Talk:Intel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Intel and Israel

Please provide a section about Intel and its locations, especially in China and Israel. I want to know all information. --Sp0 10:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Like, is it really developed? Does it look nice. How many people work there. Do they have good working conditions? Are the places High Tech like in California? --Sp0 10:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

answers: 6 Intel units in Israel which employs over 6,600 ppl...Tech standrts don't fall shorts from the California ones, and the MMX chip was first developed in Haifa... Working conditions are quite good in the Israeli standarts, approx. 6000$US for a beghinig developer.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.121.211 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdom Links

Im not sure if there should be so many links to Crap like Evil inside and whatnot.. Looks kinda Stupid -Jman888

Updated, if you don't like something, just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.126.32 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vacuum Tubes?

Does anyone know if Intel used to produce vacuum tubes? I found an Intel tube in one of my radio's and I wonder if it really was Intel or some other company called Intel. The logo looks like inTel. Maybe it could be added to the article. http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/570/intel12gz.jpg http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/8229/intel26ju.jpg Ikkejw 16:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'd say all the letters are upper-case, just that the top stroke of the 'T' is above the other letters and runs the whole length of the word. A quick Google search doesn't turn up much except pages about electronics history timelines and a few reviews of those motherboards using tubes to amplify the on-board audio. I'm no historian, but 1968 is just a little late to found a company producing vacuum tubes. And one of the co-founders is the co-inventor of the integrated circuit. I'd put my money on it being a different company.

Imroy 17:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I already thought it was a bit strange, because the radio is from 1956 and Intel was founded in 1968. But still, the original tube could have been replaced by an Intel one. All other tubes are from Philips, there's only one Intel tube. Ikkejw 17:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Intel's New Logo

---

Someone should place Intel's new logo on wikipedia, i'm unsure how or where to get it from though.

It's not their new logo until next week. It's been uploaded to File:Intel 2006.gif for when they announce the branding change next week.

Paul Otelinni and IBM x86 win

Someone just added the claim that Paul Otellini was responsible for the original IBM x86 design win. I have never heard that, and I was at Intel for a long time. Certainly Dave House and others were involved? I would say this needs some verification, but I'm not going to delete it for now. Comments? -- Gnetwerker 05:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, my wife used to work at Intel and she said Otelinni was a jerk, but she never said anything about him being responsible for winning the IBM x86 design. In fact, I just thought IBM selected off-the-shelf parts to design the PC—I never heard they went to different companies and entertained different designs. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:49, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, not that it matters, but I worked with Paul and in comparison to (e.g.) Craig Barrett, Paul was a nice guy. However, the campaign that resulted in the IBM PC design win was called "Crush" -- this caused some anti-trust worries years later. Bill Pohlman was the engineering manager on the 8086, I believe. This was before my time at Intel (I started in 1985), but I heard the stories. Paul may have been in marketing at the time, but giving him credit is probably not accurate. At some point -- either during this period or later -- Paul was Andy's TA. Don't know whether that is relevant or not. -- Gnetwerker 16:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I work for Intel now, and I know Otellini is the first Intel CEO to not have an engineering background. I believe he has an MBA. So no, I don't think he's responsible for any design wins. That should be edited out.

Misc

The Intel page is very focused on the x86 CPUs, but what about the different lines in their history such as the i860 etc? -- Bjorn Elenfors

---

History of Intel from http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa092998.htm#intel
Jay 01:14 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Earl Whetstone was the Sales Engineer that helped get the original IBM deal won for Intel. I believe there would have been a number of senior managers invloved in getting the "design win" as part of the Crush program. So it is hard to know what Paul's role might have been.

stock price?!

The current stock price should be taken off. Has no real importance, and becomes outdated in literally 2 hours. So why even have it? Maybe the worth of the company in billions might be interesting/useful/more static, but I would say wikipedia is not a listing of Stock Prices.

--Windfinder 15:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Intel740?

Where would the Intel740 fit? It's an orphan node right now, I think. If it doesn't fit anywhere, how should we link to it?

See also? It's so tiny, though, it should probably just be deleted. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Political Content

Deleted inapropriate political content that relates only vaguely to Intel, and from a completely one sided view.

POV addition

I deleted the below addition by an anon user:

As a christmas gift one year, the staff recieved a box of plasters and a t-shirt, Intel have a very strange policy regarding promotion, when one is doing their current job and want to go to a higher position, they do their new job, but they still recieve their previous salary but only after a period of 1 year will Intel decide if their worth any more money for the new position. The nature of bullying can vary but normaly it's of a shouting and being yelled at kind. A typical scenario is being 2 minutes late, and the manager thinks he/she can shout at the person in front of the rest of the team. www.faceintel.com

It's not backed up by any verifiable information, was inserted in the wrong section, is anecdotable and incredibly poorly written. Disagree? Discuss here. — Frecklefoot | Talk 01:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree. What are 'plasters'? Also, Intel doesn't give Christmas gifts anyway, and has only "holiday" parties (remember lots of staff are of non-Christian religions). Intel does have a confrontive culture (n.b. Constructive Confrontation classes), and I would not call it (historically, at least) family-friendly, but the faceintel.com drivel is just that. -- Gnetwerker 02:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Photo of BMW Racing Car

That photo of the car is pretty pointless, also copyrighted, and it interferes with the layout. I suggest that it be removed. -- Gnetwerker 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. The bit about the Sauber contract should also go. Rather petty bit of information. - Ray 3 February 2006

I also agree and removed it. Denis C. 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Antitrust

Isn't that anti-trust stuff repeated twice? Someone should clean that up. P-unit 05:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Espionage

An anon added this para:

"An interesting case of industrial espionage arose in 1995 that involved both Intel and AMD. An Argentine national formerly employed at Intel's plant in Chandler, Arizona was arrested and charged with attempting to sell proprietary secrets to AMD and to certain foreign powers."

I tagged this with {{citeneeded}}, but if we don't get a source quickly, I am inclined to remove it. It doesn't have dates, names, or any details, as well as being unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 21:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• NYTimes story
• Newsbytes article from Looksmart
• Online newsletter from 1995 citing Investor's Business Daily article
• California FBI newsletter with in-depth story on Intel/AMD espionage

206.114.20.121 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, it is obviously for real. Do you have any more recent citations about how the case was disposed? -- Gnetwerker 22:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing really. Apparently, he pleaded guilty, served his time (33 months in federal prison), then fled the country. I find no references to him later than 1996. 206.114.20.121 22:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Evaluation of Intel

This evaluation was done on this version of Intel at time 6:00 PM PST on April 1, 2006. The evaluation was done by the book.

Criteria:

Well-written

While grammar is not perfect, no spelling errors were observed. Wikilinks appear for the most part to be relevant. The article is nowhere near the level of "brilliant prose," but it is certainly at a level where the writing is clear and readable. There are a few spots ("Like so: 'Intel Core Duo Inside'," "(Note: Intel is usually given credit with Texas Instruments for the almost-simultaneous invention of the microprocessor.)"), but for the most part, the article is written at a good level. A rewrite should not be out of the question.

Factually accurate

The article is not blatantly incorrect, and appears solid in its facts. As always, more references will improve the article's standing in this criterion, but the current revision is at a passing level for Good Article Status. This is not an excuse — more references would be appreciated.

Broad

The article is focused mainly on the history and development of Intel, but also looks at Intel's presence in the world. Although it could certainly use expansion, and is by no means comprehensive, it is decently broad.

Neutrally written

The article has a fair share of weasel words, which is not uncommon for corporation articles. As well, some sentences appear slanted towards an anti-Intel stance ("an attractive target for litigation," "leading to the ability to access wireless internet from a laptop becoming linked in consumers minds to Intel chips"). The section "Diversity" does not read well in its neutrality — it appears to strongly display Intel as supporting diversity through an affirmative action-style initiative.

Stable

Comparing the last 15 edits, no rounding, differences observed center almost entirely around inserting references into the article, disambiguating links, and updating statistics. No major edits or changes to structure are evident. There were two reverts of vandalism in the last 15 edits.

Well-referenced

All references appear reputable. A good number of them are from corporate entities (Apple, Intel), but they do not appear damaging to the NPOV of the article.

Images

All images are tagged. Most are fair use. One, Image:Intel-logo.svg, is marked for copyvio, although I don't see any such problem as the file is correctly tagged. If Featured Article status is pursued, that image's fair use rationale should be reexamined.

Summary:

• Well-written: Pass
• Factually accurate: Pass
• Broad: Pass
• Neutrally written: Fail
• Stable: Pass
• Well-referenced: Pass
• Images: Pass

Congratulations. - CorbinSimpson 02:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for an edit

The antitrust section is divided in two... if one were to edit this, that's the best place to start.

Traitorous Eight

No one of the Traitorous Eight was involved in founding AMD. The "Traitorous Eight" left Shockley and went to Fairchild around 1957. AMD was, however, one of the Fairchildren, like National Semiconductor, which were founded about ten years later, in the late '60s.

More antitrust

Intel has not "refuted" AMD's antitrust claims. To me that implies that they have successfully proved that they are false. A better word would be "rebuffed". The veracity of the claims will be determined in a trial.

Competition and Antitrust

Does anyone have a source for the sentence "The only major competitor to Intel on the x86 processor market is Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), with which Intel has had full cross-licensing agreements since 1976: each partner can use the other's patented technological innovations without charge.". The only agreement I'm aware of is the one from 2001, which supercedes older agreements: http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html

There is some talk of royalties in the agreement, so it's hardly without charge. I have some recollection of an older ageement which only covers x86 extensions and is royalty-free, but I don't have a source so I'm wondering if anyone knows of the agreement I'm talking about. -85.157.199.19 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Intel and the IBM PC2

Anybody notice how every sentence ends in an exclaimation mark in the part "# # 1.4 Intel and the IBM PC2"? They aren't necessary and they're annoying to look at.

Removed. Probably vandalism that nobody bothered to fix. — Aluvus ^t/c 23:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Early Pentium models with math errors.

Why isn't there any mention of the models which apparently had problems computing answers with long decimal answers? These were in the early Pentium 1 timeframe, though I don't know the model designation details.

No doubt the actual effect was overplayed in the exuberant web forums of the time, but I cannot recall any other computer models that had demonstrable serious basic math errors.

If I recall the public perception correctly, it intersected with the (proven successful) Intel Inside campaign to humorous effect. ( "Skulls & CrossBones inside, How many Pentium Engineers does it take to change a lightbulb? 6.99167")

Examples of humor of the day: http://www.samurajdata.se/~cj/funny/html/pentium.html

This appears to give the detail hungry types a place to start: http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/PENTIUM/bugs

Now this has been identified, it stands as an Error of Omission, which currently artificially bolsters the company's reputation by omitting what may be their single largest mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaoPhoenix (talk • contribs)

I took a stab at it. Feel free to improve. -- Gnetwerker 23:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In External Links

The link titled "Intel Corp Company Profile and News Archive" Should be removed, it adds nothing more to what is provided in the yahoo link, and it is for a paid service, if there is agreement i can go ahead and remove it. Geneticflyer 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Geneticflyer

Looks like linkspam, kill it with fire. — Aluvus ^t/c 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed both that link and the "Asus Reviews" link above it. Since this article is not about Asus, and the link wouldn't have been a good inclusion even if it were. — Aluvus ^t/c 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

bias in opening paragraph

i think that the opening paragraph reads like PR from intel's site. i can't come up with anything to replace it at the moment, but i hope someone can come up with something better --Scott w 23:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The article in general is a POS, from both a coverage and a writing perspective. And I say that given that I've done a good bit of the writing. Nonetheless, I took a stab at the lead, which was, as you pointed out, both glossy and uninformative. See if you like my take better. -- Gnetwerker 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I made an attempt at improving the lead, and hopefully the changes were good ones. I felt that the phrase "advanced chip design capability with a leading-edge manufacturing capability" was particularly suspect. Fedallah 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not changing it back, but with respect, I think your edit makes things worse rather than better. Whatever one feels about Intel, it is both one of the most advanced designers of semiconductors, and one of the most advanced manufacturers of them, regularly advancing the state of the art in both fields. To not say so is, in my opinion, POV by omission, and is like calling Starbucks "a coffee shop in Seattle" -- true but misleading. On a more petty note, I made an effort to not start the second sentence with "Intel". Having a para in which every sentence starts with the name of the subject is both pointless and bad style. I'll let others hack at this for a while, and come back and tackle it another time, if no one else does in the meantime. -- Gnetwerker 07:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

True, and I can agree with that. I'll revert it. I had similar concerns while editing but wanted to see what everyone else thought. Agreed on the subject/pronoun usage, too.Fedallah 07:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I should also be clear: my prose (though that section was cut-n-pasted from before) is not sacrosanct, or even good. That sentence is defintely weak. I may have been too harsh above -- please feel free to rewrite, I just think the point needs to be made. -- Gnetwerker 07:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Inside Motto

I have had several relatives that have worked for these copyright infrigers, apperently ther inside motto is "Steal with Pride." HHS.student

Please give an example of a copyright infringement, and maybe some figures on why you think intel is a particularly bad company for this practice. 192.198.151.129 (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Location Section

As Intel has major locations in multiple locations, mostly around the US and Israel to my knowledge, I think a relevant section noting major locations is in order. I have not done a lot of work on this article, so I will not intervene. If anyone is up for it, I support the edit. --יהושועEric 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Something like the Advanced Micro Devices#Production and fabrication section for AMD? I actually read an article in BBC indicating that Intel has major factories in China. [1] Intel opened a new $2.5 billion factory, increasing the total to $4 billion. Not sure about the investment in other countries. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I want to know more about Intel and locations, especially what it's Israel center is like. Sp0 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The article should say 'most personal computers'

x86-processors are used in almost every personal computer you can buy on todays market, so I really think it should say 'most personal computers', not 'many'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.201.78 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I concur. Even Apple has ditched PowerPC and has gone over to the wild and crazy Intel architecture (I still find it amazing that even the most advanced Intel chips wake up thinking they're a 8086 until protected mode is activated). The vast majority of deployed personal computers are on the Intel x86 architecture. --Coolcaesar 01:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Quote?

The quotes section (added 5 April 2007 by 207.255.199.187) mentioning visas seems to be an unimportant, irrelevant political statement. I think it should be removed, but I don't know what to do (as I would like to assume good faith in accordance with Help:Reverting and WP:AGF). Nightspark 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nightspark that the visa quote should be removed. I don't see how it is relevant. On the other hand, I have added a quote from Andy Grove taken from a keychain that Intel distributed to its employees after it successfully handled the "Pentium Flaw" issue. I believe this is much more emblematic of Intel's corporate culture. Technorific 06:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be left in. It shows the attitude of the company good or bad toward importing workers. This goes along with it’s diversity discussion that is just as political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.13.66 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are the factories?

The article should mention where Intel manufactures. Do they use their own factories or do they contract out the manufacturing? AxelBoldt 07:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the correct term for a place where chips are made is "fabrication plant" or "fab" for short. People in the industry rarely call them factories! You are right that the fab locations should be mentioned in the article but I have no idea where they are (nor the time or energy to research that topic). --Coolcaesar 06:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In general terms Intel has two kinds of manufacturing facilities: fabrication plants, where silicon wafers are processed to produce dice, and assembly/test facilities, where individual die are packaged and tested. With minor exceptions, Intel does all its own manufacturing. The current list of manufacturing facilities can be found here: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/manufacturing/sites_map.htm. Technorific 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I love in Hillsboro oregon and off the top of my head i know 4 campuses and know there are 1 or 2 more Jones Farm, Hawthorne Farm, Aloha, Orenco... and some others MikelZap 01:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing for Apple?

Why is there a partnership with apple section? There is nothing noteworthy for intel about selling to Apple. There is no "partnership" any more than Intel has with Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo or HP. This section should be removed, it serves no purpose here except to advertise for Apple. Further, Apple's share of worldwide PC market is less than 3%, it isnt even remotely a significant account.

Unless good reasons not to, I will remove this section shortly.

Wageslave 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Apple and Intel have both publicly stated they work closely together. Their partnership is much like the Intel-Microsoft partnership, not like Intel-Dell, which is why your argument is specious. Whatever obvious biases you have against Apple (from your Digg comment record) need not apply. See comments on OS X and Nehalem, developers on OS X code optimization, or just Intel's site for Apple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.26.83 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sections

The sections seem a bit disorganised. One section (lets say 1) treats one aspects, and then the other section (lets say 2) jumps to another aspect. Then, another section (lets say 3) elsewhere treats of a related aspect of section 1, which makes it a bit difficult to follow and get the whole picture.

• Suggestions:
  • Origin of the name be before, part of or just after the History section
  • Sale of Intel's XScale processor business be integrated in the History section (But only if the deal is complete, that is).
  • Partnership with Apple may just be mentioned briefly, since the move was more important for Apple than for Intel. Thus, a separate section is unnecessary.
  • Diversity should be a subsection of Employee Policies
  • Employee Policies is placed just after Leadership.

These are just some suggestions to improve the article in general.

Aeons | Talk 06:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Made the changes, using Microsoft article as an example. Hope they are correct Aeons | Talk 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bluetooth not by Intel but Ericsson

In the section Intel Inside, Intel Systems Division, and Intel Architecture Labs in the second paragraph it's stated that During the 1990s, Intel's Architecture Lab (IAL) was responsible for many of the hardware innovations of the personal computer, including the PCI Bus, the PCI Express (PCIe) bus, the Universal Serial Bus (USB), Bluetooth wireless interconnect, and the now-dominant architecture for multiprocessor servers.

As Bluetooth was developed by Ericsson, I would suggest to remove Bluetooth wireless interconnect or rewrite the article to point out exactly what was Intels part in development of Bluetooth (as I understand non).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.243.13 (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2007

Removed from intro

By the early 2000s, Microsoft had passed Intel in power in the PC industry, and competitors had emerged in the advanced microprocessor market. Intel's November 2006 stock market capitalization was less than one-quarter of its 2000 high, and only 40% of Microsoft's.

The 2007 rankings of the world's 100 most powerful brands published by Millward Brown Optimor showed the company's brand plummeting 10 places – from number 15 to number 25.

These seem somewhat subjective, and I'm not sure that they are all that significant. 2000 was in the middle of the tech bubble, and Microsoft is not a hardware manufacturer. -- Beland 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The company has always been vocal in trumpeting its market value of its brand and losing 10 places in the last year is a significant development. Aaronproot

Intellec Series

Added a reference to the early 1970's when Intel made a complete micro computer called the Intellec Series Intellec Series description, timeline of Intel products and The SIM - 4. Unbelievable that there is no Wiki article on them yet given their importance to the history of computing. Alatari 03:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Misleading part in 'Open source support'

After checking the dates of the references, it came to my attention that the main criticism was concerning products released in 2005, whereas one of the examples given as a criticism is from 2003. The way it is written misleads into thinking that this criticism followed from the problems of the 2005 products.

This is a previous revision, before I began editing this section: [2].

This section also needs to be updated.

Ǣ0ƞS 07:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Intel Purchases Havok Physics Engines.

I think this is worth mentioning. Where would the appropriate place be to put this in the article?

link http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=15511

Possible vandalism.

Can someone check this edit? Note that the IP is registered to Intel. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Used this as reference: http://money.cnn.com/quote/snapshot/snapshot.html?symb=INTC

Ǣ0ƞS 05:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. · AndonicO ^Talk 11:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Pracices

Seems like a rah-rah. The stuff about Muslim / Jewish / Christian groups - how is that unique to Intel? Lotsa commpany in SiValley have.

The up-or-out policy as stated is pretty biased as well. "dead wood?" --203.117.92.2 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Intel_Corporation#Advertising_and_brand_management

In looking for a reference, I came across several paragraphs worth of verbatim text from this website. I could certainly remove the material now, but I'd rather have this be a multi-editor process. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It may very well be that the website is using an older version of the Wikipedia page hence the duplication. If they are using an earlier WP version and trying to copyright it... that's... not sure what that means legally. Alatari (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for chiming in here. I know there's some sites that use the material from Wikipedia, so thanks for the input. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 08:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be painful on time but going through the page history would prove the case. BTW, if the logos aren't fair use released they maybe needing deletion. Alatari (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dangerous chemicals"

What's with this crap about silica called "dangerous chemical"? It's simply a silicon dioxide, that is -- sand. It's no more dangerous than your average window glass or sandbox on the playground, which are also mostly pure silica. Well, silica powder might be harmful -- if you're breathing it in by handfuls, but I highly doubt that that was the case. So I believe somebody's environmental imagination has run a bit wild here.--Khathi (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The section you are talking about (as well as the webpage that it cites) specifically mentions breathing in significant amounts of air-born silica. I don't know how large a danger that really is, but in Wikipedia-land the fact that it is cited (however poorly) gives it credence. So find a scientific study on the topic to cite, problem solved. — Aluvus t/c 02:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction issue

The introduction to the article contains a sentence which sounds like it could have been pulled straight from an Intel shareholder meeting, "Founded by semiconductor pioneers Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, and widely associated with the executive leadership and vision of Andrew Grove, Intel combines advanced chip design capability with a leading-edge manufacturing capability." It reads more like an advert than unbiased encyclopaedia material. Colostomyexplosion (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Shutdown of Test Facilities in the Philippines, Malaysia, and in Silicon Valley

Please add these http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/01/22/09/intel-shut-sites-and-cut-6000-jobs Triadwarfare (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Employement

I have added a paragraph about Intel's Constructive Confrontation philosophy that was in effect when I was an Intel employee in Folsom, CA in the early and mid 90's. These items are true. I emailed directly to Andy Grove about the Pentium flaw and how it was being handled and he replied, my fellow employees were quite amazed. Please don't delete this, unless this site is for the promotion of Intel only and is not about the providing truthful facts about the company for better or worse. 71.33.47.145 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First, read about original research. Next, the entry as is was un-encyclopedic, we do not advertise books in the middle of an article. Lastly, truth is not the ultimate value at Wikipedia, it is verifiable truth via reliable, published sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Origins of a "Intel Inside" slogan

I once heard a rumor, that the sign «Intel inside» was first located on the roof of some building, which was used as a helicopter landing zone. That sign was helping pilots to find «their» building. Does anybody know, if there is a bit of a truth in this story? --Alogrin (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Intel Inside symbol was painted on top of Intel's headquarters building in Santa Clara for several years. The building is in the approach path for the San Jose airport. This was well after the adoption of the logo, so not the source of it. --Morrolan (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely a typo

Its research lab located at Cambridge University was closed at the end of 2009.

We're only in May, I don't know what year the lab closed therefore the statement must be altered with a citation or removed. The recent European anti-trust lawsuit thats currently on the front page of the New York Times will no doubt send thousands to this wiki page. I have removed the statement. Thankyouverymuch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deverell (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

The links at the end of the lead section "In addition to its work in semiconductors, Intel has begun research in electrical transmission and generation.[6][7]" are dead.77.86.67.245 (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

History of crippling competitors with legal bills - Part 1

This is in defense of this section listed under History, which someone removed. It goes as follows:

History of crippling competitors with legal bills
In its earlier days, Intel was noted for suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386 chip. The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits. It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured if those startup chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits, but this is a little-talked about fact that has likely been very significant in the shaping of the world's technology up until now.

Please explain how even a single word here is anything but pure, flat, unadulterated information. (The remover, user "Aboutmovies", said it was NPOV, but I simply can't figure out how, or in what way this could possibly be pitched that isn't just a near-identical rehash of what's already here.) --68.111.167.64 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a variety of issues with the addition. First, WP:NPOV requires that "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Thus, by definition with the qualifier in the entry of: "this is a little-talked" means it is not a significant view. Further, going by the footnote, this also comes across as original research (at least the speculation portion). And a link to a Google search really doesn't pass as a reliable source, and is really a bad logic combination with the statement, and again would be original research. For logic problem, Google is not the be all and end all when it comes to most searches. Most newer reliable sources are actually protected in pay databases for academic journals, newspapers, and in books that for several reasons (including copyright) Google can not index. Thus, there actually could be a wealth of articles available via JSTOR, Lexis-Nexis, or even EBSCO.

Now addressing the rest and how it should be added to the article:

• "earlier days" are when?
• "noted" should not be used unless you are saying who noted it, as in Time magazine noted...
• List a few of the companies sued (not all, but a nice sample)

That addresses the first two sentences. The third should remain out unless you can source it to a published, reliable source, and not your opinion. And that goes for the entire sentence that comes across as not only original research, but also a bit of WP:SPECULATION. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Any second opinions, before I reply in detail? I don't agree with 'Automovies' at all. Even the Google citation is more weighty and proving of the fact that it's a little talked about than a reliable source SAYING that it is, because this is the reasoning for which one would say that, exposed to the bone. It's the fact ITSELF. And the section isn't saying Intel's past isn't known or talked about AT ALL, which is what you act like. And having not even a single search result in Google talking about it is far clearer proof of the fact that it isn't well-known (a PEOPLE thing) than whatever even 100 articles lost in JSTOR would say... because that doesn't reflect popularity or people at all, only the fact that something has been written (like a science paper intended for all 5 researchers in the world of that science type). But anyway, as I recall (someone please elaborate), since the sources are perfectly cited, and only the second half of the section is in question, Wikipedia policy protects at LEAST the first half of the section from coming down, so I'm putting it back up, and up it shall remain. What I'd like to know is what policy says about the second half, because it seems screwed that it shouldn't remain up until properly disputed. Regardless, I'm leaving the second half down for now. --68.111.167.64 (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do read more about Wikipedia, namely: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:RS, The five pillars of Wikipedia, How to edit a page, Help pages, Tutorial, How to write a great article, and Manual of Style. As I said, the first part only has a few problems and I told you how you could fix those. But simply having something cited does not protect it from being removed. I could write Bill Clinton is gay and cite it to a MySpace account, but it would still be removed. I could even write something truthful and cite it to the Washington Post where it verifies what I am writing, but if I do not present it in a neutral manner it too can be removed. And as too perfectly cited, no, it is not. See WP:CITE for a what a full citation looks like (as would your grade school teacher mark you down for not including the author, copyright date, and publisher), as its a good start, but not "perfectly cited". And the "and up it shall remain" is problematic, see WP:OWN. And as to the second half, I already told you where to go for the guidelines: WP:NOR and WP:V. Please understand that I have no opinion on whether or not the sentence is in fact true, its about verifiability (which WP:V), and if it is original research, then it is not verifiable in a Wikipeida defined reliable source (you may be the expert in the world on the topic, but unless its published it fails the guideline for reliable sources).

Lastly, as to remaining up (AND WE DON'T SCREAM ON WIKIPEDIA), no, we tend to go with Bold, Revert, Discuss. As in you were bold and added the info, I then reverted, and then we discuss, with the content not in the article until there is consensus to do so. Otherwise, to draw from my earlier example, I would have the "right" to demand the claim Bill Clinton is gay remain up until at sometime in the future people decided the claim should be removed. So, please remove the second part from the article, or provide a citation to a reliable source where the speculation can be verified (again, I'm not saying it isn't true, but that is not how Wikipedia works). Aboutmovies (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so as I understand it, your only qualms with the last line are NPOV, and Verifiability. I cannot see or imagine by any means whatsoever how it is a POV statement, and in the same way, I don't know WHY something that obvious and common-sense based would need to be cited, like 9/10 of all the other free-floating lines in the article; because there's no cause. Let me quote the line (slightly updated): "It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits." It's not even POSSIBLE for an analyst to understand exactly how the market would be structured (you'd have to be psychic), but the very important truth inherent in the sentence is that the death of those chip companies OBVIOUSLY threw a question-mark into the future shaping of the industry, and could have had a huge impact on it. We don't know if the impact would have been big or small, and the line clearly states that... The purpose is pointing out a massive event in Intel's past that threw a new variable into the world's shaping) The only citation that would even make any sense is a link to the article on Cause and Effect. Anyway, that's the gist of it from my end, so if this goes on, I'm going to drop a line into Third Opinion.--68.111.167.64 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't understand. FIRST, I SAID WE DON'T SCREAM, but apparently you ignored that. The problem I said was with WP:NOR for this sentence/specualtion, that is, no original research, and then as a connected part, yes WP:V (verifiability). So its really pretty simple, provide a citation, and if it is so common sense and yada yada yada and the whole world knows it, then it should be no problem providing a proper citation to a reliable source. Again, I'm not saying I disagree, or that it is not true. But again, Wikipedia is about verifiability, and no original research. This is not the place for people to speculate, we leave that to the experts who publish these theories/thoughts, then we report that in Wikipedia. Or to quote the verifiability policy that is one of the core content policies: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". No emphasis added, and its the very first sentence, which means its really, really, really, important. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue what you mean by screaming - I haven't used caps anywhere (nor do I ever). Unless you mean individual words... should I just make them italic/bold? It's the same thing. - As for citations being mandatory, read the article. Something like 9/10 lines don't have citations... and this is in the bottom tier of statements that would ever NEED one, for the reasons I mentioned, which you haven't convincingly refuted in the slightest (frankly, there's nothing that can be said, unless you try to kick up dirt on the point by saying that it's somehow original research). The issue is that the statement in question is as FLATLY indisputable by a human being as saying, "Since Invader Bob wiped out several countries, nobody knows how the region today would have been shaped." or "Nobody knows how Hiroshima would look today if it had not destroyed with an atomic bomb." Why on EARTH would statements like that need citation? They aren't even "claims" in the sense that there could even BE an alternative. They are just fantastically basic common sense... and you say yourself that you aren't claiming it's wrong. So then why do you want it removed? Are you an Intel investor or something, lol... - I'm going to file for a Third Opinion now. --68.111.167.64 (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As to most of the article being uncited, true, but see our lovely essay of WP:OTHERSTUFF as to why we generally do not care about other stuff. And please do file for that third opinion. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well-noted about WP:OTHERSTUFF... Makes sense. --68.111.167.64 (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

History of crippling competitors with legal bills - Part 2

Sorry for being late to the party. I have been reading the discussion above but hadn't had time to comment. I am breaking this out as a separate sub-section mainly because 7 indents is probably enough.

Aboutmovies was perfectly reasonable to remove the text in question. If the text described a set of specific companies that were sued and what happened to them, and preferably had decent external sources, that would be a good start. As it is we have a vague claim that they sued a bunch of people at some unspecified point in time, and then an even vaguer claim that these suits could "cripple" competitors regardless of the outcome. Even the citations are problematic, both because of the vagueness of what they are meant to support, and because it is not evident whether the citation is something that Bill Gates said or something that Janet Lowe said. And all of this seems a bit meaningless when no comparison is provided between Intel and other companies, or even Intel at a different point in time; certainly it is implied that they were very lawsuit-happy over whatever period is being described, but no evidence is provided.

The third sentence is also problematic for a number of reasons. It is assumed without evidence that in the absence of Intel's 386-era lawsuits, the market would be very different; but since it has not been stated who they sued, or what happened after such suits, there is nothing to support that claim. If the companies that they sued were badly financed, badly run, and had no innovative ideas beyond naming their companies "Shmintel" and their product the "three86", then no, it does not inherently follow that suing those companies had a significant effect on the course of the industry.

The claim that something is "little-talked about" is inherently slippery. The Google search "citation" falls into the classic "Google test" problem that the query used is simultaneously very vague (no reference to, say, a specific company that they sued - and isn't even specific to the 386 era) and very specific (any article that doesn't actually use the word "crippled" or a close synoym may not be returned). It should also strike you as a bad sign that of the 18,000 results returned, not that many actually seem to be related to this topic; of the first 30 results, only one made any mention of Intel suing someone in the 386 era... and it was this article (Google's cache caught the version with this text in it). All of this is irrespective of the fact that anything not indexed by Google will be left out.

I am also struck by the undertones that Intel was the bad guy for suing whoever they might have sued, which of course sets off NPOV alarm bells (as does use of the word "crippled"). But yet again, since it is never stated who they might have sued or why, there is no basis to judge that on. — Aluvus t/c 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, and very patient of you to explain this to the novice editor who seems to have no clue about wikipedia policy and thinks his drivel like "this is a little-talked about fact" is "pure, flat, unadulterated information". Wow! Now, if we could get some actual info, and link to the source, this could be worth working on... The actual source is Janet Lowe claiming that "One industry newsletter claimed..." etc., which would itself be marginal to report and not very interesting as such. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. Also, just to make sure I was clear earlier regarding the Google search, not only will it not return sources not indexed, but much of the era under discussion was pre-Google and pre internet explosion, so many sources would not even have been on the internet to be indexed. Plus more modern sources may be on the internet, but at pay sites, which is what many newspapers do these days (the New York Times being somewhat of an exception). And to the IP editor, no, I am not an Intel investor, employee, contractor, or anything else. I did use to live a stones through away from one of there campuses and in college worked as a contract security guard at the site while it was being built. But I have no interest in promoting the company, nor would "keeping this quiet" after more than a decade have much effect on their stock price. But as someone with legal training, normally if you sue that many people and they are baseless lawsuits, you and the company are going to have some problems. And FYI, many large companies sue newer rivals, as the older companies often have patents or copyrights on the technology involved, and damn right they are going to sue to protect their investment (R&D can be rather expensive). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I got here from the WP:3O page and was all ready to write my opinion before realising that Aluvus and Dicklyon have got there first (although I would have been more polite than Dicklyon!!). To the IP editor, hello, welcome, hope this helps you understand how wikipedia works, and to Aboutmovies, top marks for your patience and explanations, although if you want someone to stop shouting it's better to tell them than to hint at it.  ;-) Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most people would have been more polite than me. Such is life. Sometimes I get to feeling that it's too short to waste being polite to newbie nuts. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with any of this fluff. The reason is this: read this line, and debunk it in simple English, in a way that is compatible with the common sense and reasoning of any other balanced human being: "It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured if those startup chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits, but this is a little-talked about fact that has likely been very significant in the shaping of the world's technology up until now." (and I can even do without the second half of the line) If you can debunk that, I'll put on a tuxedo, and give you an award for being beyond human, because a human finds no fault with such a flat statement of logic and common sense. You can't shoot it down with fluff, saying that it's invalid only because the words aren't mirrored in any Google-able sources. As I explained (and nobody made any convincing stand against whatsoever) this is not a statement that needs citation, because it's as true and understandable to any human being as saying, "Nobody knows how Hiroshima would have been today had it not been nuked." Any crossfire to that is just fluff, and I haven't bought any of these arguments yet even 1%, because, well, read them: nothing combats this line here. I'm open to reason (and not just conjecture), if there is any to be found against this.--68.111.167.64 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You are simply not getting Wikipedia, and there is little any of us can do for you to make the connection beyond what we have said. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the real world. The consensus has been formed, and your views did not make the cut. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I can't sleep and I'm bored of the article I'm trying to create, so I'll have a go:

"It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured if..."'

• ...Gordon Moore had been hit by a bus in 1952.
• ...Gordon Moore's ancestors had been killed crossing the Atlantic.
• ...the Manhattan Project had never happened, Japan somehow won WWII and therefore dominated the PC market for decades.
• ...we didn't waste valuable time on wikipedia and instead thought about capacitors and resistors a bit more.

Hopefully you can see that our arguments are not fluff, your proposed sentence is fluff. You could go through the entire page and triple its size with whatifs of the type you're proposing. If Andrew Grove hadn't made some good calls at good times for Intel, "it is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured." The point you want to include is so true and understandable to any human being that it does not need saying in an encyclopedia. Go and look at the Hiroshima articles. I will eat my hat (made of a chocolate bar!) if any related articles say "Nobody knows how Hiroshima would have been today had it not been nuked" precisely because it is so obvious and unnecessary, just as your proposal is. I really hope someone can find a proper policy or guideline to show you, the best I can find is WP:SPECULATION. Your statement cannot be debunked, that's not what the rest of us are arguing, it's that it has no place in this article, nor do similar statements have a place in the rest of the encyclopedia. Finally and furthermore, your sentence is especially irrelevant because the rest of the section you place it with falls down on WP:V so there's nowhere for it to go without looking very isolated and lost.

I again hope this all helps you to understand. Surely you appreciate that people watching the page don't think your additions are suitable, and then when you came to WP:3 and I responded in disagreement with your intentions, this must tell you that there is something wrong? Sadly wikipedia is not always a conspiracy... Right, magically I feel tired now...! Good luck Mr 68.111, I think you might need it! Bigger digger (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

History of crippling competitors with legal bills - Part 3

Point 1: Your logic isn't adding up very well at all... First, each of those Moore statements did NOT happen... this one did. And it's an *incredibly* notable statement, worth its weight even in the Technology Hall of Fame. The only unfortunate thing for ME is that it can't be sourced as anyone else saying it, but part of what I'm saying is that, aside from nobody here even challenging its message (because of how "duh" it is, on the most basic, basic, basic level), it isn't the kind of "notable claim" that needs citation, because a "claim" is a verbal relaying of an event that has taken place - thus one can challenge whether or not it is TRUE. This is a "call to insight" on something the reader already knows is true! (thus if the reader DIDN'T know it - and nobody here even challenges the fact it's highlighting - it would simply make them draw a blank, and that's *absolutely* not what's happening. So, again: this statement MAKES no claim. It's a call to insight, relying on something the reader already assumes. You arguing it is like saying "The following Comedian Article line needs a citation: Comedians are supposed to be funny." Why does that need citation? It's not an event-related "claim", it's just a call to insight on whatever parts of the article came before it.
Let me post it again:
During the time of the 386 CPU, Intel partook in suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386. The lawsuits were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, even if Intel lost the suits. It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits.
Point 2: So you're saying that my statement is SO TRUE (thank you) that it doesnt *need* to be said... But you're not realizing that I am POWERFULLY motivated by the message inherent to get it on the page, because while true to the bone, it brings to the reader's mind something that is NOT automatically assumed unless one were to really, really stop and think about the implications of the previous sentences.
Point 3: It's absolutely not WP:V, because it's explaining the SUM of the previous 2 sentences. How can you not see this? You say it looks isolated and lost here. That's like saying that the statement "His death was sad" wouldn't be appropriate at the end of a funeral speech (and would also need citation). Not on this planet.
"Surely you appreciate that people watching the page don't think your additions are suitable, and then when you came to WP:3 and I responded in disagreement with your intentions, this must tell you that there is something wrong?"
It does. It makes me strongly wonder if more than one of you guys aren't Intel investors or employees (I know your edits are heavily focused around silicon valley-related articles), because if 100 people care enough to view this discussion page, there's an enormous mathematical probability that not only are a great deal of them Intel employees or investors (Intel has 83,000 employees, and who knows how many investors), but an even higher chance that those that are will have an EXTREMELY volatile reaction to the statement, and thus be prompted to defend it (especially with such weak arguments, as I'm bombarded with here - I'm sorry people, but your arguments are just desperate-as-can-be fluff, extremely indicative - to me at least - of bias going on here, since they are so furiously combating such an untouchable statement). I'm not going to press or even maintain the idea that you ARE investors, beyond what's written here, but I'm just telling you why I do indeed see something wrong, as you mentioned, and why I most certainly have no intention of letting go of this.
I'm going to take this to ArbCom next, because I KNOW that they won't have a biased interest in this (Arbitrators are elected to a board beforehand - they aren't just random users). ANYBODY from ThirdOpinion can chime in here, and naturally since I warned beforehand that I was going to post there, you can come here like, "I'm the fair and balanced Third Opinion you were looking for," when that is not a very sound assumption, given all probability here. You could be, but I think not, because your completely bizarre case against this line here makes absolutely no *human* sense.
Also, you said: You are simply not getting Wikipedia, and there is little any of us can do for you to make the connection beyond what we have said. Simply put, Wikipedia is not the real world. The consensus has been formed, and your views did not make the cut.
Not so. One of the rules here is "Wikipedia is not a democracy", so majority opinion among editors is never the final say, since majority opinion could easily just be a bunch of cause-supporters trying to get important information distorted. I don't buy this one bit, and thus will let ArbCom decide next, since they know all the rules.--68.111.167.64 (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
My, Wikipedia's formatting/layout/everything is a pile of 1980's CRAP.--68.111.167.64 (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First, feel free to take it Arbcom, it will be fun. Second, attacking Wikipedia really will not help your cause. At to your first "claim" stuff, again, we are not asking you to prove it, we are asking for a citation that provides for verifiability, as in where you got the claim, as in we need a published source that says this, again for the umpteenth time not that it is true. Verifiability, not truth. Good luck. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my change on the main-page (where I simply put the section back where it has been the whole time), and say that it was against consensus? Consensus of WHAT? First, this was never about what section the lines go in, and second, you reverted back to someone falsely claiming that Bill Gates was the one who said those lines in the book. I know that you are biased here, because this isn't making sense. - Anyway, I filed for ArbCom. - And in response to what you just said above, like I said earlier, you only cite "claims" that present true or false information; not calls to insight on the painfully obvious implications of what you just read (which nobody even challenge, proving how incredibly redundant a citation would be for such an obvious statement: "It is unknown how the technology market of today would be structured exactly if those competing chip companies had survived beyond Intel's lawsuits." You aren't even challenging the message of the line, so you are certainly biased here, and have an ulterior motive for wanting it removed. The purpose of citations is to appease the concerns of those who may be rightfully skeptical, not those who may want things removed for no reason that they can put into words (you say just because it isn't cited, not because there's anything subjective about its content. That tries desperately to get the letter of the law to triumph over what any non-biased human being sees as simply right.))--68.111.167.64 (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are just digging yourself a whole buddy. You might want to examine the edit I made where you can hopefully notice that I did not "reverted back to someone falsely claiming that Bill Gates was the one who said those lines in the book". Your personal attacks about bias will further hurt your cause, especially when based on misstatements of fact, such as the content of the reversion. As to the consensus I speak of, it is that none of what you ever added really should be here, let alone in the format you put it in. With that in mind, the other editor (or editors) properly moved the remaining information to a more proper location that brings it inline with WP:NPOV as we generally try not separate out positive or negative information into their own sections, and we rarely are going to have such a specific subsection (since this concerned lawsuits, moving it there was proper). Aboutmovies (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To respond to point 3 above, if you are including a sentence to "explain the SUM of the previous 2 sentences" then that is WP:Original research and not allowed.

Following the invitation to the ArbCom case I had another look at the article and can't believe there's still a whole section on Crippling competitors, sourced to a single comment in one book reporting what an "industry newsletter" wrote. This is very weak sourcing for a whole section and suggests WP:UNDUE. I'm sure Intel sued lots of companies and killed them off, but can we get some better sources of just integrate this sentence into the Competition, antitrust and espionage section. I'm not saying the rest of the article is perfect (far from it!) but this is where my attention is drawn at the moment. 68.111.167.64 can you find some more sources to improve the article in this manner? Bigger digger (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History of crippling... (something new)

I have reported the IP editor to the admins' noticeboard here because of their continued editing of the article without consensus and in breach of policy. Bigger digger (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an entirely different approach... and absolutely nothing can be said against this edit. Please describe in detail how the bold text below is in any way flawed. Aside from how I completely disrespect the opposing argument for the FIRST edit (seeing as nobody even challenged the line's actual message - for OBVIOUS reasons), this new one comes from a different angle, and avoids the only issues anyone had with the first edit I was trying to get in there (verifiability and NPOV) because, well, look at it: it's pristine... Quote:

"During the time of the 386 CPU, Intel partook in suing companies that tried to develop chips that competed with the 386. Even if Intel lost the suits, they were noted to significantly hamper or even cripple the competition with legal bills, changing the structure of who remained strong in the chip market."

What is even your motive for wanting THIS ONE removed? Is it once again not that there's anything false about the statement, but just that you flatly don't want it in there, because "bah-humbug, [insert paper-thin, subjective accusation of not following some guideline]"?--68.111.167.64 (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

68.111, nice of you to finally log in as User:Dario D. so we can give you a name! First off, thank you for not immediately trying to reinsert your edit, but perhaps now that there's a notice at AN you will be more amenable to debate? The whole point of your proposals is that they are unverifiable because they are not attributed to a reliable source. This is not subjective, and they're not random guidelines, they are part of one of the 5 pillars of wikipedia. In your suggestion above there are the following problems:

• First, the location of the cite marks suggest your bold statement is supported by the source. It is not.
• Second, your source is very vague, it notes another newsletter as reporting that Intel sues smaller firms to cripple them with legal bills. If we are to include it in the article it should cite that newsletter, not a book reporting on it per good practice in citing, another part of the pillar.
• Third, a single reference cannot be used to support an entire section, that gives undue weight. As I note below if included at all it should be in the section on competition and anti-trust issues.
• Fourth, the bold text is speculative, and unsourced. Please find a policy, guideline, essay or example in another article where such an assertion is made. Then also find a source. Then we can begin to consider including it instead of dismissing it.

I am trying to help you include the statement you want to make. I don't care for Intel either way but I really care about creating a decent encyclopedia with good articles that follow the policies and guidelines agreed by the community. I will try to help you include what you want in the article but you have to help me by meeting some of the criteria listed above. Have you been to WP:Editor assistance yet? Bigger digger (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Note the comment here on the AN board. Bigger digger (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else think a rewrite of some form is needed?

I'm no fan of the company at all but this article is overly negative and focuses too much on trivial detail, much of which is poorly sourced. Ironically it even misses one of the more interesting negative events that led to the rapid growth of several of their competitors such as Cyrix and AMD (the exploding chips fiasco in some earlier Pentium-I's, and the poor way it was handled). What do others think? Orderinchaos 13:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Improvements are always welcome, including tagging or removing unsourced junk. Dicklyon (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

this is a remarkably short talk page for a subject as extensive as intel. i suggest that there be a section in the main article on the subject of why ibm chose the 8086 microprocessor instead of (for instance) the motorola 68000. intel, a relatively minor chip-maker at the time, was handed pre-eminence on a gold platter, in the same way as microsoft was handed a similar platter by being chosen to write the os for the pc. motorola had the better chip, but it was by far the larger electronics company. perhaps ibm chose intel because they felt they could control intel, when they couldn't control motorola.Bob Emmett (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Context Surmise for Intel Signiture Defeatism

Does Microsoft have any indefinite support for Intel's mainstream and compatibility being that every thing works Unix or Linux impenditure keystroke or move passe. To get right to the point, does Intel and Microsoft appear to go hand in hand, or is that simply a given that should not be brought up? To reference, why [do] money holders not get into CPU ventures period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 23:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, your query is not very clear, are you asking a question in relation to improving the article? If not it might be removed in a few days as unsuitable. Bigger digger (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see how this may seem unsuitable. I was discussing how and if intel should be referanced in the article as an item similar to a staple. We might want to discuss this common observation and portray intel as how they are actually seen and maybe by perchance even discussed by some individuals from time to time as a pickmeup joke or conversation starter. To be more clear on the disc add, and staple referance, some foods are a staple, like milk and eggs. Plus, those two seem to go together, and no one in particular seems to be responsible. I like intel, however, since our circa 2000 technology advent, only motorola (apple), intel, kmd, cyrix, amd, and maybe one more beginning with an 's' that i will leave out, for ambiguity reasons still unclear, maintain any sense of recognition, but intel has kept to it's promise to stay above water so to speak. I think an article update should go like this: not verbatim here, but as if sumarized.

.........Intel has maintained top billing in the CPU race (industry) and withstanding, for reasons of prestige, it has held ground as the premire microprocessor and has left the gate closed to new technologies and expenditures into the market during our short CPU stint that mearly started years prior.......... to follow here wiki suit, by follow-up, a relation would have to indict intel as a soverign branding that has 'kept it "treading water (jk)' during these few short years. Maybe it could even be reasoned how it has kept this ground either by menteal coersion or by physical prowess or duress that wealthy individuals have not lept into this seemingly prolific teritory of CPU/PC foray. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC). Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (EST)

I'm a little confused at what you're saying here, but I think I might have the general idea. Are you suggesting that a section about Intel using predatory marketing techniques be added, or perhaps that they have a monopoly in the microprocessor market? It is rather difficult to understand your particular idiolect. Are suggesting that Intel is a household name and should be stated as such in the article? -- Aeonoris (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ken Hamidi removal

I'm concerned over this sentence and have removed it for discussion:

"However, Intel's working practices still face criticism, most notably from Ken Hamidi, a former employee who has been subject to multiple unsuccessful lawsuits from Intel."

• Only one citation for Intel's practices "still facing criticism", and that one is a 4 year old (2005) addition based on one disgruntled ex-employee cited to a website apparently run by that ex-employee.
• No evidence of what a balanced mainstream view is on Intel's working practices and employee relationships, or past history. As a large employer there should be reliable sources.

Removed for now pending review here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

3D Transistors?! This is an encyclopedia not a marketing platform

3D transistors are a joke. That's what Intel's marketing wing is calling its multi-gate and tri-gate MOS devices. 3D transistor is not a technical term and the impression it conjures up of some radically advanced tech over the so-called "2D transistor" is nothing more than pure marketing bullcrap. The sources linked are also news sources with no technical background. CNN and (wait for it) Semiaccurate? Really? Google even lists Semiaccurate as satire because of how ridiculous and opinionated those posts are, and often how factually incorrect information is dressed up in ostensibly technical language. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. A company like Intel deals with cutting-edge technology beyond the understanding of laypeople. In order to remain encyclopaedic we need to stop using marketing press-releases (and the news segments that follow) as our information source. Rlinfinity (talk) 09:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Intel Settlement with AMD

Anon poster here. Would it be relevant to cite Intel's $1.25 billion USD settlement with AMD, prompting the latter to cease all of its pending litigation worldwide?

URL for reference: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33882559/ns/business-us_business/

This is breaking news as of the morning of approximately 0900 US EST, 12 November 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.242.115 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

#Open_source_support

Is it worth mentioning here that Intel releases specs to the FLOSS community?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Reference 7 is no longer available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.142.211 (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Env. Section

Hello-

My name is Gary Niekerk and I work in Intel's Office of Corporate Responsibility. I would like to add a link and reference to Intel's Corporate Responsibility report to the end of this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Environmental_record

The corporate responsibility report [3] gives detailed information on Intel's global environmental performance including chemical use, energy use, water use, environmental fines, etc.

Please let me know if this is acceptable to do.

Gniekerk (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that this may represent a conflict of interest.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Systems Division (Hypercube and mesh) computers missing

While a small portion of the company, it has historic computing if not financial significance. This is not even a B-class article. It does require a rewrite as one commenter pointed out. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed that myself. Will make a start on adding this. Letdorf (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

acquisitions =

I know the article lists macafee.. but shouldn't there be more on other intel acquisitions.. like a list on link to one? I dont think they were the only one -Tracer9999 (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of vulgar/offensive words.

this to inform the mandator that offensive language is used in the below link. ''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Corporation#Origins_and_early_years'' please do correct it.

and if possible can you send me the biography of the person who can be called as the father of Intel Corporation.

From: Rakesh Kumar Singh [email redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.83.97.81 (talk • contribs)

I'm not a monitor, just a volunteer editor here. That childish vandalism had already been repaired before you posted here, feel free to repair any vandalism you find in Wikipedia yourself. The founders' names can be found in the first paragraph, and they link to their own biographical articles. I removed your email address so you don't get spammed. --CliffC (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Product Overview Section needed

I am in the process of linking Intel to the new solid-state drive template and I realized there is nothing (notable) on this page covering Intel's participation in the expanding SSD market for either their NAND flash or solid-state drives. When I get a chance I will come back to add a section with an overview of all the products (at least the categories). § Music Sorter § (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

New tech

Intel® Identity Protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.168.106 (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Updating logos

The 'logos' section needs updating for the badges on second generation of i-series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Battman95 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Stars Rating" section needed

We should add something on the 2009 Stars Ratings program. Here is one source link. If I get a chance I will come back to add something. § Music Sorter § (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

i Family

This article doesn't mention anything about the i Family!--Mike28968 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean the Core i3, i5, i7 processors. Be bold and add something you believe is appropriate. § Music Sorter § (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

22nm out of place

"22nm processors" (Intel#22nm_processors) between 386 and 486 CPUs seems completely out of place. Since this is the first time I open this article and haven't really read all of it, I'm not sure what's the best place to fit it in, but this does not appear ideal. W3ird N3rd (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

i386 and i486 are not related to 22nm, 45nm, etc.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a swag at fixing this and also the sandy bridge reference that was there in the middle of the 386/486 section. Stevegt2 (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Timing of the layoffs

The text says that decreasing revenues in September 2006 lead to the laying off of 10,500 employees by July 2006. This is chronologically nonsensical... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.74 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Competition

Nothing on ARM?? 192.55.55.41 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Based on today's news about intel's 25% drop in profits, resulting from the world wide drop in PC sales as people move to mobile devices which require more power efficient processors, it seems to me that a sentence or two about ARM in the competition section might not be out of place (I note ARM is mentioned earlier in the article). I'll add such content, as currently it looks like the section has little input about more recent events.1812ahill (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Added bit about ARM to competition section.1812ahill (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Early History and Signifigance of 8080

I feel that the article as it currently stands (1/26/2012) gives a distorted view of the early history of Intel's computer chips. The emphasis on the lack of profitability of the early chips overlooks their importance to the computer industry. The 4004 and 8008 were ground breaking chips, they pioneered a new industry, but in reality they were not widely deployed. On the other hand, the 8080 chip had a huge impact and widespread adoption. This chip was an industry game changer and was what put Intel on the map. To be dismissive of it due to low profit margins (which this article currently does), is to give a distorted view of how significant the chip actually was. One of the pivotal moments for Intel was when the Altair computer chose to use the 8080 chip. Intel's 8080 and Zilog's Z-80 spent the 1970's dukeing it out for dominance. The Z-80 (which came out later) was considered superior to the 8080 (better memory interface, better mnemonics, more registers) and gained a large adoption, but when Zilog came out with the Z-8000 as the successor this turned out to be a major misstep because it broke compatibility with the then considerable software available for the 8080/Z-80 chips (CP/M etc.). The 8086 bent over backwards to maintain compatibility with the 8080 and ultimately won dominance in the market. Zilog later tried to backtrack and introduced upgrades to the Z-80 but by then it was too late, Intel had run away with the market, the Z-8000 never gained much traction, but the Z-80 lived on for many decades in embedded control systems such as vending machines. This article ought to say something about the above. comments by Old Codger (I was a programmer in those days). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.0.185 (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Preferred Quality Supplier award

Intel's PQS award, part of its SCQI program, seems to be something that should be included in the article, but I'm not sure how it ought to be done. Thanks for any pointers on this tactical subject.

A larger strategic issue I'd like to discuss concerns the structure of major articles such as this one, where something of an outline can be adapted from the structure already provided by the corporation itself, in terms of a table of organization or an outline taken from the corporation's website and sitemap. While this could have some problems in various ways (copying elements of website design, letting the corporation set the tone of the article, etc.) it would make a comprehensive inclusion of the corporation's activities and programs a heck of a lot easier. Basically, I think that WP's ad-hoc style is getting in its own way in articles this complex. Can a section or sections be introduced which fit the above description? Where is the proper place to discuss this? TheLastWordSword (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Facilities

This is an open call for a Facilities section. I would like to see a section, preferably near the top to keep it in line with other similar page designs, with a description of intel's specific capacity (# of plants at wafer sizes) and facilities. I'd volunteer to write up a section, but I don't have that information to add. --173.66.0.100 (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—70.39.185.131 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The coordinates displayed at the top of the article appear to be correct (although overprecise) for the Intel headquarters at 2200 Mission College Boulevard in Santa Clara. Could you be more specific about the error that you think needs to be corrected? Deor (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. With no response from the OP, I'm going to close this request as not done. Deor (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Intel related biographies

I thought that there might as well be a section or grouping for the several Intel related biographical articles on wikipedia.

There were only two mentioned when I started, but just guessing quickly found a few.

Unknown if there are wikipedia standards for organizing this sort of thing. I am sure that the wikipedia trolls will delete if they feel like it.

Would be best if there was some sort of semi-automated query that might apply.A.Glew (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Revenue

incorrect revenue figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalenjji (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

'Windows 8 and the collapse of the PC market'?

Totally ludicrous header for a totally ludicrous section. In what way has there been a "collapse of the PC market"? There has been a relatively small decline in the growth rate of the industry, but it's still a huge market. The only source for this section mentions nothing about a collapse, it's about increasing tablet demand and a slowing PC market.Core1911 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/03/07/apple_said_to_be_in_chibaking_talks_with_intel/ In addition, reports indicate that Intel's fabs aren't running at full capacity these days, due in no small part to the worldwide PC-sales slowdown.

Every report I've seen shows the deadly touch of Win8 on the PC market. 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And in the meantime, Intel is selling it process capabilities to other companies to make their custom chips. For example:

• Cisco http://www.zdnet.com/intel-reportedly-signs-biggest-foundry-customer-yet-cisco-7000009967/
• Apple http://www.extremetech.com/computing/150217-intel-pumps-up-its-foundry-business-might-snatch-apples-soc-business-away-from-samsung

etc. When the actual press releases come out we can add them next to the already confirmed deal. Hcobb (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the latest revert on "fab management", as Intel does not have a deep track record on managing fabs for the designs of others. This latest move is notable (in the eyes of several RS) simply because it is a new thing for them. Hcobb (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Categorised under companies of Israel?

Is Intel really a company of Israel? It was founded by two Americans, is headquartered in America, is traded on American stock exchanges. The article mentions that Intel has offices in Israel, but also in a number of other countries that Intel isn't categorised as being a company of. Diweikipa (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Old Intel logo

I hope including the old Intel logo in .svg is useful. I hope it won't be deleted -Polytope4d (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Any info on XVCPI, a parallel effort to DPMI?

In the talks about the VCPI (Virtual Control Program Interface) article we have found out that prior to the publication of the DPMI (DOS Protected Mode Interface) standard in 1990, Intel seems to have had a role in the coordination or development of a similar effort named "extended VCPI" or "XVCPI" to address the shortcomings of the original VCPI 1.0 specification around 1989/1990 in order to provide better support to the memory management and multitasking capabilities of the 386 processor. Other companies apparently involved in this effort were Digital Research with Concurrent DOS 386 and Interactive Systems with Interactive Unix, but probably there were more. Very little is known about this. Does someone reading this remembers this standard or proposal and perhaps has announcements, documentation of any kind, or bits of background information in regard to this XVCPI thing? Your comments or contributions to the VCPI article or talk page would be highly welcome to better document this bit of technical history. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Name

I think we can see "8/6/68 Name changed to Intel Corporation, a California Corporation." in http://www.intel.com/intel/company/corp4.htm . So actually they used NM Electronics as the name of their company for less than a month?202.43.96.123 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.96.123 (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) kadjjasdjhawowehyugqerwiwqegiqwegiwdouwohaghoeagouearbjdafus|Imveracious]] (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate

I've removed an entire section devoted to discussion of a minor issue involving Intel temporarily withdrawing advertising from a website because of Gamergate lobbying. It was trivial and not really relevant to the company, and it's already out of date. --TS 22:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Intel product naming (numbering) scheme

I found an interesting article in an old copy of Intel Technology Journal that describes how the various Intel chips got their "names"...

• http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/research/2001-vol05-iss-1-intel-technology-journal.pdf

Might make a good subsection for this and/or other Intel articles. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Diversity investment

Intel has announced a $300 million diversity fund, which seemed to make a big splash in the news this morning [4]. Perhaps this would be worth a one-sentence mention in the diversity section? I have a minor COI wrt the subject and would rather not edit the article. -a13ean (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Done in spades. What was your COI? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Does "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" really need its own section?

It's a complaint (and a minor and insignificant one at that) that has not had any effect on Intel at all. This shouldn't have it's own section. If people think it should remain in this article, put it in an already established section. Maybe in corporate affairs section, just like there's a religious controversy in that one. Knightmare72589 (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I would support moving it to the "Corporate affairs" sections, per WP:UNDUE. It's especially ironic if you put it next to "Religious controversy"—shows you can't please anyone. Conifer (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think if no one has any objections, it can be removed. Knightmare72589 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Acq of Infineon Wireless Biz - Shouldn't it read Infineon (partial)?

Intel acquired in 2010 one major part of Infineon, the wireless business division. It did not buy the full company, Infineon still exists as a major German semiconductor company. This is easily verifiable by ref 56 ( and the reference to the Infineon wikipage and webpage.)

In the Acquisition table in line 3, it should read Infineon (partial), isn't it?

(134.191.220.74 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Intel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430140419/http://news.zdnet.com:80/2100-9584_22-148811.html to http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-148811.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130116171322/http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=56572 to http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=56572
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070820070329/http://blogs.intel.com:80/views/2007/07/sprinter_ad.html to http://blogs.intel.com/views/2007/07/sprinter_ad.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101220121043/http://sparkawards.com/Galleries/09_Entries.htm?appid=1948 to http://www.sparkawards.com/Galleries/09_Entries.htm?appid=1948
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929023550/http://www.ifdesign.de/beitragsdetails_e.html?offset=19&sprache=1&award_id=161&beitrag_id=42577 to http://www.ifdesign.de/beitragsdetails_e.html?offset=19&sprache=1&award_id=161&beitrag_id=42577
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090228004507/http://www.intel.com:80/community/newmexico/media.htm to http://www.intel.com/community/newmexico/media.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150323131329/http://www.intel.com/intel/cr/gcr/overview.htm?iid=intel_corp+rhc_visit_report to http://www.intel.com/intel/cr/gcr/overview.htm?iid=intel_corp+rhc_visit_report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070621084244/http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com:80/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html to http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051001170040/http://forbes.com:80/technology/2005/09/02/intel-amd-antitrust-cz_dw_0902intel.html? to http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/09/02/intel-amd-antitrust-cz_dw_0902intel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130630223729/http://uk.reuters.com:80/article/technologyNews/idUKL1730607220080718?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0 to http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKL1730607220080718?pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070731232711/http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/default.aspx to http://breakfree.amd.com/en-us/default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118015722/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/BT-CO-20091217-712217.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091217-712217.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Split SSD section to separate article

I concur with the proposal to split the SSD section to a new article. I see since January 2014 there have been no comments either way, so I will be bold and execute the split shortly per Wikipedia:Splitting#How_to_properly_split_an_article. § Music Sorter § (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It needs its own article. Imveracious (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the lack of action on this proposal perhaps we should eliminate the long list of products from the section and not bother with the split? Tom94022 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Acquisition of Chips and Technologies

Article is missing any mention of some early and pretty important acquisitions. One that comes to mind is Chips and Technologies that took place in 1997/98. At the time it was Intel's largest Acquisition @ $420 million and allowed Intel to enter the graphics processing market. --CyberXRef^☎ 04:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Intel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225035112/https://www.wired.co.uk:80/news/archive/2015-01/07/intel-diversity to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-01/07/intel-diversity
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080603083454/https://www.lesswatts.org:80/about.php to http://www.lesswatts.org/about.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090522163807/https://www.programmersguild.org:80/archives/lib/agediscimination/upm19981207older.htm to http://www.programmersguild.org/archives/lib/agediscimination/upm19981207older.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Add Intel Shooting Star Technology

Just add it its not hard but I'm bad at wikipediaing. KspeXproler (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Intel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=42469
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603095001/http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=56542 to http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyID=56542
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forbes.com/technology/2005/09/02/intel-amd-antitrust-cz_dw_0902intel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201175017/http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/01/HNintelresponse_1.html to http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/09/01/HNintelresponse_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125122437/http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091216_885383.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2009/tc20091216_885383.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725104512/http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2266948/dell-pays-100m-penalty-settle to http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2266948/dell-pays-100m-penalty-settle

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150611233644/http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/intel-dc-s3710-enterprise-ssd%2C2-915.html to http://www.tomsitpro.com/articles/intel-dc-s3710-enterprise-ssd%2C2-915.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n1964_v39/ai_13901771
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n2109_v42/ai_18135525
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.intel.com/intel/cr/gcr/overview.htm?iid=intel_corp%20rhc_visit_report

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

OE Source

• https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/intel/#.WU6KtRiZNo4 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110129221008/http://techshrimp.com/2011/01/26/intel-wins-conditional-approval-from-eu-for-mcafee-acquisition-of-7-68-billion/ to http://techshrimp.com/2011/01/26/intel-wins-conditional-approval-from-eu-for-mcafee-acquisition-of-7-68-billion/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216121817/http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839 to http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116171317/http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Intel-Smart-Response-Technology-Explained/1292/2 to http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Intel-Smart-Response-Technology-Explained/1292/2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110921051247/http://www.intc.com/intelAR2010/financial/statements/note2/ to http://www.intc.com/intelAR2010/financial/statements/note2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130214120949/http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20121205221523_Intel_Readies_Ivy_Bridge_Processors_with_10W_and_13W_Thermal_Design_Power.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20121205221523_Intel_Readies_Ivy_Bridge_Processors_with_10W_and_13W_Thermal_Design_Power.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026194759/http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111024150841_Intel_Quietly_Starts_to_Sell_New_Unlocked_Core_i7_Chip.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20111024150841_Intel_Quietly_Starts_to_Sell_New_Unlocked_Core_i7_Chip.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

2018 flaw

Hi Objective3000. I don't think removing that content was the best way to go about it. Just because it happened recently doesn't mean WP:RECENTISM is a problem. In fact, the statement from Intel substantiated the information and confirmed the existence of the exploit. " "Based on the analysis to date, many types of computing devices — with many different vendors' processors and operating systems — are susceptible to these exploits." (ABC News). Financial Review also wrote that Intel confirmed the reports.

I think the best plan of action would be to re-add the content with Intel's statements. We can also change "the last decade" to 1995 per ABC News. The Financial Review article also contains more details to make it less speculative. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

In fact it's even bigger than the initial news articles made it out to be. Turns out it was discovered last year at Google, the CEO knew of the exploit when $24 million worth of stock was sold, and share prices for Intel and AMD have sunk and risen, respectively. The exploits have been nickanmed Meltdown and Spectre (2nd source), so we've now got a good title for a section. Since the removal of the content, Spectre (security vulnerability) and Meltdown (security vulnerability) have been created. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it should be now added back. But, the initial reporting was almost definitely incorrect and there are still contradictions. The current claim is that it is not an Intel-only problem but that other manufacturers are involved. Also, that the 30% performance hit is probably nonsense. Yes, it was discovered last year. But, the Intel CEO stock was a planned, automatic sale initiated prior to discovery. Reporting has been very sloppy and the picture very different. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added it back and updated it accordingly. I left out lots of speculation (like the stock stuff, though I think it could be important in the future). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The 30% reduction from the Register is outlandish and should be removed. This would only occur in a specific test scenario that would never exist in a real application. O3000 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not just The Register that announced this. I've modified it to demonstrate this, as well as saying that it's workload-dependent. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I read The Register. But, I would never cite it. The 30% number is an estimate of a theoretical max if you wrote code to specifically exercise code to fix the problem that has yet to be developed. It's a very scary number with no relation to reality. O3000 (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

IMO it's important to include the 30% given that so many articles included it, many of which do no directly cite The Register. With this said, there have been other professionals and researchers that have agreed it's exaggerated, so I've added some more info. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This is why we have WP:RECENTISM. The actual numbers will be reported once fixes have been distributed. O3000 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of recentism, but it's the only well-sourced number we've got. We can amend and update it once more official numbers are released. And anyway, the article basically shrugs the 30% claim off immediately afterwards anyway. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

But is it well-sourced? Aren't all the sources referring to the same source? And this is an extreme statement. It suggests that 90% of servers and PCs will slow by 30%. That would have massive worldwide impact and severely damage Intel and other major companies, possibly crippling e-commerce. It is irresponsible for us to repeat this wild guess. O3000 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've made one final change that included Intel's response. Feel free to edit it as you see fit. It should be noted that the article says "up to 30%", meaning there's a high chance a system isn't inhibited by 30%. Here's a Forbes article. The section should also mention the impact this'll have on big organisations which is written about here. Amazon, for instance, has apparently already protected itself. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not a Forbe's article. It's a post to a Forbe's blog and not RS. O3000 (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That's entirely my bad; shouldn't be searching for sources at 1am. Anyway, I'm happy with the way the section has progressed. Have a great 2018! Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Realy Forbe's bad. They make their blogs look like articles. WaPo does the same. Sources for tech are a problem. Financial mags get involved as the tech market is so large. But, their reporting is often lacking. The Register tends to be overdramatic and Ars Technica tends to have heavy biases. Anandtech is more reliable, but their coverage not as wide. Those are just my opinions. O3000 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Why delete the New York Times summary of the security flaw?

Is the NY Times not a reliable source?

Why delete this content from 2018 security flaws:

 According to a New York Times report, "There is no easy fix for Spectre ... as for Meltdown, the software patch needed to fix the issue could slow down computers by as much as 30 percent".https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/business/computer-flaws.html 

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m curious why you are adding this to two Intel articles and not the AMD and ARM articles as it affects them also. Intel has already announced that they have fixed the problems and is rolling out software updates. The largest users affected by these problems are Google and Amazon, and they have both reported little performance impact. This is the reason WP has a guideline on WP:RECENTISM. Let us avoid the moment-to-moment changes that bounce the financial markets around. (As an aside, Intel is up today and AMD diving.) In any case, the article you are citing is already out of date. O3000 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Other editors added the info about the flaw to this article. I have seen no evidence of Intel stating that it had a solution. This article is minutes old: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/5/16853732/intel-meltdown-spectre-cpu-vulnerability-class-action-suits Peter K Burian (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Here is the Intel comment to the media. I just found this: Intel said Wednesday that performance degradation after security updates for Meltdown "should not be significant" for the average user. But on a call with investors, the company admitted a decrease in performance of up to 30 percent was possible after fixes under some "synthetic workloads." Peter K Burian (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Synthetic workloads do not affect actual users. O3000 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

AMD? If I add anything to that article, I would add this:

AMD is big winner from chip flaw fiasco as more than $11 billion in Intel stock value is wiped out .. Investors are piling into AMD shares and selling Intel stock after major chip security vulnerabilities were revealed earlier this week, and it totally makes sense.

Only Spectre is an issue with AMD: One of the two vulnerabilities, called Meltdown, affects Intel processors. The other, named Spectre, could affect chips from Intel, AMD and Arm.

(btw, both of my PC's use Intel processors and I have no beef with the company or its products.)

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 and Peter K Burian I agree with your point about WP:RECENTISM, but what do "financial markets" have to do with editing?Dbsseven (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My point is that financial markets tend toward knee-jerk reactions and accompanying volatility. An encyclopedia should be more stable and dispassionate. CNBC reports every bit of everything as soon as they hear it as that’s what their listeners want. OTOH, WP is WP:NOTNEWS. O3000 (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000, okay I understand your point a bit better. How about using a {{current}} tag to make this issue clear? However, I believe this is far better discussed in detail on the security vulnerability articles rather than the manufacturer's (as I mention below). Dbsseven (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There was a {{current}} tag. It was removed as they're are only a few editors. If editing starts up again, probably should restore it. O3000 (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe an in-depth discussion of these issues belongs on the manufacturer's articles, but rather should be on the Spectre (security vulnerability) and Meltdown (security vulnerability) articles. Then background discussion (as appropriate, with links) should be included on related pages, such as here and the product pages. Otherwise the same content will end up repeated over numerous manufacturer and product pages.Dbsseven (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree. BTW, here is an in-depth discussion.[5] Although, even it is a bit out of date. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The current content in the Wikipedia article is hardly an "in-depth discussion" about the flaw. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That may be a fair criticism Peter K Burian, but is really something that should be discussed there. This article is about a 50 year old company that has made 1000s of products. In depth discussion of any particular topic should be discussed on a page specific to that content.Dbsseven (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Once again, fully-cited content that I added was deleted. The current content of this article looks like a whitewash to me. IMHO. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This content that I had added indicates Intel's view. It was deleted on the basis that it was quoting financial analysts.

  A CNBC report indicated that Intel's estimate as to performance degradation after the solution for Meltdown "should not be significant" for the average user but later agreed that a decrease in performance of up to 30 percent was possible after fixes under some "synthetic workloads."https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/05/amd-is-big-winner-from-chip-flaw-fiasco.html

Call me paranoid, but I continue to feel that this is all a whitewash of Intel. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 and Peter K Burian. What about citing the phoronix articles?[6][7] A reputable source and not nearly so excitable as CNBC. However this should be mentioned briefly, to highlight consequences of the issue/fix. In-depth discussion should be on the vulnerability specific article, IMO.Dbsseven (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Afraid I’m not familiar with Phoronix. Nothing about them at WP:RSN. I wouldn’t expect any performance impact on gaming, which makes extremely heavy CPU and GPU use. O3000 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I am very familiar with Phoronix. They benchmark hardware in a linux environment. Very relevant to the cloud/industry. And gaming is a specific workload, very different than databases, file systems, etc seen impacted in benchmarks.Dbsseven (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter K Burian, your text looks like a bit more like a hit-piece to me. Let me explain what is meant by synthetic workload. I don’t know how the software fixes work. A possible method would require additional overhead during context switching (switching between kernel and user spaces). To measure the absolute max impact, a synthetic workload would be constructed that constantly switches contexts without actually performing any real work. This would provide a worst case scenario. But, the scenario is ridiculous. No actual workload would do this. The 30% number that you keep adding has been contradicted by IDC, Google, and Amazon. IDC has been a highly respected tech source for decades. Google and Amazon run massive cloud facilities – which are most affected by Spectre as they run under hypervisors. They are not seeing anything like 30%. This is a scare number that originated from an unknown source to draw headlines. We’re better than that. Please gain consensus for such changes. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure, quote a source other than CNBC but provide the true version of Intel's view on the effect the fix will have. You're right; I am not a tecchie on computer processing. (However, I was a technical writer for photography magazines for over 20 years so I do understand concepts.) And I do feel that anything that seems to make Intel look bad is deleted. Not modified with a better source, but deleted. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 and Peter K Burian good points. However, other sources show ~20% performance reductions in some benchmarks (and ~0% in others). These are tests based on specific (but not contrived) workloads. So 30% may be the absolute greatest impact, ~20% the greatest impact in a possible real-world workload, and 0% a best-case workload. Giving some numerical measure of the consequences may be fair. (As the 0% is already described in the current text.) Is there a cite for the 30% number other than CNBC? Dbsseven (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Another version of Intel's actual view on the issue: During the call, Intel acknowledged that it has seen no degradation in some applications and up to 30% degradation in some applications. Intel did not want to get into details on the impact on desktop or laptop PC users and server or cloud users but there is abundant information in the public domain that indicates that the server and cloud applications are likely the most impacted. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting: Intel’s nightmare continues as lawsuits loom over Meltdown and Spectre bugs http://www.techradar.com/news/intels-nightmare-continues-as-lawsuits-loom-over-meltdown-and-spectre-bugs ...

  Intel has been busy firefighting this PR nightmare all week, and it seems the company will need plenty more extinguishers on hand in the near future. Meantime, other chip makers will likely be keeping as low a profile as possible.

   Also, the revelation that Intel’s chief executive Brian Krzanich allegedly sold off the majority of his shares in the company later on last year – after Intel was supposedly informed about the security flaws back in June – has added another pinch of spice to this whole affair (as if it wasn’t heated enough). 

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Also interesting: Intel Security Risk Is Much Worse Than Management Commentary Indicates Intel's security concern-related commentary is not credible in our opinion. The Company may face a massive recall. Intel faces much worse competitive landscape and its future products will likely be delayed. Intel is now a conviction short in our opinion. ... With a whole host of product, process, and security-related problems, the time has now come for investors to sell Intel short. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates

Peter K Burian (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: I believe you have a valid point about including consequences of the bug. Please see my comment my comment here. Can we please discuss it here? (Adding more quotes from more sources is making it difficult for me to follow the discussion.) Dbsseven (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone tell the markets. Intel is up 1.34% and AMD down 2.5% today. SeekingAlpha is a crowd-sourced site and not RS for anything. Be very careful about any suggestion that Krzanich has committed a crime. O3000 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that SeekingAlpha is not a quality source. I still assert that phoronix is a good source. (It's already cited in the current text, and I have seen it cited on a number of technical articles which I read and edit). What about modifying the text to: "Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance, though database and compile benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%" Dbsseven (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

We don’t know Intel’s fix. But, if they have already rolled out a fix, then it would not require compiler fixes as they don’t supply much in the way of compilers. I think Phoronix was assuming you would need to make compiler fixes to alter out of order execution, which could be costly. I suggest we only use actual reported experience after fixes have been applied. O3000 (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: This is benchmarking the linux fix for these issues. Phoronix is applying the updated linux kernel, not assuming anything, and reporting the consequences of a standard suite of benchmarks. (Though minorly to correct you, Intel does famously produce it's own compiler.) There are already a mention of general impact with the MSFT comment about Azure performance. Dbsseven (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La

Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988

  Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1

Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Peter K Burian I believe you meant this in the discussion below. Dbsseven (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's discuss Security Flaw section

Yes, @Dbsseven I have added many comments from various reliable sources in the previous topic and that can become confusing.

My primary points, all covered with quotes and citations in the previous Talk item. This WP article is about a corporation so the financial impact on the company, and its competitors, is relevant.

1. Intel's actual view on the effect the fix will have needs to be included. Use a source other than CNBC; https://seekingalpha.com/article/4135558-intel-security-risk-much-worse-management-commentary-indicates

2. We should also consider including this info: Intel CEO Brian Krzanich sold about half his stock months after he learned about critical flaws in billions of his company's microchips. http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html (Also at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-ceo-sold-millions-in-stock-after-company-was-informed-of-vulnerability-before-disclosure-2018-01-03

The company has known about the security flaw for months, according to the WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 Intel Wrestled With Chip Flaws for Months

3. A class action suit vs. Intel has been started. http://www.techradar.com/news/intels-nightmare-continues-as-lawsuits-loom-over-meltdown-and-spectre-bugs

4. The Public Relations issue: WSJ is behnd a paywall but their article includes this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 3 hours ago - The disclosure of security flaws in computer chips dealt Intel what seemed like a sudden crisis, but behind the scenes it and other tech companies and experts have ... “I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPU's, and actually admit that they have issues instead of writing PR blurbs that ...

Cheers! Peter K Burian (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This entire event is being way overblown. I understand that the tech blogs and financial sources are making such a huge deal. That’s what they do. But, the tech field is simply handling it the way they handle vast numbers of problems. The simple facts are:

• Despite the fact that the problem, has existed for 15-20 years, not a single incident of hacking via these vulnerabilities has been reported.
• Fixes have been developed and are being rolled out.
• Major users have reported minimal impact on performance.

These wild speculations that the Intel CEO has committed a crime, that Intel, AMD, and ARM will have to recall a billion chips, that Intel is seriously damaged; are irresponsible. If something actually happens, we will report it when it happens. Let the blogs bark all they want. This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and CNN do not publish wild speculation. And nobody is suggesting a crime.

Criticism of the company's handling of the issue is certainly valid in an article about a corporation.

Intel's stated view as to the slowdown produced by the fix is not speculation.

The class action suit is a fact. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peter K Burian I agree that the financial impact is relevant. However right now it is largely unknown. Please keep in mind WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, not all details have been published yet and the consequences are not entirely known. For example it is fair to mention that this has lead to lawsuits, but it might not be reasonable to discuss the consequences of those lawsuits. Also we need to be clear about what in those sources is speculation and what is fact. (Your example in point #4 explicitly begins with "I think". And source #1 is explicitly criticizing Intel's response.).

I propose the following to keep it simple. In addition it discussing performance consequences (as suggested above), what about: "These security flaws have lead to a class-action lawsuit and criticism of Intel's response." Dbsseven (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Shareholder lawsuits are very common, and these will likely disappear as the stock is recovering and actually is close to its 52-week high. (How can you file a stockholder suit when you are near a high?:)) I really haven’t seen any serious criticism of Intel’s response by its customers. I think we are trying to move too quickly. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 you many be right, but to exclude it based on the idea it will go away is WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL also. To state it briefly and edit when new things happen is okay. But it is fair not to over-weight it also.Dbsseven (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying omit it because of that. Do we have any reason to believe these lawsuits are unusual? Major companies are always being sued. O3000 (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

That a major company is being sued is not unusual, I agree. But specific suits on topic may warrant mention (as examples: 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls and Firestone and Ford tire controversy). Dbsseven (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Those were successful suits (few are) involving deaths. Shareholder lawsuits are rarely news unless they involve massive losses (CitiGroup, Enron, BoA). O3000 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A more topical example Bulldozer_(microarchitecture)#False_advertising_lawsuit. To be clear, this may be worth mentioning only in passing. Dbsseven (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think that lawsuit should be mentioned either. The AMD article doesn’t mention a lawsuit they actually lost [8]. I don’t think that deserves mention either. Just another day in a large corp. O3000 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La Peter K Burian (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

So if he's indicted, we'll include it. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

NOT a crime, but it is a fact as Intel concedes. But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La

Is this not relevant in an article about the corporation? Intel Says CEO Dumping Tons of Stock Last Year 'Unrelated' to Big Security Exploit https://gizmodo.com/intel-says-ceo-dumping-tons-of-stock-last-year-unrelate-1821739988

  Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off $24 million in company stock http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1

Also see http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/04/technology/business/brian-krzanich-intel-shares/index.html ... https://www.wsj.com/articles/intel-wrestled-with-chip-flaws-for-months-1515110151 (Intel CEO sold millions in stock after company was informed of vulnerability, before disclosure.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

*Proposal: I do not agree with all of the comments by Dbsseven in the various Talk items, but in general, this editor seems to have the most practical view of the content this article should include at this time. IMHO. (Some of the issues are still developing and not ready to be covered yet.) I hope you will do an edit Dbsseven.

Another concept would be a new section about the criticism in the major news media of the company's handling of the flaw, and of the CEOs massive sale of stock after the flaw was well known at Intel, and the Public Relations approach, etc. With a mention of the class action suits. In an article about a corporation, that might make more sense then detailed coverage of the security flaw. (I could write that but several Users are set to UNDO anything that I add.) Peter K Burian (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You are close to a WP:BLP violation. If there was no connection between the stock sale and the problem, it is not interesting. If there was and it's proved, he would go to prison and be banned from running a stock held company. This is a serious crime. O3000 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

How can I be close to a WP:BLP violation for quoting CNN, Bloomberg News, Gizmodo, Business Insider, Wall Street Journal and MSN?

The MSN comment is what the article should include, in my view: But in the fourth quarter of last year, CEO Brian Krzanich sold nearly 900,000 shares, halving his stake in the company, according to Bloomberg. A company spokesman told Bloomberg that the sale had nothing to do with the issue of the security flaw, insisting that Krzanich had exercised options according to a pre-set timetable agreed long before. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/tech-firms-battle-to-resolve-major-security-flaw/ar-BBHV0La

i.e. There is no crime but this is one of the issues for which Intel has been under criticism by the news media.

Peter K Burian (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe the WP:BLP violation would be if the edits were put in place, rather than discussed. However, while I have not read every cite, the articles I have read say things like "could/might". None are explicitly accusatory. Therefore, something like "Brian Krzanich sold... leading journalists to questions about the timing of the sale" would be okay (IMO), while stating securities laws were broken would not.Dbsseven (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The articles do say he sold the stock and that the flaw had been known for months before that. But also that the sale was one that was scheduled long ago, per Intel. Nonetheless, it did attract criticism in the news media. Often, it's not what a company does, but how it's viewed after the fact. The perception. And it has not been positively viewed.

"Brian Krzanich sold... leading journalists to questions about the timing of the sale" Sure, that would work, although I doubt that many other Users will agree. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Clean slate consensus

hi Peter K Burian and Objective3000. This conversation seems to be going all over the place and difficult. I would like to find some common language WP:CONSENSUS that is everyone can live with. I would like to propose specific language and then we can discuss the language here. (cites to be added once language is agreed)

The current version (minus refs):

The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws.

I propose (changes in bold):

The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Video game benchmarks by Phoronix on a Linux system demonstrated little impact on frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.

Dbsseven (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Dbsseven. I would prefer a new section about the criticism in the media that Intel has received, as per my previous note (second Proposal). That would include the security flaw.

But failing that, OK per your suggestion, but how about this for the last sentence: These security flaws led to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions in the news media about Intel's handling of the situation. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort. Phoronix may be a reliable blog. But, their test was made without the Intel fix and sounds like it was based on assumptions about what Intel could do. One man making assumptions about the capability of a company that invests over $10 billion a year in R&D. I think it’s more important to look at Amazon and Microsoft which have in place fixes currently supporting a vast number of cloud-server sites and have made statements about performance results. I am opposed to any mention of share-holder lawsuits. They are common. O3000 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I believe you mis-understand Phoronix, it is not a blog. There is no reported explicit "Intel fix". Further, this is the linux fix. To limit edits based on an expected Intel solution violates WP:CRYSTAL. If Intel does produce a better fix, then the text can be updated. (This is common on other technology articles.) And common-ness is not a basis for exclusion if it is relevant to this topic. (I am not proposing listing all Intel lawsuits, only the one in response to the issue here.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it’s a website supported by blog software. Intel’s statement: Intel has developed and is rapidly issuing updates for all types of Intel-based computer systems — including personal computers and servers — that render those systems immune from both exploits (referred to as “Spectre” and “Meltdown”) reported by Google Project Zero. Intel and its partners have made significant progress in deploying updates as both software patches and firmware updates. [9] I am not crystal balling. I’m looking at what is actually happening – not at tech and financial blogs. Here we run into WP:RECENTISM again. We need to report actual results, not speculation. (BTW, no need to ping me.) O3000 (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000 There appears to be a need for consensus on WP:RECENTISM and what is/isn't too new. The current version of this article cites Phoronix stating "little impact" in gaming benchmarks. However the same source on the same date states there are differences in database benchmarks. What is the basis of inclusion/exclusion to be then? Perhaps it is better to state "initial mitigations..." And it is worth pointing out Intel is the largest contributor to linux, their statement does not preclude this being part of their solution/updates [10] Dbsseven (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I’m not understanding a need to mention Phoronix. We can quote Microsoft Azure, with $15 billion in datacenters available in 140 countries. Or Amazon AWS global datacenters. They have applied fixes – and yet we aren’t hearing any complaints from their massive number of users. Security patches are incredibly common. Microsoft issues them on Tuesdays. This one sounds bigger. But, much of the scare stories in the press have been outlandish. O3000 (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Company revenue or location are not standards for reputable sources. In fact, secondary sources are encouraged. WP:PSTS And from those Primary sources: Amazon and Google have explicitly stated they have update their linux kernel in response to this issue. [11][12] And they do not say "all" customers are unaffected but "majority".[13] Google explicitly states "Performance can vary, as the impact of the KPTI mitigations depends on the rate of system calls made by an application". Intel also states "performance impact of these updates is highly workload-dependent"[14] I am trying to find consensus language to match and clarify this varied performance response with the fix. Dbsseven (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I am using Phoronix to explicitly cite how most use-cases are not affected, but some are. This is in agreement with what Google/Amazon/Intel have stated. The statement "much of the scare stories in the press have been outlandish" is not in agreement with Intel, which lists these as "important" vulnerabilities [15][16] Dbsseven (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Phoronix is no less a primary source than Amazon and Microsoft. I think Amazon and Microsoft gave out more info on performance than that. They would also be the first to join a legitimate lawsuit. Their experiences in performance hits are based on actual production workloads. There exist serious problems with benchmarking synthetic workloads. The results can be very meaningful for those knowing the exact construction and completely understanding the limitations of the results. As I understand it, the worst case scenarios involved heavy SQL calls, probably remote calls. That’s not something most of the billion chips affected deal with. Throwing around numbers like 30% and raw benchmarks along with scary headlines originating with The Register has caused great volatility in the markets that is now starting to correct as cooler heads prevail. We should not use raw benchmark numbers here understood by fewer than 0.001% of readers. Maybe with great care in the main articles on Spectre and Meltdown. And, of course these are important vulnerabilities. But, Intel/AMD/ARM will not be recalling a billion chips and people will (unfortunately) still be Tweeting tomorrow. O3000 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to do with the markets. That is irrelevant here. WP:NOT Dbsseven (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know we have nothing to do with the markets; So, let’s not use seekingalpha and CNBC as a template. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, glad we agree. Those are not good sources and I do not suggest using them. As this is a technical issue I am suggesting we cite reputable on-topic sources. Phoronix is such a source, and PC World is a secondary source supporting the quality of Phoronix and their results.[17]Dbsseven (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you can find more information that Amazon/MSFT, please cite it WP:PROVEIT. These are the cites in-hand. As for being rare: the acknowledged rare Pentium FDIV bug a similar note on this article, as well as an independent article in detail. And databases are very relevant (see the business of Oracle Corporation as one example.)

Benchmarks are used to "assess the relative performance of an object, normally by running a number of standard tests and trials against it" (per Benchmark (computing)). If you concern is tone then please let us discuss the language of how to include these results. Perhaps with prose without percentages given. Dbsseven (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

(I also strongly disagree with "not something most of the billion chips affected", "fewer than 0.001% of readers", "Intel/AMD/ARM will not be recalling". These are WP:OR and not grounds for editorial decisions.) Dbsseven (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounds like OR. I may have a little difficulty separating myself from the fact I’ve been in the tech field for over a half-century with expertise in benchmarking. That makes me not one wit more qualified than anyone else to edit this article, and I rarely edit tech articles. But, it’s what is behind my belief that such numbers are so misunderstood. As for suggested text, it’s already in the article. I’m not saying it will pass WP:10YT. But, it was written in an attempt to withstand the changing story as long as possible. More detailed, more timely, material belongs in the main articles. O3000 (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand your perspective a bit better re WP:10YT. However, my concern is that as written current this article gives little credence to an impact of the bug (saying only "ballpark", and that's weasly to me), when there are good sources with explicit results of impacts ranging from none to significant. I would suggest "...using the initial Linux Kernel page-table isolation mititgation showed little impact in some benchmarks, but slowing in particular use-cases." This is immediately followed by the notes about real world impact and planned future mitigation. Sound better Objective3000? Dbsseven (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. Seems a bit odd to focus on video game benchmarks. But, gamers are more concerned with performance (even obsessed) than most. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Pleasure doing business with you. BTW, the Pentium divide issue was a far bigger deal. It could not be solved by OS patches. Every compiler had to be modified to check for the condition and every program using floating point had to be recompiled, impossible in many cases. Actual results could be affected if the application did not recompile or the user did not update, and performance was impacted if they did. O3000 (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Good finding consensus with you as well. Thanks for the Pentium background. We will see what ends up happening with this. (It doesn't really add anything to the prose, so not worth adding another cite, but RedHad has also confirmed on the varied performance impacts of the bug-fix. [18])Dbsseven (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Phoronix seems solid to me. Phoronix benchmarks have been cited by a number of other technical publications such as CNET News[9][10] and Slashdot.[11] It's certainly not a blog. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal (italics of uncertain content):

The impact on performance resulting from software patches is "workload-dependent". The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Benchmarks by Phoronix using the Linux Kernel page-table isolation mititgation demonstrated little impact on gaming frame rate and performance, though other benchmarks were slowed by up to 20%. Intel wrote "for the average computer user, [the impact] should not be significant and will be mitigated over time." Microsoft reported that the majority of Azure customers should not see a noticeable performance impact. It is believed that "hundreds of millions" of systems could be affected by these flaws. These security flaws have lead to a shareholder class-action lawsuit and questions about Intel's response.

Dbsseven (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 bug performance hit

hi Peter K Burian and Objective3000 and anyone else interested in joining in. As it is a week later, it seems worth revisiting the performance impact portion of the 2018 bug section with update values. As it is contentious, I though we could discuss it here. Some recent sources from Microsoft, Intel, RedHat and secondary source commentary.

I propose to replace: The Register estimated that fixes would result in a ballpark figure of a 5% to 30% performance reduction with a lower reduction on newer processors, though Intel and others, including Bryan Ma at IDC, believed this to be exaggerated. Using the initial Linux Kernel page-table isolation mitigation showed little impact in some benchmarks, but slowing in particular use-cases.

With: The impact of the initial fixes varied by operating system, CPU, and task; ranging from no impact to a noticeable decrease in system performance. These effects were most pronounced older CPUs and older versions of Windows.

Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. Add a preposition in the last sentence. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this article needs an update. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, IMO it accurately summarizes the four linked sources; please include the links as refs in the update. Tom94022 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Intel Corporation seeking to update sections in the Intel Wiki Page

Intel® Optane™ Technology – Wikipedia updates; Intel Talk page

The following is an outline of proposed information that can be added to the Intel talk page:

Section: 1.1: Operating segments [Change copy in the Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group bullet] Non-Volatile Memory Solutions Group – 4% of 2016 revenues – manufactures NAND flash memory and Intel Optane memory, products primarily used in solid-state drives.[10] [Reference does not change]

Section: 3.4: Solid-state drives (SSD) [Change copy to] In 2008, Intel began shipping mainstream solid-state drives (SSDs) with up to 160 GB storage capacities.[135] As with their CPUs, Intel develops SSD chips using ever-smaller nanometer processes. These SSDs make use of industry standards such as NAND flash,[136] mSATA,[137] PCIe, and NVMe. In 2017, Intel introduced SSDs based on Intel Optane technology.[138] [138 changes to] 138. ^ Sean Portnoy (October 30, 2017). “Intel releases first Optane SSD for desktops, workstations”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirleyhh (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

"Intelligent Technology and Electronics" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Intelligent Technology and Electronics. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Pentium

As the original product marketing mgr that brought pentium to market beating out MIPS RISC I can add important historical content. Need access. Recurry (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Importance of missing out on Apple mobile chips

In Otellini's 2013 interview , he acknowledges a mistake in not making mobile chips for Apple; volume became 100 times bigger than forecast. The path not taken was later associated with a large job loss, as the old PC chip business became stagnant, and Intel could not pivot to mobile. It seems notable, but I don't know how to apply it to the article. Talk archive offers no help. TGCP (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

First, Intel was and still is the most successful company in “mobile” which traditionally refers to laptop and notebook PCs- including MacBook. Intel declined to build a special processor for iPhone (traditionally called handhelds). While it would have certainly added some to Intel’s bottom line, the amount would, and still is minimal given The required low margins and Apple's volumes in handheld. The fab captivity used would have displaced other products with many times the selling price and margins. Apple has taken 10 years to get one RISC chip that is competitive with x86 in one market segment only - mobile pc. Its primary business is systems- not chips, and it’s highly questionable that they can afford the investment and focus required to stay competitive with Intel over the next few years. This is similar to when Apple switched to PowerPC back in the 90s. They came out with new PowerPC-based computers that got lots of coverage at the time for beating Intel but even the benchmark claims didn’t last long and eventually, they had to go with Intel for the last 15 years. Recurry (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Correction:

the amount would be - and still is - minimal, given the required low margins in handheld. Recurry (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Intel Ignite into Intel

The "Intel Ignite" program is a relatively minor project of Intel and entirely dependent on Intel. This article would more appropriately be a sentence in Intel's timeline. FalconK (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Intel Ignite shuld be a stand alone article, just like dozens of other Category:Business incubators as Microsoft BizSpark and Google for Startups. Ovedc (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I must agree with Ovedc. Ignite is a stand-alone independent program with the support of Intel, and no difference from any other cooperate incubator as mentioned.Shaykea (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It should stay as a stand-alone article rather than a brief mention on Intel's timeline. It's definitely relevant enough for an own article. Sure, it's not very long, but a lot of important key facts and sentences that give context and structure would be lost if we condensed the entire article into one to a few sentences.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

30 Diarmuidkelly (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Intel acquired Cosmonio September 2020

30 Diarmuidkelly (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

30 Diarmuidkelly (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Change Acquisition table entry: Add Cosmonio and add reference. There is no news coverage of this that I could find, only the company's website. Change Acquisition table: Add Cosmonio entry at end

Acquisition table (2009–present)

Intel acquisitions since 2009

Number	Acquisition announcement date	Company	Business	Country	Price	Used as or integrated with	Ref(s).
1	June 4, 2009	Wind River Systems	Embedded Systems	US	$884M	Software
2	August 19, 2010	McAfee	Security	US	$7.6B	Software
3	August 30, 2010	Infineon (partial)	Wireless	Germany	$1.4B	Mobile CPUs
4	March 17, 2011	Silicon Hive	DSP	Netherlands	N/A	Mobile CPUs
5	September 29, 2011	Telmap	Software	Israel	$300–350M	Location Services
6	October 30, 2011	Invision	Software	Israel	$50–60M	Software
7	April 13, 2013	Mashery	API Management	US	$180M	Software
8	May 6, 2013	Stonesoft Corporation	Security	Finland	$389M	Software
9	July 16, 2013	Omek Interactive	Gesture	Israel	N/A	Software
10	September 13, 2013	Indisys	Natural language processing	Spain	N/A	Software
11	March 25, 2014	BASIS	Wearable	US	N/A	New Devices
12	August 13, 2014	Avago Technologies (partial)	Semiconductor	US	$650M	Communications Processors
13	December 1, 2014	PasswordBox	Security	Canada	N/A	Software
14	January 5, 2015	Vuzix	Wearable	US	$24.8M	New Devices
15	February 2, 2015	Lantiq	Telecom	Germany	$345M	Gateways
16	June 1, 2015	Altera	Semiconductor	US	$16.7B	Programmable Solutions Group (PSG) - e.g. FPGAs
17	June 18, 2015	Recon	Wearable	US	$175M	New Devices
18	October 26, 2015	Saffron Technology	Cognitive computing	US	undisclosed	Software
19	January 4, 2016	Ascending Technologies	UAVs	Germany	undisclosed	New Technology
20	March 9, 2016	Replay Technologies	Video technology	Israel	undisclosed	3D video technology
21	April 5, 2016	Yogitech	IoT security and Advanced Driver Assistance Systems.	Italy	undisclosed	Software
22	August 9, 2016	Nervana Systems	Machine learning technology	US	$350M	New Technology
23	September 6, 2016	Movidius	Computer vision	Ireland	undisclosed	New Technology
24	March 16, 2017	Mobileye	Autonomous vehicle technology	Israel	$15B	Self driving technology
25	July 12, 2018	eASIC	Semiconductor	US	undisclosed	Programmable Solutions Group
26	April 16, 2019	Omnitek	FPGA Video Acceleration	UK	undisclosed	Video acceleration
27	December 16, 2019	Habana Labs	Machine learning technology	Israel	$2B	New Technology
28	May 4, 2020	Moovit	Transit data	Israel	$900M	Transit data
29	May 20, 2020	Rivet Networks	Networking	US	undisclosed
30	September 24, 2020	Cosmonio	Computer vision	Netherlands	undisclosed	Software

All set ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

I would like to add the acquisition of SigOpt to the list of companies acquired by Intel. Reference: https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-to-acquire-sigopt-to-scale-ai-productivity-and-performance Seasickcake 7037 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC) That just says they're planning on acquiring them. We'll need a source to say it's happened. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I found a few pieces of evidence to conform that intel did acquire SigOpt. One is their Twitter description that says "acquired by Intel October 2020". https://twitter.com/SigOpt Also a Tech crunch article that says "it has acquired SigOpt". https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/29/intel-acquires-sigopt-a-specialist-in-modeling-optimization-to-boost-its-ai-business I know this is not direct evidence to show that the acquisitions has taken place but it shows that the acquisitions has occurred. Seasickcake 7037 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Forget to add signature with timestamp. I apologize for that. --Seasickcake 7037 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Restructure this page and Improve Quality

I don't know what happened here, it sort of looks like some vandals did a drive-by. I'm going to do this the easy way, pull the entire source down, organize it and edit to make it an article about Intel - the corporation. Some of the statements on this page are laughable. For a point of reference: Intel has been more of a benefit to society than it has been a hindrance, or damaging. Yes, intel has caused damages, some that may have created other/more problems. My intent and obligation is to represent them equally with appropriate weighting without minimizing or unnecessary elevation. The point is to make it an encyclopedic article about Intel "the company" without the multiple deep-dives into tangential issues, living on such an awful layout. Missbellanash (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Missbellanash (talk) 23:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Intel is no longer has the largest market share in the semiconductor manufacturing industry Rubikssolver4 (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a section with a clear overview of their major fabs. Agree that some clean-up of the article is needed and that a lot of material (like the products section which needs more refs) could be moved to dedicated articles to make the main article cleaner and easier to read. - Indefensible (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Civic education

Find out the name of INEC Chairman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.29.179 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ultrabook Fund section looks dated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Ultrabook_fund_(2011)

This section is talking in present tense about sources dating back to 2011. It could probably use a change to past tense at least but probably needs a full update to what happened with the fund as the results of this fund should be observable at this point. Gyaruko (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)