Talk:Sandy Bridge

Merge Sandy Bridge-E/EP/EN

It doesn't look like that page is going to get significant updates. The Ivy Bridge-E/EP is only a section in the corresponding article. So perhaps Sandy Bridge-E should be merged here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please also have a look at the Separate code/model pages? thread above; different approach would be not to merge, but to create more such pages instead, covering regular Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Ivy Bridge-E. — Dsimic (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with the separate page approach in keeping consistency with previous architecture pages and infact proposed the idea as seen above. --Azul120 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Keeping consistency" is not really a reason to keep a page. The E series can easily fit nicely in this article in its own section. That page is just a table of products anyway - info that was quiet literally taken from List of Xeon and List of i7. With two sentences one talking about the packages and the other about the CPUID.

@Dsimic: branching off anymore doesn't make much sense; All these individual products (which differ by configurations only) do not have notability of their own and would fall under undue coverage. --CyberXRef^☎ 01:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that branching too deply many times makes little to no sense. However, let's discuss it further and let's also hear Azul120 – and then we can move forward together. In other words, merging is also a viable option to me, if we all agree on it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If we do that, then I propose we do the same for the Nehalem and Westmere subvariants (i. e. Bloomfield, Lynnfield, Clarkdale, etc.); delete the subpages and merge the content over to the respective main pages. --Azul120 (talk) 04:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, either all or nothing; inconsistency is the only thing worse than branching too deply. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So if we're going to do a merger, how do you propose we do that? I admit to being partial to those tables in each of those pages. --Azul120 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess we could, for example, move the whole content of Sandy Bridge-E article into new section Sandy Bridge § Sandy Bridge-E (with "Models and steppings" as its subsection, renamed from current Sandy Bridge-E § Overview) that would follow current Sandy Bridge § Performance section. At the same time, current section Sandy Bridge § Technology would be renamed into Sandy Bridge § Sandy Bridge, with current sections Sandy Bridge § Models and steppings and Sandy Bridge § Performance becoming its subsections.

In other words, we'd end up having something like this in the Sandy Bridge article:

+- Sandy Bridge

|    +- Models and steppings

|    +- Performance

+- Sandy Bridge-E

     +- Models and steppings

That way, none of the currently present content would be thrown away. Thoughts?

Sure. I guess we could also add similar tables for the core SB processors. OTOH, what do you think about the Nehalem/Westmere pages? Unify, or keep as is? --Azul120 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that Westmere should be absolutely kept as a separate article and not merged into Nehalem, as it's a die shrink and part of Intel's tick-tock approach. If we'd merge those two, than we could also easily merge many more articles what would make no sense. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not what I was referring to. Ticks and tocks are always key articles. I was referring to the separate code name subpages (i. e. Lynnfield, Bloomfield). They were what made me consider the subpages for the SB/IB code names in the first place. --Azul120 (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, now I see. I apologize, thank you for the clarification. Then yes, I'd say that articles such as Lynnfield, Bloomfield, Yorkfield or Wolfdale should also be merged into their "parent" articles. The main difference is earlier Intel used "standalone" names for various versions of its CPUs, while newer versions use suffixes making themselves less "notable". Another oncoming thing is Haswell's refresh, which should again have a "standalone" name for one of its types – "Devil's Creek", if I'm not wrong?

If we want consistency, it should be all or nothing, if you agree. Though, this is still debatable, as it's too easy to make conclusions by looking just at Sandy Bridge-E/EP/EN. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, let's merge the content. (Not sure if Devil's Canyon is the same type of codename.) --Azul120 (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Should be renamed to Sandy Bridge (microarchitecture)

All the other articles are name as (microarchitecture) articles, so this one should also probably be:

• Nehalem (microarchitecture)
• Westmere (microarchitecture)
• Sandy Bridge
• Ivy Bridge (microarchitecture)
• Haswell (microarchitecture)
• Broadwell (microarchitecture) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.212.100 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's no need for that, as "(microarchitecture)" is included in the article title only when there's a primary topic or a disambiguation page, which isn't the case for Sandy Bridge. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose NOT renaming article to match other Intel microarchitectures. I suspect that Sandy Bridge was a major shift at Intel based on the naming conventions.
See Tick Tock.
While the microarchitecture that preceded Sandy Bridge, Nehalem had 4 names, Sandy Bridge has basically 2 names.

• For Nehalem, there was: Westmere-{EX|EP}, Gulftown, Clarkdale, Arrandale.
• For Sandy Bridge, its: Sandy Bridge-{EP|E|M}, Sandy Bridge.

If that is a reasonable way of approaching this (and we'd need information that says Intel changed strategy at this time), it may inform other discussions on this page. TelecomNut ^(talk) 19:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's fine not to rename the article, but the thing is that we're pretty much deciding on that based on the article naming guidelines. There's no need to disambiguate using a qualifier in parentheses when there's actually nothing to be disambiguated. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Graphics model column wrong

Following this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_graphics_processing_units

The graphics model column is wrong. Pentium and Celerons always have "HD Graphics" and not "HD Graphics 2000" or 3000.

We can check this on Intel website, for example for the Pentium G860: https://ark.intel.com/es/products/53492/Intel-Pentium-Processor-G860-3M-Cache-3_00-GHz

There you can see, Graphics model: Intel® HD Graphics.

On the other hand, on the i3 2105: https://ark.intel.com/es/products/55448/Intel-Core-i3-2105-Processor-3M-Cache-3_10-GHz?q=2105

There you can see, Graphics model: Intel® HD Graphics 3000

So the table column should be fixed, it's misleading showing pentiums and celerons having way better graphics that they actually have....

So the entire table is wrong, and its wrong for every single architecture going back to Nehalem (not sure if more). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.102.1 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Haswell (CPU) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)