Talk:Whiskey Lake

Security Fixes

The AnandTech article at https://www.anandtech.com/show/13301/spectre-and-meltdown-in-hardware-intel-clarifies-whiskey-lake-and-amber-lake clarifies what Meltdown and Spectre security updates apply to the CPU. --58.96.42.36 (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Disputed

This article has over dozen inaccuracies. Why are people who do not understand the subject editing this article?

• Wrong: "fourth 14 nm process refinement"
• Wrong: "Whiskey Lake was leaked in late April 2018"
  • By April Brian Krzanich formally announced it
• Wrong: Extensions: AVX-512
• Wrong: Extensions: SHA
• Wrong: Successor: Cannon Lake (Process)
• Wrong: Successor: Ice Lake (Architecture)

etc...

In an article with just a single sentence. Pathetic. --64.121.146.209 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations - they were dealt with. Sometimes new WP articles are created by people who rush to add new shiny exclusive information but the said people are not always well versed in the topic which leads to a situation like this. Then editors come and fix the issues. Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Merge to Kaby Lake

According to [1], "Both Amber Lake and Whiskey Lake are Kaby Lake underneath, there are no microarchitecture or manufacturing changes here." Therefore, it should go in the Kaby Lake article. --Vossanova ^o< 13:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Historically each Intel CPU architecture has received its own article in WP and I'd prefer to keep it that way. Also, if we proceed and merge them, the Kaby Lake article will become a lot harder to read and navigate. I really don't see any advantages of lumping them together. Intel themselves don't call Whiskey Lake CPUs Kaby Lake Refresh Refresh (sic!). Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

After I noticed that the Whiskey Lake part # (80684) matches Coffee Lake (80684) rather than Kaby Lake (80677), I would now suggest Whiskey Lake be merged into Coffee Lake instead (while it still has its own page). Amber Lake on the other hand is 80677 so it's based on the original Kaby Lake. I'm under the impression that Whiskey Lake and Amber Lake are short term products with minor improvements, and we won't see much more of them, so I don't believe they will clutter the Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake pages if they're merged. --Vossanova ^o< 13:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Whiskey Lake is a direct descendant of the Kaby Lake Refresh arch, so merging this article with Coffee Lake makes even less sense. In short, your proposal has not been supported by anyone so far. Let's leave it as it is. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

What about Amber Lake? It's essentially a binned Kaby Lake (old 14+ tech, no hardware mitigations) so it could be part of the Kaby Lake article. — Pizzahut2 (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense (no changes wrt Kaby Lake aside from increased frequencies), especially considering that the Amber Lake article is yet to be created. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Hardware security vulnerabilities in Intel CPU architectures

This section is also discussed here and here. I definitely think we should create a new article and merge these sections. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the section is mostly useless as it is now here - Whiskey lake article is fairly narrow in focus and the security vulnerabilities affect more micro-architectures. I'd propose new article that can be possibly linked to from affected µ-arch pages. At the same time AMD and ARM CPUs IIRC was vulnerable to some of the exploits (Spectre?) too. Would be worth adding to maintain WP:NPOV. ThePointForward (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not only about x86. I guess something like Speculative execution vulnerabilities in CPUs would be great. I still don't understand how to list all the information because we need 1) Vulnerabilities 2) Affected architectures 3) Workarounds for each architecture if they exist 4) If a particular vulnerability is fixable in hardware at all (some spectre vulnerabilities are impossible to fix unless speculative execution is disabled altogether). Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

=> Transient_execution_CPU_vulnerabilities