Talk:Notable CPU architectures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] PowerPC 440, or PowerPC Book E?

Most of the items discussed here are instruction set architectures, but the PowerPC 440 is a processor chip. Should it refer to PowerPC Book E instead? Guy Harris 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geode isn't an instruction set architecture

Speaking of instruction set architectures, the Geode processors are x86 processors; they don't have an instruction set of their own. If this page is about instruction set architectures, the Geode shouldn't have an item of its own. Guy Harris 21:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Modify the text however you see fit. I created this ugly duckling article mostly so I could get rid of some of the irrelevant content on the old CPU article. This article wouldn't be harmed at all by a complete rewrite. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-11 03:51Z
Even though I like AMD Geode, I also think it's not an architecture and should be removed from here. Mykhal (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
done, gone. Mykhal (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AMD64/EM64T: Microcomputer or Server architectures?

Since both Intel and AMD's technologies are achieving and increasingly usage on gaming, home computing and the SOHO environment, shouldn't it be moved away from this section? Althought 64-bit computing may not be widely used by average users, I strongly doubt it's for server-only chips. Rudá 15:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The section probably shouldn't even exist since a microprocessor architecture isn't really bound to one class of microcomputer by anything but cost considerations. Change it how you see fit. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-06-05 16:13Z

[edit] Article

I was about to copy-edit the article, but I realised I can't, because it is incomprehensible. Please re-write it for people who do not think in its language. Rintrah 08:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's rather difficult since this article is the result of me getting rid of a horrible laundry list from CPU before it was re-written. What's more, the subject matter here is mildly technical in nature and would be difficult to make readily accessible to the lay man. However, if you want to take a stab at it, by all means. I don't think it's appropriate to expect the watchers of this ugly duckling article to re-write it just because it's a laundry list about a technical subject. -- mattb @ 2006-10-11T17:45Z
I just realized that your comment was probably in response to the copy-edit tag slapped on this article. I have no idea who put it there, but I'm not sure what they were expecting to be copy-edited... -- mattb @ 2006-10-11T17:46Z
Ok. Fair enough. Rintrah 09:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankly the article is totally worthless and should be removed. --129.97.84.62 20:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Added context label, but from the face of it, with no particular technical knowledge I'm not so sure of its value as an article as a whole. -- Librarianofages 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this Notable CPU architectures?

I thought Notable was a prerequisite... why not move the article to CPU architectures and then keep it as only notable ones through savagely guarding the article - I mean, achieving consensus (how do you keep the non-notable CPU architectures out now?)02:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)