Talk:List of Intel Core i5 processors

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Computing 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Should this page change to "List of future Intel Core i5 microprocessors"? It is because Intel Core i5 microprocessors haven't released.

Better not to. Then we'd have to change it back when they're released. You could mention it in the intro though (that none have been released). Kotiwalo (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information is currently duplicated between this page and parts of List of future Intel microprocessors. I suggest replacing all information to unreleased processors with pointers to that page. Arndbergmann (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The first Core i5 processors were released today. Core i5 is therefore a current processor. --Nat682 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Page should be used for only current Core i5 processors. Readers coming to this page are expecting to find processors that are available now, and not be bombarded with speculated releases. The future Core i5 processors are already listed under List of future Intel microprocessors, so making this change would also reduce redundancy. Paranoidmage (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of supported features includes VT-x and VT-d - both features link to the VT-x section of the page describing virtualization. Are these actually different features? Did the feature get renamed? Anybody know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jars99 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A little late, but they are indeed different technologies. The first is the actual virtualization, but the second is a technologie to share direct access to certain hardware between virtualized instances. LOTG (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VT-x is a processor feature. VT-d is a chipset feature, so any reference to VT-d information for cpus should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackus (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Arrandale CPUs should also list "Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency" (as per the Intel specs), because that specification is critical to better represent the graphics performance of the Arrandale CPUs. Lackofcheese (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that turbo values for i5-430UM, i5-520UM, i5-540UM aren't correct. According to Intel page ( http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=49023,47554,49159, ), 430UM should have 4/?, 520UM should have 5/? and 540UM should have 6/?. I haven't found turbo values for both-cores-active case. Does anybody know where Intel publishes that? Strohel (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The values can found here: http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/specupdate/322814.pdf. For the i5-430UM i have not found documents. My own reading on a i5-430UM show 2/4. --Mystery70 (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page currently says:

* Transistors: 382 million
* Die size: 81 mm²
* Transistors: 177 million

I don't know which number is right. 69.47.84.165 (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both are right, but they represent different transistors. See http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43546 the first is processing and the second is graphics and IMC. There seem to be a lot of inconsistencies between different architectures on this page. I'll see if I can make it more consistent later on. LOTG (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Turbo column is too obscure at the moment:

1. The stepping values alone don't state whether they indicate an increase by a multiple of 100 or 133 MHz. I don't even think it's possible to find the applicable values for a particular CPU within this article. The usage of multiplyer values is really low when it isn't known what it should be multiplied with.

2. In my oppinion, it would be much nicer for the reader if the resulting turbo frequency would be easier to see (for example as concrete frequencies instead of just stepping values).

Unfortunately, my knowledge of the matter isn't good enough to implement these changes myself. Makrom (talk) 06:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the new 22nm Intel IvyBridge has new logo and looks similar to Intel SandyBridge. The difference is in the Yellow part.
2. Why Core i3 and Core i7 List pages doesn't have any logo unlike Core i5 list page ??

File:Intel i5 SB 2011.png|SandyBridge

IvyBridge new logo can be seen here : http://www.intel.co.id/content/www/id/id/processors/core/core-i5-processor.html
It looks similar but it's different, isn't it? ^^ Silvershare (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table with all 4-core i5 processors has in the heading that they are 4-core processors. But still, there is a column in the table that has to state, for every processor separately, that they have 4 cores. What sense does this make? Could that column be removed to make way for something that is different among these processors? I was personally after a CPU with VT-d, and instead of having the models listed above the table, it could be used for this and the text above the table to say that they all have 4 cores. As if the header didn't already say that. -- Thinkcat

Since there seems to be no "standard" way of doing these tables, I will gather some courage and start editing them. I hope to make the information more readable and easier to access for everyone. And less redundant. Please, object here if you need to. -- Thinkcat

Found out about the template system. More specifically cpulist/bridge. Someone would need to edit that to remove the amounts of cores and maybe even remove the amount of L2 and L3 cache, because all these are constant within a table. Too much to do for me. -- Thinkcat

Is this "Mobile" as in laptops, smartphones and tablets or only laptops?14:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)94.159.159.248 (talk)

For this page, mobile is laptops and also mini PCs. :) 188.27.88.204 (talk) 12:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to propose adding the number of threads to the tables. Currently, HT is mentioned, but not in the table. Up until the 8th generation, the number of cores and threads was so constant that listing the threads in the tables was a bit redundant. But with the latest generation, the number of cores and threads is less straightforward. Especially for the core i5's a lot has changed, so that's why i propose it on this talk page. It coult either be a separate row, or we could expand the cores row to cores/threads. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at this table often when evaluating products and have found that it is very well organized and now is a good time to remove the template at the beginning that says "inconsistent column order in tables". The editors have done a great job .

I do have a minor issue with a wikilink used for MCP that points to MCM both are for multi-core devices one being package and the other module. In following the link it appears only Samsung uses the term MultiCore Packages for NAND and DRAM Memory modules not CPUs.

So I am proposiing that alll wiki links to the MCM page have the label changed from MCP to MCM in this article since this is what the link points to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Ballantine (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All models from Clarksdale on under "all feature ..." list hyperthreading, but it seems that Kabe Lake was the first to support hyperthreading. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At List of Intel Core i5 microprocessors#"Amber Lake-Y" (dual-core, 14 nm), why are there question marks appearing after the UHD Graphics 615 and 617 processors in the table? I don't see them entered into the template call. – numbermaniac 05:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, these GPUs are not listed in the template so it adds "(?)" in the end. I'll ask for help to add the GPUs. LThecross (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Intel Core processors § Table redesign. I am intending to redesign the tables to remove less relevant info like part numbers, as well as merge same cells, remove segmentation rows, etc. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So now that you've taken over the lists of Intel processors, could you please keep them up-to-date? The 14th Gen processors were released on October 17th, it is now November 15th and they have not yet been added to any of the Intel processor lists. - Extec286 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]