Talk:P6 (microarchitecture)

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

When does a microarchitecture stop being P6?[edit]

Merom/NGMA are not P6 architectures. Why is this in the article?

Perhaps because the person who put it there thought of the NGMA as being enough like the P6 architecture that it belonged here. I'm not sure what you can do to the P6 microarchitecture before you have something deserving of being called a new microarchitecture - does the PPro -> PII transition count? PII -> PIII? Is the Pentium M just a P6, or should it be considered to have a different microarchitecture? Guy Harris 23:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've yanked the Merom/NGMA discussion out; if somebody wants to give information about NGMA, they should do so on the NGMA page. Guy Harris 23:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Pentium M microarchitecture is just a flavor of the P6 microarchitecture, but is the Intel Core microarchitecture just a flavor of P6? How much does Intel have to do in order to get something that counts as a new microarchitecture? Guy Harris 03:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intel tends to define their microarchitectures by the number of stages in their execution pipeline. For instance, all Netburst machines have a 20 stage execution pipeline, regardless of front-end configuration, cache, etc. More importantly, and this really only applies to the processes inside Intel, the microarchitecture changes when a design team creates a new machine more or less from scratch. Pentium III and M and all of the other P6 variants are still P6 because the design team started with a P6 back-end when making those machines. With all of that said, it really boils down to marketing. -Fritz 21:48, 15 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.238.198 (talk)

Removed: Intel Core 2, Intel Pentium Dual Core, Intel Core i7[edit]

I removed the Intel Core 2, Intel Pentium Dual Core, and Intel Core i7, as Intel considers them to use separate microarchitectures from P6. Yes, they are P6 compatible, but so are the NetBurst processors. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree Core Architecture processors don't belong here, however the earlier Pentium Dual-Core chips were Yonah-based, so I've added those ones back. Letdorf (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Intel Core (Yonah)[edit]

Isn't the line "Intel Core processors use a descendant of the P6 microarchitecture called the Core microarchitecture" just wrong? The Core microarchitecture is only used by the Core2 processors. See also the figure in Intel_NetBurst 131.188.30.204 (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Gelsinger's 2006 talk is pretty hilarious in parts. He puts down integrated memory controllers, point-to-point interconnect etc. All things they ended up doing with the Nehalem. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Section about Core is Unnecessary[edit]

It is unimportant for an article specifically about P6. I doubt most readers would are looking for information specifically about Core when it has its own article. It would be best to simply delete it or move it to the Core article. NoahSPARC (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]