Talk:Centrino

Centrino have new logo. Why?--Bojan PLOJ (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Montevina will be named Centrino 2; I don't know if the Montevina section should be updated "Intel Montevina platform to be named Centrino 2" - Meemat (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

ɑŭÏRed Hat has a distribution that supports the Centrino platform?! That's news to me - can anyone confirm this? Anyway, I don't see that this would be distro specific. Supporting the Centrino platform sounds like a kernel problem - CPUs, motherboard chipsets and WLAN chipsets are all supported in the kernel...this doesn't sound right. Google "Red Hat Centrino" doesn't return squat that looks relevant, eitŐher. --AW

Concerning Platform Names- Montara is NOT the name of the original Centrino platform. Montara specifically refers to the 855GM chipset with integrated graphics (Odem is the 855PM supporting discrete graphics). Carmel is the code name of the 840 chipset, but it also refers to the original Centrino platform. What do you all think? K. Eng 01:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Tom's Hardware spinoff Mobility Guru appears to confirm this here. On an unrelated note, it seems somewhat odd to me that 3 of the 9 external links are Linux-centric, particularly since Linux is never mentioned in the text. Aluvus 06:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

On Apple using "Centrino"

In the advertising section, the article claims that MacBooks use the Centrino chipset and platform. As far as I know, this isn't entirely correct. In order to be "Centrino", Apple would have to use Intel's WiFi cards, which they do not. The MacBooks use the chipset and processor from the Centrino "line" but are not Centrino. Is this correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.67.64.10 (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Correct. MacBooks uses Atheros. [1] Hence it cannot be considered Centrino, since it requires the Intel part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.223.129 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That review

At the bottom of the page there's a link to a review. Unfortunately, it's in Polish. For removal?

Since this is an article in English, I thought it was convenient to remove it. So i did it.The link was http://pccentre.pl/Article13708.htm, in case someone that edits the Polish Wikipedia wants to add it. Missimack 16:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

goal

nothing here talks about what centrino is supposed to be for. what's its goal anyway ? Unixer 23:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

just a question

Why are all of these (with the exception of Carmel, I suppose) named after towns in the Napa and Sonoma Valleys? Novium 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Section for Napa Refresh?

Is it worthwhile to have an additional heading for the Merom-based Napa Refresh, or just fold it into the existing bit on Napa? — Aluvus ^t/c 04:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say just fold it into the existing Napa section, much like how Carmel's evolution was treated. jgp ^T_C 07:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Core Duo and Core 2 Duo

Is there any difference between the above two except for the obvious difference of "2" added to the latter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbunty (talk • contribs) 06:13, November 30, 2006

Yes, but not that is particularly relevant to this article. — Aluvus ^t/c 08:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement/POV

Anyone else think the Santa Rosa section reads like an Intel product flyer?

To me it seems an ad or an editorial or review. It strays far from encyclopedic style and does not cite reliable sources. It should either be rewritten in an appropriate style with sources cited, or it should be removed. -- Schapel 17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have edited this section simply to change the style however I have not changed the content or added any sources. Hopefully it is an improvement, I'm new to this so comments are appreciated. MikeLiles 01:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a little more insight but I think it needs formatting into paragraphs rather than being a list. this whole article is all a little untidy although I don't think it quite desrves the spam tag. if I have a quiet moment at the weekend I might tackle it AlasdairBailey 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what is possibly wrong with the list. It makes it very clear for people to see the upcoming features of the product. Making this into a paragraph would just complicate the process of finding the relevant features of the upcoming platform. F00kie 01:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Santa Rosa Platform deserves its own article in main page. Santa Rosa platform. User:Kushal_one --202.79.62.21 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I cannot decide whether it is POV or not. and I do not want to be banned for WP:COI. (I am an Intel fan, and am not employed by Intel, but still, beter safe than sorry). :P =P

Processor Architecture gone astray?

In the 'good ol days', the 'power' of a PC was measured by the CPU it used, in combination with the amount and speed of RAM, FSB and so on. We started with desktop PC's using the 8088 (some 8086) and followed with: 8286. 8386, 8486, Pentium (some 8586), PentiuomII, PentiumIII and finally Pentium IV. From here onwards we started using PentiumD's, but what is actually happening with the development of the CPU, rather than combining it with other components and standards to identify it now as a Centrino?

What is the actual architecture of the Centrino/AMD CPU's anyway. Why is the focus taken off the architecture and 'muddled' with a whole lot of confusing technological terms? Is this just another marketing ploy to extend the sdaleable 'life' of a CPU?

Cardecs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardecs (talk • contribs) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Centrino originally used Pentium M CPUs, later replaced by Core Duo and Core Solo (dual core PMs), and now Core 2 Duos. All of these, as well as basically every single other consumer processor, is x86 based. The point of the Centrino brand is to make it easier for the consumer. All Centrino notebooks must have and Intel processor (see above), an Intel chipset, and an Intel wireless chip. This ensures that everything works like it should, since there aren't a lot of different chips (which by the way is what AMD's Turion has) and also allows for low power consumption (since Intel can design each chip for low power use instead of relying on other companies to do that). Centrino as a whole is updated every year or so with (for the last few generations) minor refreshes 6-9 months after each major update.

Centrino is good for the consumer because any Centrino notebook has guaranteed wireless, as well as a good CPU. Intel gets more money since each notebook has three of their chips in them. Overall, Centrino really simplifies notebook purchases which is a big plus. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the marked share?

Anyone knows the market share for this processor/platform? The information seems to be missing from the article... -- Heptor _talk 16:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what the market share of the platform (Centrino is not a processor) is, but I would imagine that it is a very significant portion of the notebook market. Intel really doesn't have much competition from AMD in the notebook market (which is unfortunate). -- Imperator3733 (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Calpella

Some of the things in the Calpella section do not seem quite right.

1. Where does anything say that Nehalem will be called Core 3? I have not seen anything saying this.
2. No sources are listed for anything in this section.

The IP that added most of this section also added references to Core 3 to both Nehalem (microarchitecture) and submitted an AfC request for Core 3. Does anyone have any evidence that the name will be Core 3? If not, that should be removed. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The "party line" from Intel back when the Core naming convention started out was that the name would increment with each new microarchitecture. Nehalem will be the next new microarchitecture, and if they stay with the system they previously said they would use, it will be called Core 3. I have not seen anything recently, in official comments or in the press, to confirm they still intend to use that naming system. — Aluvus t/c 01:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove all the "Core 3" references for now, until something is actually announced? -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed all the "Core 3" references from that section. If/when Intel announces that they will be "Core 3" chips, someone can add it back in. That section also needs a lot of references. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Santa Rosa Graphics

I noticed that it states you need an Intel GMA 965 in order to qualify as a Centrino, however I have an Nvidia 8400M GS and my laptop is clearly labeled as a Centrino Duo. I do have the T5450 processor, and the ABG wireless that are listed though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.83.192 (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The graphics don't matter. The GMA series is Intel's IGP line and is included as part of the 'G' chipset lines. Centrino requires an Intel chipset, of which there are both 'G' (IGP) and 'P' (no IGP) versions. Both are fully Centrino compliant. Most likely you have a 'P' chipset. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CentrinoComponents.png

Image:CentrinoComponents.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CentrinoLogoV3-Duo.png

Image:CentrinoLogoV3-Duo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CentrinoLogoV3.png

Image:CentrinoLogoV3.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

is it just me or..

Isn t this a bit ambiguous (Quote)To qualify for a Centrino label, laptop vendors must use all three Intel qualified parts under each platform, otherwise using only the processor and chipset will carry the Pentium M, Pentium Dual-Core, Celeron, Intel Core or Intel Core 2 label instead.(quote) What 3 parts are being refereed to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.211.159 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, the three components to qualify for the full "Centrino" label are: an Intel motherboard, Intel wireless chipset, and an Intel processor. Usually notebooks have both an Intel motherboard and processor but not an Intel wireless card (e.g. an Atheros, Broadcom, etc wireless card), thus it doesn't qualify for the Centrino label. So, instead they have a Intel Core 2 Duo logo placed on the unit instead of a Intel Centrino logo. SimsHsia ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 18:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The requirement is a processor, wireless chipset, and motherboard chipset from Intel's "approved" list. The motherboard itself does not have to be (and seldom if ever is) made by Intel. — Aluvus t/c 19:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

iMacs with Montevina

would the user who added the paragraph concerning Montevina in iMac be so kind as to either explain where he's got the info from or be at least be so kind as to not add a paragraph again if he just read something on macrumors... Probably it's plausible, that the new iMac come with the new Penryns like on the montevinaplatform, but as long as there's no proof (can also be the Extreme 91xx... according to the specs given by apple) please avoid such acts in future - that's not what wikipedia was ment to be. For Hoaxes use macrumors or write a blog

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=476591&page=11 (Post#253, "Yeah, I added that to the Wikipedia entry a few minutes ago, but my source was this thread. ") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatmike182 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First sign your name properly and second forum and blogs are not reliable sources, so your references is invalid. Note: I didn't wrote the info. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I said it wrong, blogs are accepted in Wikipedia, but you have to prove the personal writing the blog is a recognized professional by the general public. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

microarchitecture

Does anyone know what microarchitecture each platform use, or they are the same as desktop microarchitecture. I mean there got to be some sort of architecture change to get minimal TDP & ULV. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The microarchitecures of the various processors sold under the Centrino platform are essentially the same as some of their desktop counterparts, other than the original Core that was never sold as a desktop part. The differences are (or should be, anyway) discussed on the pages for the various processors. — Aluvus t/c 00:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I think couple of months ago before Intel Atom came out, when there was signifance investment in the mobile computing, there was a great difference roughly 2~3 times less power than normal. I am trying to find that news report back for this paragraph that require citation, even though I didn't write it, but shouldn't Centrino include the microarchitecture in the introduction also.

This is the citation I was referring to:
Intel Core (microarchitecture)---paragraph 2

The architecture features lower power usage than before and is competitive with AMD in heat 
production.[citation needed] It has multiple cores and hardware virtualization support 
(marketed as Virtualization Technology), as well as Intel 64 (Intel's implementation of x86-
64) and SSSE3.

--Ramu50 (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

citation

article is no longer avaliable

[http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2007-02-14T100351Z_01_HEL005089_RTRIDST_0_NOKIA-INTEL-URGENT.XML&rpc=66&type=qcna]

--Ramu50 (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV/Advertising in Marketing Section

Appears someone at AMD Austin Texas (or someone hacking their proxy) has inserted inflamatory and non NPOV material in the Marketing section starting two years ago. The material about the Japan FTC is not supported by the actual case, as the JFTC talks about issues starting in 2002, a full year before Centrino even launched. In addition, the comment about designs going to 60 within a quarter, were not due to any reaction to the JFTC findings on Intel's part. This is clearly a Post Hoc fallacy. If you look at what was really happening in the market, the 60 design wins were directly due to AMD finally releasing a K8 version (K8L, marketed as Turion) that finally had the low power attributes for the K8 architecture to compete for the laptop business. Finally, there are several assertions made that need to be backed up by references.

Buffaloe (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New member

I want to make the relationship with this page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.252.183.60 (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Calpella

I am thinking should Calpella be separated from this article, because AMD Roadmap recently just released. I am totally confused which segement is Calpella aiming at?

Possiblity

• Laptop, netbook, notebook?
• HTPC (catching up to AMD DTX or competiting against AMD future HTPC platform)

OR aiming at the desktop which parody against netbook (marketing / conditioning campaign). By that I mean

• Nettop? and SFF mini-server (aka minicluster)

I ask, because they recently demo a HPC using Atom, so its possible they might use Calpella demo also. On top of that there is the UrbanMax concept, which confuses me more, is that competiting against previous AMD DTX form-factor or AMD future HTPC ? OR is it another conditioning or parody to offer Nettop?

Are they abandoning netbooks or expanding it bigger? ？？？＠＠？？？ (?WePC is??)

AMD Roadmap

Platform names

Mobile

• Yukon (Ultra-portable)
• Tigris (Mainstream)

Desktop

• Kodiak (Buisness)
• Pisces (CPU/GPU)
• Maui (HTPC)
• Dragon (Enthusiasts)

ref

I totally don't understand Dragon platform at all, because there is already FX platform named Spider, Leo, Leo Refresh.

Calpella seems to have no competitor since it is targeting netbook / nettop. AMD has announced they will not be targeting netbooks, they will be targeting more Linux-like notebook / Open Source laptops know as AMD Consensus. I said that, because the article mention Lenovo ThinkPad, which has a very large ThinkWiki site. Does AMD believe in community-orientated open source versus netbook campaign? ThinkWiki source & AMD Consensus ref, Xbit Labs

By the way is Calpella supporting WiMAX or XOHM also. --Ramu50 (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mcaslin and Moorestown

Shouldnt the other mobile internet device platforms be included: mcaslin before menlow, and moorestown after? 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Nicoli nicolivich (talk)

Removal of Centrino logos... why?

I have found it helpful on numerous occasions and I'm sure others have too. It was removed by Black Kite under a few non-free image use guidelines (minimal usage, etc.). I personally think it's perfectly acceptable to have them there. If they weren't moved and if there are no objections, I'd like to restore them.--Eddie (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• The non-free image policies aren't guidelines, they're policies. You can read them here. The images fail at least two criteria; WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8 (as well as WP:NFLISTS, which is a guideline). Black Kite 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Well, here I am again. While I see where you're coming from, I do believe that the ambiguity of the Centrino platform's specifics (pre-2010) (because of all the refreshes) is relieved by the presence of the logos. Since Centrino does not refer to a single definitive entity (like "Pentium 3" or "Intel 945 Chipset"), I would argue that the logos do indeed assist in the understanding of the article, providing a contextual basis for each sub-platform's origin. After all, this is Wikipedia. I am unable to easily find another source that clears up the different generations of logos. To provide an example, without knowledge of the specific Core 2 Duo CPU in a machine (like the one that I am repairing at the moment, a Lenovo 3000 C200), I can simply look at the Centrino logo and immediately determine that it belonged to the Napa platform, exposing many of its specs with a mere glance. Without the logos, one must dig through the specs, find the specific CPU & codename, WiFi adapter and northbridge to determine the same information. Only knowing that it has some form of Core 2 Duo CPU installed would allow confusion between Napa, Santa Rosa and maybe even Montevina. I don't know about you, but while reading the original article with the logos intact, the info 'clicked' immediately; something I don't think will happen as easily with the lack of imagery. From my perspective, the logos did not violate either of the two policies you cited. Additionally, I see it more as an article than as a list since it contains explanatory blocks of text rather than a matrix of specifications. I propose restoring the logos as they were or adding each logo to the corresponding sub-platform. Otherwise, per your take of the policies, you may as well remove the logos from all of the Intel and AMD CPU articles or create individual articles for each sub-platform since one or several logos seem to be acceptable in those circumstances. Do you grock me?--Eddie (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Calpella and discrete graphics

I'm a bit confused, is the use of Intel GMA integrated graphics really a requirement for Calpella certification? Are MXM and Calpella mutually exclusive? --NetRolller 3D 02:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Centrino. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pcworld.ca/news/column/71f851780a010408006ca32e2485d70f/pg1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301213605/http://www.hwinfo.com/Lists/cpu.htm to http://www.hwinfo.com/Lists/cpu.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://global.hkepc.com/3844
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712233416/http://www.hwinfo.com/Lists/chipset.htm to http://www.hwinfo.com/Lists/chipset.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pocketables.net/2008/08/intel-centrino.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)