest adding a separate table column with a link to the iCOMP page. Arndbergmann (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No FMA3 in Haswell Pentiums

According to cpu-world.com (e.g., link, link), Haswell Pentiums do not support FMA3. I am going to update the article; if someone has better source, feel free to correct please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmpxchg8b (talk • contribs) 03:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated, forgot to sign above comment. Cmpxchg8b (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Are Gladden Pentiums server processors?

I've seen other Gladden processors under embedded rather than server, namely on the Celeron list page. --Azul120 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing Model number in the List

within the list I'm missing the E6500, which is installed inside a remarkable number of e-learning and kiosk terminals in Germany and South East Europe. Details can be found here: ark.intel.com / products/42805 / intel-pentium-processor-e6500. Not only I own such a CPU, I also have been part of some projects to ship brands of those terminals ("Skeye.Vision" alias "skeye vision touch", HW2222 a.s.o.).

I don't dare to add this CPU to the wiki page. Can somebody? --2A02:8108:8080:1F4B:839:AE83:ED65:BD82 (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it's already there; the ninth row in the table of Wolfdale-3M. Digital Brains (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Tremont template needs to be updated

Tremont-based Celeron and Pentium Silver CPUs have an L3 memory cache. Even though this is listed in the source code of the tables, the template doesn't support the l3 parameter. This needs to be fixed. I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technorj (talk • contribs) 16:41, April 9, 2021 (UTC)

@Technorj: I added "tremont" and "jasperlake" to the cpulist templates. I added L3 and took out SDP. BTW, did you have any thoughts regarding my post on your talk page? (you deleted it w/o reply so I'm assuming not) --Vossanova ^o< 20:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vossanova: I don't know how to use Wikipedia's messaging feature, hence my lack of contact with you. I started to edit that page to reduce the page length, and will continue that work in the following days.

BRD

@Evelyn Marie It being a list class article doesn't mean there aren't guidelines the article has to follow. The article in its current state is in need of help— prices need to be removed, all of the in-line external links need to be removed, many parts of the article are written unencyclopedically, etc. I ask you to please self-revert until those issues are addressed. :3 F4U (they/it) 15:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)