Talk:List of Intel Core processors

Merging Intel processor confusion into this

Should the Pentium M stuff from Intel processor confusion be moved into here? That'd mean adding additional columns for the fab technology, power, presence of EIST, presence of EM64T support, presence of XD bit, hyperthreading support, and virtualization (or perhaps with all the various technologies given as a list of items). If all the stuff from that page is moved into x86 processor list pages, that page could be removed. Guy Harris 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it's been done. Guy Harris 02:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yo man u still alive? 37.236.158.115 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

TDP Range

I would like to suggest to change the TDP column to reflect a range. I measured the power consumption of some Intel CPUs and would like to suggest the following:

Min: Stop Grant Power at LFM

Max: TDP

(as given on page 80- of http://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/30922106.pdf)

Donellani 10:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

yo man u still alive? 37.236.158.115 (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

New CPUs to add

So far, I have found the Genuine Intel(R) CPU T2130 @ 1.86 GHz with 1 MB cache. This is all I can tell so far. Note listed at Intel's site, but sitting in front of me nonetheless. Axion22 23:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The T2130 is sold under the Pentium Dual Core brand, not Core. It's already listed at List of Intel Pentium Dual-Core microprocessors. — Aluvus t/c 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ruined Layout

Someone ruined the layout near the last table. Can someone fix it? I've tried, but failed ;)--147.230.14.231 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this note about similar codenames correct?

I see a note saying: Note: Intel has also released a Celeron Dual-Core Mobile processors with the model numbers T1400 and T1500

But I see on the official website that the numbers are correct but it's not T1400 but E1400 <-Celeron Dual Core —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colorsontrial (talk • contribs) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockets

When I look up part numbers with web search, I find that the SL8VN (C0) SL9JN (D0) Socket M LF80539 GF0482M Is also available in Socket 479. Is there a way to determine the Socket by the part number? --Flyswatting (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Table redesign

Hello everybody!

I am intending to make the following changes to the tables in the List of Intel Core processors article:

• The use of {{Cpulist}} templates will be deprecated and replaced with regular wikitables. The reasons for this are that 1. using the template allows very little if any freedom in changing the layout of the tables (e.g. you can't merge same cells), 2. the template needs constant updating and maintenance from those who are familiar with template coding, and as of now there is a major change request on the template talk page which remains unanswered for over four months now, among several other requests which haven't been answered for years. Due to the lack of updates, the Cpulist template has already been dropped on "hybrid" architecture CPUs such as Core i 12th gen, in favour of wikitables that mimic their design but with the additional columns that the template lacks. 3. The templates are extremely inefficient in their resource use. As of the time of writing this, the article is about 430 KB big, but the post-expand include size limit has been heavily exceeded, resulting in every template from the "Penryn", "Penryn-3M" (medium-voltage, 45 nm) section onwards not displaying correctly at all. Had these been regular tables but the page size was kept a similar amount, this issue very likely would not have happened at all. (The maximum for both raw article size and PEIS size are 2 MB).
• sSpec and Part numbers will be removed from all the tables, as part of the plan here to significantly reduce the size of the tables and the article overall. These are rarely useful, rather unencyclopaedic information, pretty much in violation of WP:NOTCATALOG anyways.
• Information that's common to / exactly the same across all the CPUs (i.e. socket, bus speed) will be moved out of the table and into a "common features" bulletpoint list above the table.
• Cells containing same information (e.g. CPU models 4, 5 and 6 have clock speed of 2.9 GHz) will be merged to reduce duplication of information, and reduce the data footprint of the tables (i.e. rowspan=3 takes up less bytes than repeating the same info three times in a row).
• The order of the CPU models will be changed from alphabetically ascending, to a highest-to-lowest order, sorted by CPU performance and features, bringing the tables in line with the ones on individual Intel CPU articles like Rocket Lake and Comet Lake, as well as those on List of AMD Ryzen processors. The sorting by perf. / features communicates to the reader at a glance what CPUs are better and what CPUs are worse, whereas alphabetical sorting makes it seem like a CPU lacking integrated graphics (i.e. the -F suffix models) are better than CPUs that have. Furthermore, the CPU companies like AMD and Intel themselves present their products in a fastest-to-slowest order.
• The blue-coloured segmentation rows like "Embedded", "Embedded options only" will be removed from all the tables, and instead the segmentation will be noted in the bulletpoint list above the table. The use of coloured horizontal branding / segmentation rows are highly distracting and break the flow of reading columns top to bottom to compare certain properties of info between processors. Another issue with these rows is that they don't work well together with the "sortable" feature of the tables.
• Since the i3, i5, i7, i9 tables have been merged together, a "branding" column will be added to the very left of the tables (i.e. Core i3, Core i5, etc), and branding will be removed from the model numbers. This change is to improve readability through deduplication of information (i.e. the words "Core i7" aren't repeated six times down the six i7 models there are, etc).
• All embedded CPU models (i.e. E-suffix, TE-suffix) will be moved to the "Embedded processors" section of the article. It doesn't make sense why embedded processors are being presented together with regular consumer ones.
• Lastly, but not least, I am considering moving each individual CPU tables into templates, much like how it is on List of Ryzen and List of AMD GPUs. The reason for doing this is to "harmonize" the tables between multiple articles that have the exact same table. This is so that when adding a new CPU to the desktop 13th gen table for example, you don't have to add it across the two or three articles that have the exact same table, you only need to add it once to the template and it will go live on all articles that feature the same template.

Let me know what you think of the plan above. By making all of these changes, altogether the tables become significantly more readable, encyclopaedic, more accessible, easier to read on smaller displays, as well as take up significantly less data footprint on the list article, thus increasing the number of CPU generations that a list article can have, or even making it unnecessary to split up the List of Core processors article for the time being.

The final product will look akin to the tables on List of AMD Ryzen, as well as those on Rocket Lake. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with these changes. The {{Cpulist}} template honestly needs to be replaced - like you mentioned and from my brief glance at it, it is very non modular. I did end up making my own templates over at iOS version history to allow better harmonization of the tables included in that article, e.g. {{iOS version table}} and {{iOS version}}, but my goal was to make them as basic and as conforming to the regular Wikipedia table design as possible which I think I succeeded. The post-expand include size gives me the same worries as you, but it is shocking to me that it hasn't ever been raised in the internal MediaWiki source code. Its probably to avoid intense load times on web browsers, especially on PCs with lower end hardware, but template transclusion is a pretty intensive task that could benefit from an increase in the include size.

I also agree with the sSpec and part number removals, which is something I began doing on the separate articles. Overall I agree with these changes 100%. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 05:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The biggest thing that jumps out at me at the moment is the prolific usage of external links (against MOS) in the article and the inclusion of prices. But in addition, I think the vast majority of the product information on the pages should be removed per WP:NOTCATALOG and only notable (in the colloquial sense of the word) information should be kept in the merged article. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U: I severely disagree with this. Many articles on Wikipedia have detailed information. WP:NOTCATALOG doesn't even apply here, it mostly has to do with pricing than anything else. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

As long as it sticks to descending order, that sounds fine. Azul120 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with this changes. Keep it simple (Brand, Model, Cores/Threads, Clock rate [Base/Boost], Cache [L3], TDP [nominal], Release month).

I prefer alphabetically ascending sorting, but either way is fine (I guess). Is there really a need for sorting to be enabled, I mean it does widen a table?

Nitpicking (looking at Ryzen tables): I don't like merged "Branding and Model" header. How about "Brand" and "Model"? Rando717 (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Rando717 Regarding the 'sortability' aspect of the tables: it's a thing that's already there when you look at the tables in the individual CPU architecture articles like Rocket Lake, Alder Lake. Additionally, when I redesigned the AMD Ryzen tables last year (which this Intel Core table redesign will somewhat resemble), there was a request from at least one editor to make all the tables also sortable. On top of that, I figure there will be both people who prefer reading highest-to-lowest, and lowest-to-highest order, so making the tables 'sortable' helps settle this a lot as you can just change the order of the SKUs in the table easily with one click, instead of it being all permanent and hardcoded in place.

With the AMD Ryzen table re-styling, the choice of combined "Branding and Model" header was made because I did not know how to make certain columns of a table unsortable (I wasn't aware that you could do it at all), and I didn't want the tables to be sortable by the "branding" column in the case of separate branding and model columns, since it won't sort the models properly as opposed to sorting by model, so I combined the two together.

Now that I know how to make certain columns unsortable, and also since all the individual CPU architecture articles like the ones linked above have separate columns for "Processor branding" and "Model", the Intel Core table reworks that are in the making here will also use separate "Processor branding" and "Model" columns, like aforementioned here, with the "Processor branding" column being non-sortable. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

- Extec286 (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC) "sSpec and Part numbers will be removed from all the tables, as part of the plan here to significantly reduce the size of the tables and the article overall. These are rarely useful, rather unencyclopaedic information" FWIW - I and many other resellers use these part numbers on a regular basis, and their removal is extremely disappointing. You're not even saving a single KB of data by removing them, and instead making us now click on the ARK links, which wastes a bunch of time, a bunch of bandwidth, and half the time the links are broken. A better option to remove would be things that are legitimately useless, like the I/O Bus and the SLP at release.

I understand your points, however it's also worth pointing out that Wikipedia is not a catalog. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the info included in the tables should be the kind of info you'd expect to see in pretty much any other encyclopedia. You should be using actual product catalogs for your reseller activities. Tailoring our articles to commercial users and alike highly goes against the purposes of Wikipedia, as written here.

You're not even saving a single KB of data by removing them → If you look at the article right now, every table from the "Kaby Lake-H" (14 nm) section onwards is not rendering correctly. This is because the post-expand include size limit of the page has been exceeded with the article in its current state. I am slowly going through and converting the tables to the new layout as written in the thread above, I actually did some measurements in a sandbox comparing the size of the old table layout to the new one, and mind you this was for just one table – the Sandy Bridge desktop processors list. Here are the results:

Page stats of sandbox before and after table redesign

Page

Info

No table Before redesign (Cpulist) After redesign (wikitables) Raw page size 17,273 bytes 26,777 bytes 24,748 bytes Preprocessor visited node count 1,304 20,116 1,572 PEIS size 32,971 bytes 150,489 bytes 38,877 bytes Template argument size 1,589 bytes 37,802 bytes 1,589 bytes Unstrip PEIS 35,851 bytes 66,000 bytes 39,279 bytes Lua memory usage 5,178,610 bytes 6,260,756 bytes 5,872,177 bytes

"No tables" are the stats of the sandbox before I even added a Sandy Bridge desktop CPUs list in there. This was taken since I had some other content in the sandbox also. "Before redesign" are the stats of the sandbox containing the old table layout using the cpulist template with non-merged cells, all the sSpec and Part numbers, etc. "After redesign" is with the new table layout as proposed in this talk thread, using regular wikitables instead of the cpulist template, with sSpec and Part number info removed, same cells merged, and common info (e.g. socket, bus type) moved out of the table. As you can see, although the difference in raw page size is quite small, there is a dramatic reduction in the PEIS size of the page after the redesign. (It's worth noting that the limit for both raw page and post-expand include size are 2 MB.) Again, that's just for one table. Now multiply that by the at least 70 other tables there are in the List of Intel Core processors article. By applying this redesign, the PEIS size would likely be reduced to such an extent that a splitting of the page is not necessary. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel that a lot of this is due to the abysmally poorly designed template that is being used, not the data contained within it. Removal of ARK links is on par with removal of primary sources, which calls into question the validity of the articles. - Extec286 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the validity of the articles is more questionable than the removal of the ARK links. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just be removing the entire thing?

After all, "Wikipedia is not a catalog", and this is nothing but catalog information. Almost none of the information included is of any use to casual researchers, particularly any information about any specific processor (as opposed to generations). - Extec286 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Extec286 Are you truly moving that this page be deleted from Wikipedia? Would you move that the tens of similar "list of" computer hardware pages pertaining to graphical processors, mainboard chipsets, peripheral data busses and so foth should also be deleted by the same logic?

Is "of use to casual researchers" really the bar for admissibility here? I find the expressing sparsely mentioned on Wikipedia policy pages. Considerations of encyclopedic-ness in this talk page seem little-relevant given that WP:5P1 speaks of "combin[ing] many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs (...)" as well. These pages strike me as falling squarely into the latter category, in its contemporary acceptation.

These pages provide very valuable information for anyone looking into upgrading or purchasing a personal computer. I am not a computer reseller, and I find the availability of these specifications put together in a no-nonsense way to be of immense time-saving value. They favor making rational comparisons and level-headed purchasing decisions by cutting through all the marketing hoops and obfuscation smokescreens that we otherwise have to deal with. These pages are nothing like a catalog; catalogs are a commercial tool designed by manufacturers or resellers with the aim to stimulate sales. Those parties have little incentive to make objective, pertinent appear so clearly and in a comparable way as these pages do.

I do however agree on the importance of featuring the primary sources, ARK or otherwise. Penthu (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

If the argument against including part numbers is "Wikipedia is not a catalog", then that same argument applies to the entire article and all of the lists of CPUs, because they are an enumeration of the products produced by a manufacturer (Intel or AMD), or in other words "a catalog".

I'm not saying I'm in favour of this or anything, I'm just saying that if that's the argument we're making, the logical conclusion is that none of these CPU lists should exist on Wikipedia. - Extec286 (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Please readd the sSpec numbers. It almost uniquely identified a row. And was more important than the initial price column. :(((( 79.231.22.218 (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Some tables are broken

This is probably due to the table redesign. The (mobile) "Coffee Lake-H" table is missing on the page. It is in the sources, so it is probably a syntax error or similar. In other words, the i7-9850H CPU is listed in the page source, but is not displayed on the actual page. Xerces8 (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of this problem, it should be resolved now after my recent edit to the page that published the new table layouts for 1st to 5th gen mobile processors, which got the post-expand include size of the page down to below the limit, thus making all the templates working again. The actual cause of the PEIS limit being exceeded was the merging of the Core i3, i5, i7, i9 tables all in their original form (i.e. before the reworks), into this article. The redesign significantly reduces the footprints, especially the PEIS, of the tables. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

New Intel Core naming

Now that Intel is changing the branding/model naming from Core i3/5/7/9 to Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9, do we continue adding them to the "List of Core i3/5/7/9 processors" pages? Or create new list pages? Or don't bother with separate lists anymore and use only this page? Then there's the generic new "Intel Processor" N### and U### series, which seem to replace the Pentium line. Maybe just link to them from the Pentium list? --Vossanova ^o< 17:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Vossanova So here's my plan. The merging of i3/i5/i7/etc tables into this list and the redesigning of them is still incomplete as of now. (It's the reason why I haven't turned the old separate lists into redirects yet.) I've done all the desktop tables and mobile 1st-10th gen tables, just need to do 11th-13th gen and add the newly released Raptor Lake-R desktop and laptop parts, alongside the embedded stuff.

Once I complete them, I plan to start a new split proposal where i3, i5, i7, i9 lists get put into "List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors", and then we start a "List of Intel Core 3/5/7/9" page.

The "Intel Processor" series is a bit of a harder one. What do we even name the page if we create a new one? "List of Intel Processor processors"? Putting them into Pentium may seem like a good idea after all. Take a look at the Quadro and Tesla pages. Nvidia no longer uses those brands anymore, but we continue to add the new "RTX Workstation", "Data Center GPU" branded products into those respective articles, and haven't created separate new pages for them. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I have finally completed the merge of the List of Intel Core 2, i3, i5, i7, i9, M list articles into this article, per the proposal over at Talk:Intel Core § Merger proposal, a discussion which was opened in January 2023.

However, long since that point in time, in early 2024 Intel has introduced a new naming system for its processors called "Core 3", "Core 5", "Core Ultra 7", "Core Ultra 9", etc.

I feel like we should put the i3, i5, i7, i9 combined tables into a new page called "List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors" (as one other editor at the merge proposal was in favour of having them combined, with no objections), and then start a new page called "List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors" or similar, for all the processors under the new naming system to go under.

This page as well as the Core 2 and Core M pages would then be returned to being original lists as before.

I think such an arrangement of split-up articles would make sense for the following reasons:

• It would make finding a specific processor series easier (e.g. the Core 3/5/7), as they are in separate pages rather than all of them being in one page.
• It would make navigating through the separate list articles more comfortable and easier due to the shorter page size.
• We can make some of the section headings shorter (e.g. removing the "Core i" disambiguator) as they are now under specific "Core ____" articles rather than all of them being in one page under an ambiguous title.

To make things clear, the split proposal goes as follows:

• List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors (new page)
• List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core and Core Ultra 3/5/7/9 processors (new page)
• List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core 2 processors (convert back into separate list)
• List of Intel Core processors → List of Intel Core M processors (convert back into separate list)

— AP 499D25 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe because of the new naming system of Intel, the sites need a general name.

This site: change the name to "List of Intel processors".

For the Core i processors: a site with the name "List of Intel Core i processors".

For the new Intel processors: a site with the name "List of Intel Core and Ultra processors".

I'm from the german wiki and they have the same problem. Changing the name or create a new site or both. Skranon (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support This article is a navigational nightmare in its current state. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. also is there a reason the i5-7-9 don't have their owns separate pages with individual tables showing the characteristics of each processor? ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

  @L3X1: By that, I'm guessing you mean the i3, i5, i7 all being in separate pages, rather than combined? That arrangement doesn't really make sense, because i3/i5/i7/i9 processors of a given generation typically all use the same architecture, and people make comparisons between CPUs from those tier brands all the time (e.g. i5 vs i7). Thus, it's much easier to draw comparisons when they are in one table rather than in separate pages. Plus, the architecture articles like Raptor Lake and Arrow Lake, as well as the AMD Ryzen list page all have the 3/5/7/9 brand tiers combined in the tables, rather than being split up. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Update, Don’t Split I agree it’s a navigational nightmare, but after just trying to figure out Intel’s newest horrendous convoluted naming scheme, Series 1 (Jan 2024) and Series 2 (Sept 2024), it was not clear from store product listings that these are offshoots of CoreUltra and it was extremely helpful to see where these processors fit in the release timeline at the very bottom of the Mobile Processors list. The general user researching new processors has a hard enough time deciphering the letter soup of CPU model designations, and which of the 4 proposed pages would that user find a Series designation, or other future marketing snafu?

Prior decades of processors generally would be irrelevant now, but it may be an edge case to compare early processors with modern and currently it is difficult to list target families in different decades, due to the sheer number of families between target processors. This issue is present in the Nvidia GPU page (and probably AMD pages).

For navigational purposes, I would like to see collapsible family subheadings with the mini-timeline guide more accurately reflect each processor family’s full marketing name, perhaps via a new template compatible with the Nvidia and AMD pages. I would also think that long filmography tables might benefit from such a template but to a lesser degree.

—Vorik111 (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

LP E-Cores on Meteor Lake

Is there a specific reason why the Low-Power Efficient Cores on Meteor Lake are missing from the specs? - Extec286 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, they are located in the "Common features" bulletpoint list, above the table. That list has all the details that typically apply to every CPU across the range (e.g. L1/L2 cache, socket, RAM support). — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Split it back into i3/i5/i7/i9

It is easier to look at a specific cpu series than look at all of them 112.207.113.92 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I found the separate pages helpful, but I can't be sure others would find it so. The divisions between i7, i5, i3, etc., are marketing distinctions, while the i whatever vs. Xeon distinctions tend to be that the latter chips are used in servers and support error corrected memory. Then there are Celerons - and Pentiums are rather lowly in the pecking order.

There is now a vast menagerie of these CPUs with new marketing terms being devised, so I am not sure exactly what the best taxonomy would be, or what would be best for Wikipedia. Robin Whittle (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you agree with my split proposal above?

The way I see it, is that people make "Core i3 vs i5", "Core i5 vs. i7" comparisons all the time and whatnot; so I figured it makes more sense having them combined than completely separate. Plus, these i3, i5, i7 etc processors are typically all part of some family - e.g. the 14th gen 13/i5/i7/i9 CPUs are all part of "Raptor Lake-S Refresh" family and are not significantly different from one another, speaking technically. These are concurrent tiering brands that mark some tier of CPU, i.e. one brand does not replace the other.

Most secondary sources out there that list / talk about these CPUs also typically lump the different brand tier models together in one table, rather than in separate tables or articles - example. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm also still trying to get used to the new format. Robin Whittle's explanation is logical, so I'll go with it.

Worst part is the too-condensed listings of instruction sets. It was like a soap opera, watching which ones were kept and which ones were eliminated; condensed format makes that difficult, now. But I see that the ark.intel webpages are also severely condensing the list of instruction sets, so what can you do.

On a tangent, the small series that includes the i7-1260u has columns for both L3 cache and Smart Cache. Looks like a typographical redundancy? Only the 1260u lists any L3 cache, but all the CPUs list Smart Cache, including the 1260u, as if the 1260u has 12 MB of both. Thanks for checking it out, and thanks for managing these listings for decades. Nei1 (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Missing models

Is there a reason why the new Core Ultra Series 1 processors list the 45W and 15W models but skip the 28W models? - Extec286 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you might be looking at the wrong section (i.e. embedded models "Meteor Lake-PS"). Laptop models (including 28W TDP) should be under the "Mobile processors" section. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1252530587

Not sure how this could be worded properly, but 192GB max memory support is not new to this generation (13th gen and later supports it but isn't mentioned in this article). But more importantly such configuration would be limited to DDR5-4400 with 4 × 48 GB UDIMM/CUDIMM on Core Ultra 200S Series "Arrow Lake-S" processors. Calling a 192GB configuration "DDR5-6400" capable would be misleading at best, so I've removed the mention of 192GB from the list item for now. I understand this may not be the most ideal solution.

References

84.250.15.152 (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Raptor Lake Refresh - Embedded core processors are missing

Embedded core processors of the series 1 are missing in this list. They are UL and HL processors and were released in Q2 2024. Skranon (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Inspiron 15 3593

i5-1035G1 2400:C600:343F:7305:1:0:322:AF56 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)