Template talk:Infobox CPU

What is "arch"?

Is "arch" supposed to be the instruction set architecture (e.g., x86, PowerPC, x86-64, etc.), or is it supposed to be the microarchitecture (e.g., NetBurst, Intel Core microarchitecture)? I'd vote for "instruction set architecture". Both appear to be used. Guy Harris 21:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally designed it as instruction set arch, but both could be used ie arch=[[x86]] ([[NetBurst]]) --TheJosh 00:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So should we use it for both, or should we add another tag for the microarchitecture? Guy Harris 07:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Only about 20 articles actually use this template (although it would be good to see more) At this point, nothing special is done on the field, except for autolinking (turning plain text into a link if it wont cause a red link). If you think a microarch should be put in, go right ahead, or say so and I will if you dont know how. --TheJosh 08:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added "microarch" and updated some pages. Guy Harris 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed link in "red link" above - G.A.S 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of cores

How about adding "Number of cores" or (i.e. |cores=4 to the template? +mt 22:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Added as numcores --TheJosh 12:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Unit parameters

I'm wondering, is there a good reason why the "slow-unit" and "fast-unit" parameters have to be separate from the actual values? Seems like overengineering; why not just use "slowest = 450 MHz" etc? -- intgr [talk] 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was originally so that the units would automatically become links. Not its just legacy (unless if someone wants to put Template:AutoLink back. TheJosh (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can also include Intel QuickPath Interconnect and AMD HyperTransport unit parameters too. - Fernvale (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I also want to point out that the fab size is fixed to use micrometers, which is a bit outdated since the CPU industry has been using nanometer scales for quite some time. I think these unit-specific fields need to be deprecated so that people can simply type in the unit that is most appropriate for the subject, without breaking existing usage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, since there are less than 100 articles using this template, I'm tempted to just break the current usage and fix them up manually. Seems like it would be less total effort if we do it now. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You've got my support there. The current parameters all appear fairly arbitrary to me. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Produced-start/end

Has anyone realized that those dates are usually not publicly available? What everyone has been filling in is the date when shops can start selling the products and when the company stopped general availability. These fields should be renamed to reflect the practice. Rilak (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Image size

I don't like the behaviour of resizing the image by default. Many images look terrible because of suck resizing. I'd suggest applying a default resizing ONLY for images bigger that the default size. Richard Wolf VI (talk) 02:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding QuickPath to the Infobox

AMD's HyperTransport is in the box... why isn't QPI? It's misleading on pages like Xeon, implying that FSB is the same as QPI. DEC42 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Generic Template Improvement consensus

there seems to be a problem with the way other editors sees the added info into the template a problem, tell me all of the problems you have with it first! before reverting. and i will gladly tell you my problems with the old template, I'm trying to improve wikipedia just as much as you guys, but I'm always having to fight to make things better, My edits include the addition for adding more information in a list manner in a single infobox, some will argue that the infobox will become to big, this is true however not ALL tags are in every template it really is not that big compared to most templates on wikipedia, an example would be the microsoft one the one with net worth and all that. help me improve wiki so i can help you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Anthony Smith (talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 September 2012‎ (UTC)

No, the problem is 1) that at least six other editors disagree with you that your changes are improvements and 2) that you seem to have some difficulties in communicating with other editors, making it quite hard to reach some sort of solution or consensus here. —Ruud 23:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

well to bad then you have to come up with a reason how it breaks the template, because that's the ONLY reason why the other editors reverted it is for breaking old information from showing in old generic template. all of those 6 editors say the samethign as you the about breaking content, I have FIXED them ALL. if you are seeing something that I am not tell me then and I will not have any problem at all to help solve it. Matthew Smith (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Random bypasser here. I've reverted to the old-stable version, and set up a Template:Infobox CPU/sandbox and Template:Infobox CPU/testcases. Please do NOT push changes live, until there is both certainty that nothing is broken (with confirmation from anyone who is familiar with the template's history and usage), and until there is WP:consensus that the changes are widely desired. This includes aspects such as parameter order, parameter quantity, box design, box accessibility, etc. Remember, there is no rush to get things right (it's endless, nothing is perfect), but clear problems have to be fixed ASAP, or simply reverted, so that readers don't suffer. Thanks! (Further comments at Matthew's talkpage). —Quiddity (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

why is Ruud so rude, he files countless complaints, accuses me of sock puppetry, of vandalism, its not right and now he has got me down for a block... why block someone who is helping! this is what hes accusing me of as WP:ANEW I'm not saying Ruud is a bad admin, but I am saying he does not take the time to look at the comments I make first, he assumes and just does and that is not professional. Matthew Smith (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This template is used on over 100 pages and due to your bold changes and the ensuing edit warring, some articles now require different versions of this template. This needs to be cleaned up first. Afterwards we can discuss the changes that should be made to this template, as there certainly is some room for improvement. However, this should be done in small, carefully considered increments as—again—over 100 articles are already using this template. On some occasions being bold is a good thing, but modifying a highly-used and complex template—especially if you are fairly inexperienced with template design—is not one of them. The rushed and uncollaborative approach you have been taking so far—simply proclaiming you are right and everyone else is wrong—is not the way to go forward. —Ruud 17:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

How about hyper threaded/number of threads?

Was looking at the Xeon article trying to figure out which of them had HT support. Having this in the info box would be helpful.

If Hyper Thread is too Intel specicific, something like "number of threads" or some other more generic version of the information could also work fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.99.106 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

CPU Infobox: gpu & gpu-memory

How about adding support for "gpudram" parameter to the CPU Infobox, please? It should go after the current "llcache" parameter, and it would make it possible to specify the amount of integrated GPU DRAM, what's one of the latest features of Intel Haswell microarchitecture.

While there, it would be also good to add support for the "gpu" parameter, as numerous CPUs are having an integrated GPU nowadays. That would allow GPU specs within info boxes, what should be quite neat and usable. Of course, "gpu" would fit the best after "llcache" and before "gpudram".

Please advise, and sorry if this isn't the right place for such questions / suggestions.

-- Dsimic (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've moved this here from Template talk:Infobox. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I wasn't sure where to post this anyway. :) -- Dsimic (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Already did this before seeing this (for Apple A7) and reverted since it didn't work.. See change and comment there: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_CPU&diff=573629231&oldid=547623399 comp.arch (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Added again (only gpu - for now) and it worked. Keeping it unless there are objections. comp.arch (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Comp.arch, you added the GPU field to bottom of the template, rather than after the Cache fields, as proposed. Having the GPU appear after the predecessor/sucessoror/variant fields is really awkward. I also notice that you didn't update the template documentation. Could you make these additional changes? I could lend a hand if you need help. —RP88 ^(talk) 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I moved the "gpu" field to immediately after the "llcache", as proposed and updated the docs accordingly. —RP88 ^(talk) 12:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking good to me! You're right Comp.arch, adding the number of GPU cores (or Execution Units) would be useful, it should probably be named "gpu-numcores" so we keep the naming scheme consistent. Also, "gpu-memory" (instead of previously proposed "gpudram") would be really useful, as it would be having "gpu-slowest" / "gpu-slow-unit" and "gpu-fastest" / "gpu-fast-unit". That way, we'd end up with the following series: "gpu", "gpu-numcores", "gpu-memory", "gpu-slowest", "gpu-fastest", "gpu-slow-unit", "gpu-fast-unit"... Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, it seems that many articles using this info box are alreay having values defined for the "gpu" parameter, Ivy Bridge (microarchitecture) for example. Those values existed as defined before the today's addition of "gpu" parameter itself. Any insights, please? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I'm not familiar with the internals of templates. -- Dsimic (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking at edit histories, It looks like there was a proposal to add a "gpu" parameter a year ago, so editors probably started adding "gnu" fields to CPU infoboxes in anticipation that the template would soon be updated. However, it looks like that earlier attempt got bogged down somehow and was never completed (maybe due to disagreement about what extra parameters to add or something to do with template layout changes?) Maybe we can take that failure to heart and be careful about too much extra complexity related to the GPU field. —RP88 ^(talk) 17:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing, all changes to info box templates should in general happen only when a consensus is reached. I'm sure there are even more people having a much broader insight into potential issues with the whole proposal, and we should just see how to bring their attention? The whole GPU addition thing sounds as something to be useful, but — as always — there's a lot of room for otherwise hidden issues down the road. Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Number of bits

There is no resolution if the CPU is 32 or 64bit, which is important today (32 or 64 bit ARM, only 32bit Intel Atom, both 32 and 64 bit Intel-compatible and so on). --Milan Kerslager (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC) At least, there is no mention about it in doc page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milan Keršláger (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clock (= label5?) and more not being displayed

I noticed in Sandy Bridge:

| clock = 1.60 GHz to 3.60 GHz

(GHz link) didn't show up. Nothing about clock in Template or talk page. I assume you all know. GPUs also have clock rate, maybe that is delaying adding this. That is recent addition however and I guess doesn't matter. Couldn't figure out label5.. Notice also similar to this:

| cores1 = 4–6 (8–12) (Extreme)

| cores2 = 2–8 (4–16) (Xeon) comp.arch (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Just to chip in some more baffling... :) I've also seen that in many places — many of the already defined parameters are just silently ignored and their values aren't displayed in CPU info boxes. I have no idea why. -- Dsimic (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In the particular case of "clock", the problem is that the template has no "clock" parameter. I read the template documentation and it looks the correct parameter are "slowest" and "fastest". I've fixed the Sandy Bridge article. —RP88 ^(talk) 01:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple "Extensions" labels

Currently this looks extremely ugly, with multiple "Extensions" labels. Why don't we just group them into one label, optionally putting some <br>'s in between them? Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Timothy G. ^{from CA} (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

REQUEST - please add 1 or more generic fields

Request for 1 or more generic fields to be added, at the bottom of the template, so we can add information that doesn't fall into your "bin names". This concept has been in "Template:Infobox settlement" for a very long time, search for "blank_name" and "blank_info". Thanks in advance! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"arch" vs. "instructions"

Back when I added the "microarch" parameter, my intent was that "arch" be the instruction set architecture implemented by the CPU and that "microarch" be the microarchitecture of the CPU.

A later set of edits appeared to be intended to "split arch and microarch with instructions and extensions without losing compatibility"; the template documentation was updated to reflect that. Many of that editor's changes were reverted, although the documentation wasn't reverted as well; I fixed the documentation up a bit.

So:

• Is it considered useful to have "arch" be a family of microarchitectures and "microarch" be the member of that family, as the second editor apparently intended? Note that such a change means some Magic Elves would have to go fix all the uses of {{infobox CPU}} template to use them in the new fashion and, presumably, to use "instructions" for the instruction set architecture(s).
• If not, is it considered useful to have the "instructions" parameter? Guy Harris (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Haswell (microarchitecture) uses both "instructions" and "extensions" to list instruction set features not present in the 80386 (i.e., everything - or, at least, everything big, the byte-swapping instructions, the compare-and-exchange instructions, the conditional move instructions, etc. presumably not being big enough to deserve Wikipedia pages and thus not big enough to deserve being listed :-)). It lists MMX under "instructions" and SSE etc. under "extensions". At least according to the MMX article, the "X" did stand for "eXtensions" in Intel marketing material, so the fact that MMX didn't officially have "extensions" in its name doesn't seem sufficient to render it not an "extension", and even if that weren't the case I'd call that a pretty feeble argument for listing it under "instructions". Guy Harris (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Manufacturing Process Nomenclature

Some pages, e.g,. Haswell (microarchitecture) and Skylake (microarchitecture) are misusing the "transistors" field to list the manufacturing process resolution, e.g., "Transistors: 14nm transistors". This is completely wrong, the 14nm is the smallest feature size; the actual transistors are serveral times larger.

What is a better terminology to use here? Does it need a new template item?