Talk:List of Intel processors

80186

It should be noted here that despite everyone saying it was only available as embedded systems, there were still lots of desktop systems (like the siemens pc-d I have in my cellar). it was available with a 80187 fpu and a revolutionary bus system that allowed up to 127 extension cards.. if your case was big enough... and then later I got some 14mb hard drive... ah, those were the times... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.176.232.207 (talk) 19:11, September 10, 2006

IXP?

Shouldn't the Intel IXP product line be listed?

Restructuring.

This article is very inactive, yet i find it useful. Over the next few weeks ill work my way down the ladder, starting with Arrow Lake and Panther Lake to fix this article and make it more neatly organized, additionally adding the missing Xeon architectures and Xeon WS SKU lists amongst other things, I plan to keep going like this until Nehalem, if I get further I might even do Core2. Govowo (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the list is edited just a few times a month but it garners about 1,600 views a day! RastaKins (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@RastaKins I meant inactive from an editors perspective batches of edits from the same 3 people every month or so and that's why I think it deserves care, this is a pretty important article and I'm working on fixing it one generation at a time, I'll add Xeon 6 tomorrow probably in-between core series 1 and 2 Govowo (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

there seems to be several ongoing efforts to wrangle this mess. I just discovered that Comparison of Intel processors seems to duplicate much of this page, and there have been several talks on splits as well as independent efforts to split off the Core series, which then of course will exclude the newest series, "Series 3" which only this page seems to capture (it is not present on Comparison of Intel processors). This all might need to be organized into some kinda formal project, but i'm not experienced that managing something like that. See Talk:List of Intel Core desktop processors#c-AP 499D25-20260206232500-D4n2016-20260206202700 for more talk about Splitting and other efforts.

Vorik111 (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Unmanageable duplication across Intel processor lists

The duplication of Intel processor data across Wikipedia has become excessive and is already producing demonstrably stale and incomplete information.

There is a general list of Intel processors, separate lists for Atom, Xeon, Itanium, Celeron, Pentium and Core, further lists for individual Pentium generations, separate desktop, mobile and embedded Core lists, and still more lists for Core 2, Core M, Core i3, i5, i7 and i9. On top of all that, the same processors are listed again in the articles dedicated to their respective microarchitectures and product families.

This is not merely untidy organization. It is an unmanageable maintenance model.

I created and remain the primary editor of the Panther Lake (microprocessor) article, and I am already finding Panther Lake tables elsewhere on Wikipedia that contain stale information or omit certain SKUs. The editors who follow and maintain the dedicated Panther Lake article are unlikely to notice every duplicated Panther Lake table scattered across several broad processor lists. The same problem will inevitably affect other families, particularly newer ones whose specifications and line-ups change while products are being announced and released.

At present, the same facts are being maintained independently in multiple places, often with different formatting, different columns, different sourcing standards and different levels of detail. There is no clear authoritative version, no reliable propagation of corrections, and no realistic reason to expect every copy to remain synchronized.

Who is supposed to maintain all of these parallel tables? In practice, apparently nobody. They accumulate because each list looks superficially useful in isolation, while the collective maintenance burden is ignored.

Each processor line-up should have a single authoritative table, maintained in the most relevant family or microarchitecture article, and that data should be reused—or summarized without reproducing the entire dataset—where broader navigation or comparison is genuinely useful. Templates may be one solution; another transclusion or data-centralization mechanism may be preferable. The implementation can be discussed, but preserving numerous independently edited copies of the same data should not be treated as an acceptable status quo.

As a first step, this article should stop expanding detailed legacy and current-family tables that are already maintained elsewhere. Skylake and similar sections are obvious candidates for removal or replacement with concise summaries and links to the relevant articles.

The current structure does not merely waste editorial effort. It actively causes Wikipedia to present contradictory, incomplete and outdated processor information. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Voicing support for this perspective, more or less.

I'm going to risk being a little offensive here. Why in the hell is this page and most of the other "list of" Intel pages made up of a thousand little tables instead of one unified table? You can't sort it by anything interesting, you just have to scroll (and scroll (and SCROLL)) and pray you see whatever it was you were looking for.

Desktop? Mobile? Server? High power? Low power? Embedded? P-core only? These should be fields in a column or three, not individual headings and subheadings with their own subordinate tables. It's a list article; it should be a list, singular, perhaps with a default sort of the family release date.

I don't have time or available neurospicy focus to deal with this myself, but I will voice support for anyone willing to unify all the data chunks that have agglomerated here.

Freshgroundcoffee (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Because the table would be way too large. having a set of smaller tables is more efficient than one unmanageable large table, you cant filter on Wikipedia tables yet, and the table would be unmanageably large horizontally as in every generation, intel adds or removes features and every single one would have to be listed, you cannot show the 8086 in the same table as the Arc G3. They have substantially different feature sets and information relevant to an 8086 would not be relevant for an Arc G3.

However I do agree with the comment up top, there are way too many lists already and this article would get exceedingly long, though I do often find myself using this article more than the dedicated articles, perhaps a compromise could be to list all relevant articles in the subsections instead of adding loads of tables on different list of x articles? This is how List of AMD processors functions.

So instead of having multiple tables for all Panther Lake models in the panther lake section, we simply link towards the panther lake article or specifically the subsections that actually feature the lists.

Yet more confusion gets added with the Tick–tock model article as it has that very concept shown on it, but is largely outdated.

Yet another option I could see would be that this article simply lists the different variants of each architecture in tables and links towards the relevant articles alongside some general information on highest end SKU configuration?

The differing table styles in each of the articles is definitely a burden however I could set out to fix the styling of those articles, however a standard would need to be set. Most newly created articles use one column per SKU while older use one row per SKU. This is too varied and a standardization is required. Govowo (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I've just created the article List of Intel processors (rework) within my sandbox, to show how I could imagine this article looking in the future. If anyone objects to this please let me know, I will begin restructuring to this format in September. Govowo (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)