Talk:Broadwell (microarchitecture)

ADX support

The Text says ADX is supported by Broadwell as does the ADX article. Nevertheless it is not listet in the "Architecture and classification" subsection "Extensions". As I don't know whats the truth I post it as a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.91.148 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Rumors

Rumours of dubious validity should not be included in a short article like this. Edited to remove section. Debate restoration of it here if you like. 96.49.68.33 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Why is the infobox not showing any of the details? Also, does the infobox provide a spot for associated chipset? I haven't seen it on any of the other processors. JonathonReinhart (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There are obviously some issues (or deliberate decisions for unknown reasons) causing some of the specified details not to be displayed. Please also have a look at this discussion from the Infobox CPU template's talk page. -- Dsimic (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Expected variants

When it is unclear what variants will finally appear, the presumed facts should be stated as clearly as possible, because otherwise it just gives room for more rumors:

• "Broadwell-U: 15 W (2+2) and 28 W (2+3) TDP classes"
  what does the "(2+2)" and "(2+3)" refer to? Cores? Threads? Cache sizes or levels? I have no idea --- who has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.130.39 (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The 2+X is Intel internal jargon, referring to core count and GPU spec, I'll clean it up a little.2601:1:8D80:7BE:C4CE:B024:989C:4C82 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Haswell-E?

Is Broadwell == Haswell-E? It seems to be so... 72.47.128.205 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope, they're different things. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Iris model sort order in table

In the table at Broadwell_(microarchitecture)#List_of_Broadwell_processors, the Iris models are below the less powerful models. Surely the more powerful models should be on top within each core iSomethingmeaningless category, which is how we always order the tables? If we sort by model number (eg "5557U"), the Iris models will also be placed "correctly" (IMO). Thue (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Actually, this list of processors should be ordered by the processor model numbers, and there would be very few reasons to order it by the capabilities of integrated GPUs. That's how pretty much all of our processor lists are arranged. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean we should sort by GPU, I meant that the missorted models were exactly those with Iris graphics. Thue (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, now I see. Anyway, we're set, if you agree. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, looks fine :). Thue (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Article dominated by marketing POV

This article is supposed to be about the microarchitecture code-named "Broadwell". But it contains a lot about products based on this architecture and very little about the microarchitecture itself. In form times, there were even schemes, cf. https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Intel_Core2_arch.svg User:ScotXW^t@lk 10:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You're pretty much right, but that's simply because it's what has been available for Broadwell so far. Hopefully more information will be available soon, so the article can be expanded; until then, it's also tagged with {{Update}}. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Desktop processors

Currently, both C- and R-class processors are listed as "desktop processors". While somewhat true, this fails to inform of the core difference between these ranges. The C-class are "regular" processors, bought separately from a motherboard, and can be used on any motherboard which supports the processor. The R-class, on the other hand, are in essence welded to one specific motherboard and are generally sold as part of a "complete computer".

I actually advocate removing the "desktop processors", "mobile processors" and "server processors" as main categories altogether and instead creating one category for each socket mentioned in the first part of the article, then creating subcategories where and as suitable. Perhaps "Tablet"/"Laptop"/"Desktop" for BGA, "Desktop" for LGA 1150 and "Server" for LGA 2011? - 94.245.53.221 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm... The slight trouble comes from the fact that the categorization between desktop, mobile and server processors is already used in other Intel microarchitecture articles, so it might be better to keep it here as well for broader consistency. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Broadwell-E Cores And Not Threads?

All the tables have "Cores (Threads)", except the Broadwell-E table. I would fix this inconsistency myself, but it looks like Template:Cpulist is the source of the inconsistency and I would probably break something bigger if I tried to change it. Can someone look into this? TheGeekHead (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2016 (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)

Future tense - tense now incorrect

I have tried to fix some of the now inappropriate future tense language, but with limited success. In certain places predictions need to be replaced with what actually happened. CecilWard (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Careful with dating

In the table on the top-right (today at this time): "2014, now 4 years ago". Don't date like this on Wikipedia, if nobody corrects it on time... For this reason I don't correct it now, just to point it out. It doesn't look good. 145.132.75.218 (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)