Talk:IA32 Architecture Family

From OSDev Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm seriously impressed, when I saw all the edits in the recent changes spot I assumed "spambot" or "n00b", but great information! --Troy Martin 15:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what you get when two different people are editing the same article - it won't merge multiple edits. Good work, still :) - Combuster 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It's called "Extreme Wiki Editing" :P JackScott 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to rename this article to "x86 Architecture Family" or something like that to avoid confusion as it also contains information about non-Intel CPUs. However, I don't know how this will affect the wiki start page template thingy.--Love4boobies 05:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Currently these tables list marketing names, but marketing names are very confusing because the same CPU with the same features (but possibly, different clock speeds and different cache sizes) are typically marketed under several different names (e.g. Celeron vs. Pentium 4 vs. Xeon); and sometimes entirely different CPUs use the same name (Xeon vs. Xeon vs. Xeon).

Also, there are at least 2 cases where a CPU changes companies. The first example is National Semiconductor's Geode, which was taken over by AMD. In this case "NS Geode GX" was followed by "AMD Geode GX1", which was followed by "AMD Geode GX2". Also note that the "AMD Geode LX" is actually an Athlon and has nothing to do with the "NS Geode GX" (except for the northbridge, etc). The second example is the "Centaur" series, which went from WinChip/IDT to VIA.

I'm thinking it might reduce the confusion if these tables listed microarchitectures (e.g. Netburst, and not Celeron/Pentium 4/Xeon), possibly including code names (e.g. "Netburst Willamette", then "Netburst Northwood", then "Netburst Prescott").

Just a thought....


AMD hyping...

Good information overall. I couldn't help but notice, though, that the AMD section is more "excited" about the subject than the Intel section, which isn't very good for the article - because the "success, on-par, cheaper" stuff takes away the space that should be used for technical information. I'm sorry but it looks like being written by a fanboy, and I wonder if someone with knowledge on technical details could boil it down a bit. I also noticed a reference to "past year" in the AMD section... which is a bit silly since it's probably several years old. ;-) Someone in a mind of fixing this? -- Solar 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite partial to AMD myself, but the tone is certainly different, I don't know what to do with it so I'll let someone else decide. --Brynet-inc 20:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thought about it some more, and decided to cut it down to the technical level myself. I doubt anybody will use this page as some kind of "buyer's guide". The discussion if an Athlon is / was better than a PIII or not is pretty pointless today. And even if you write about the Phenom vs. the i7, that information will go stale in a year or so. -- Solar 08:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I made some other tweaks, hope you don't mind. --Brynet-inc 00:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Not at all. It feels like we did the article a ton of good. Solar 08:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools