Talk:Lunar Lake

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Intel, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.IntelWikipedia:WikiProject IntelTemplate:WikiProject IntelIntel

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skymont disambiguation

Currently "Skymont" redirects to Cannon Lake (microprocessor), should there be a disambiguation page as the E-core architecture is also called "Skymont"? AurorusGreg6105 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_15#Skymont_(microarchitecture) Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

I'm really not a fan of prose being used for describing platform features:

It takes a ton of space
It requires very careful and mindful reading because the information therein is quite important
Various pieces of information are easy to miss or misread
It's not in line with all the existing articles

Perhaps it doesn't belong to CPU/GPU related articles. The same applies to the Meteor Lake article.Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RAM information

@Visite fortuitement prolongée

The information was there and it was perfectly readable. Now you moved it far to the right where no one can spot it. Specially mobile users. Good work. Good attention. I am thinking of ceasing my contributions to WP for ever. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hell don't do that. I really appreciate most of your edits in Wikipedia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think it should be a dedicated column rather than combined into the CPU model numbers column, but I'd say why not move it towards the left (e.g. next to clock speeds)? This info is of greater importance than the CPU cache or NPU TOPS that's for sure.

The table columns should be sorted in a higher importance to lower importance of data order, from left-to-right.

-------------------------------------

Now, this is a little unrelated to the above and is more of a general question, but here's some food for thought:

Imagine about 20 years in the future when CPUs become so complex that they have like 40 data points that are worth presenting in a table. What do we even do then, to present the info in a concise and highly accessible manner, while still making sure to include all important data? Hmm, do we split the entire table into two, where each table talks about a subset of features? I once considered that idea with the AM5 chipsets table. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The models of microprocessors will likelly not have 40 differents values between them, so we can put the commons in a list outside the table, such socket, RAM type or what i will do in a few minutes here. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 12th gen and later Core i processors tables are already pretty damn large due to the amount of different data contained in them such as E-cores, two different TDP ratings and TVB boost. And now lately they are adding NPUs to their latest processors as well as LP E-cores.

On the Meteor Lake mobile table, the LP E-core info is contained in the common features bulletpoint list, since it is nearly identical across all the models, but someone complained on the talk page that they couldn't find the LP E-core info, which probably indicates that the common features list isn't quite clear enough / getting as much attention as the table below it. Similar complaints were raised over at the Ryzen processors list talk page as well; if there's enough complaints about not being able to easily find these common info in the table then we might have to end up putting them inside the table anyway. I know there isn't a consensus in favour of it (as of yet), but still, just a consideration. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launch date

Was the launch date on September 3 as Intel announced (paper) launching it in a press event and some reliable news covered it, or September 24 when pre-orders were fulfilled and i.e. VideoCardz reported it to be launched? 84.250.15.152 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO launch date is when Intel considers it "launched" according to the ARK database (marketing status). While the launch date in there only mentions the quarter of the year, the word "launched" is already there when the paper launch happens - and probably the whole ARK database entry is added or made public on that day - not sure.

Less clear is when talking about the release date (rather than launch date), see Talk:List_of_Intel_CPU_microarchitectures#Release_date. Pizzahut2 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]