Talk:Lunar Lake

Skymont disambiguation

Currently "Skymont" redirects to Cannon Lake (microprocessor), should there be a disambiguation page as the E-core architecture is also called "Skymont"? AurorusGreg6105 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_15#Skymont_(microarchitecture) Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Prose

I'm really not a fan of prose being used for describing platform features:

• It takes a ton of space
• It requires very careful and mindful reading because the information therein is quite important
• Various pieces of information are easy to miss or misread
• It's not in line with all the existing articles

Perhaps it doesn't belong to CPU/GPU related articles. The same applies to the Meteor Lake article.Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RAM information

@Visite fortuitement prolongée

The information was there and it was perfectly readable. Now you moved it far to the right where no one can spot it. Specially mobile users. Good work. Good attention. I am thinking of ceasing my contributions to WP for ever. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hell don't do that. I really appreciate most of your edits in Wikipedia. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it should be a dedicated column rather than combined into the CPU model numbers column, but I'd say why not move it towards the left (e.g. next to clock speeds)? This info is of greater importance than the CPU cache or NPU TOPS that's for sure.

The table columns should be sorted in a higher importance to lower importance of data order, from left-to-right.

-------------------------------------

Now, this is a little unrelated to the above and is more of a general question, but here's some food for thought:

Imagine about 20 years in the future when CPUs become so complex that they have like 40 data points that are worth presenting in a table. What do we even do then, to present the info in a concise and highly accessible manner, while still making sure to include all important data? Hmm, do we split the entire table into two, where each table talks about a subset of features? I once considered that idea with the AM5 chipsets table. — AP 499D25 (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The models of microprocessors will likelly not have 40 differents values between them, so we can put the commons in a list outside the table, such socket, RAM type or what i will do in a few minutes here. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The 12th gen and later Core i processors tables are already pretty damn large due to the amount of different data contained in them such as E-cores, two different TDP ratings and TVB boost. And now lately they are adding NPUs to their latest processors as well as LP E-cores.

On the Meteor Lake mobile table, the LP E-core info is contained in the common features bulletpoint list, since it is nearly identical across all the models, but someone complained on the talk page that they couldn't find the LP E-core info, which probably indicates that the common features list isn't quite clear enough / getting as much attention as the table below it. Similar complaints were raised over at the Ryzen processors list talk page as well; if there's enough complaints about not being able to easily find these common info in the table then we might have to end up putting them inside the table anyway. I know there isn't a consensus in favour of it (as of yet), but still, just a consideration. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Launch date

Was the launch date on September 3 as Intel announced (paper) launching it in a press event and some reliable news covered it, or September 24 when pre-orders were fulfilled and i.e. VideoCardz reported it to be launched? 84.250.15.152 (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also pointing discussion of Arrow Lake (microprocessor) October 10, 2024 launch date vs October 24, 2024 "release" / shipping date here, from the Tick-tock model article. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

IMHO launch date is when Intel considers it "launched" according to the ARK database (marketing status). While the launch date in there only mentions the quarter of the year, the word "launched" is already there when the paper launch happens. Probably the whole ARK database entry is added or made public on that day - not sure.

Less clear is when talking about the release date (rather than launch date), see Talk:List of Intel CPU microarchitectures#Roadmap - release date column. Pizzahut2 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess using the market availability makes more sense, though it's confusing to call it "launch date" when Intel uses that for their "paper launch". Pizzahut2 (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

---

I (84.250.15.152 (talk)) will ramble and make mentions of original research here, even though it's not important (and I shouldn't). I'm well aware of what the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline guides to do in this scenario. I also feel it's necessary to go on a tangent about a previous processor generation, for comparison.

Intel technical specifications were published on 4 September 2024 for Core Ultra 200V Series processors (Lunar Lake). If I recall correctly, that's also when the Intel Product Specifications (ARK) pages went live, which is also the oldest revision date Wayback Machine has. This 4 September 2024 date is neither 3 September 2024 (press event) nor 24 September 2024 (market availability).

I attempted to recall personally Raptor Lake technical documentation publications were also delayed/unindexed for several days in September 2022 at "reveal" (market availability) announcement, but the Intel Product Specifications (ARK) pages for Raptor Lake processors were published earlier as I remember it. Sadly I can't demonstrate this for verification, due to a lack of archives at Wayback Machine.

In the Raptor Lake article on English Wikipedia, the cited press media sources say the Raptor Lake launched on 20 October 2022 and this is what the infobox in that article currently states as the "launch date" for Raptor Lake, although Raptor Lake market availability (I assume) was "revealed" on 27 September 2022 by Intel a month prior. September 2022 (a month prior to Raptor Lake's market availability) was also the initial release date for Raptor Lake technical specifications, according to Datasheet, Volume 1 of 2 § Revision history. In other words, the Raptor Lake wiki article uses what the press from The Verge and Ars Technica said the launch date to be (20 October 2022). To quote that Wikipedia article:

On September 27, 2022 at their Innovation event, Intel officially revealed six unlocked Raptor Lake SKUs launching for desktop on October 20, 2022.

(Blockquote source: Raptor Lake § Raptor Lake-S (permalink: revision 1251461285) on English Wikipedia. See page history for attributions.)

Besides the Raptor Lake article infobox, its history section also states:

Raptor Lake launched on October 20, 2022.

(Blockquote source: Raptor Lake § History (permalink: revision 1251461285) on English Wikipedia. See page history for attributions.)

Now there may have been a bit of a dilemma because unlike where the Raptor Lake reveal in October 2022 was just a "reveal" date a month prior the "launch" in September 2022 with Raptor Lake two years ago according to the press, press media such as Tom's Hardware touted Lunar Lake as "launched" and "revealed" on 3 September 2024 a month prior with availability on 24 September 2024. TechPowerUp published a press release (from Intel) saying Intel "announced" and "launched" Lunar Lake on 3 September 2024, with global availability starting September 24th. The Verge said the practically same, by saying Intel "revealed" and "launched" Core Ultra 200V chips on the week of 3 September 2024, with availability on 24 September 2024.

I think WP:RS (reliable sources guideline) on Wikipedia says to use whatever the reliable sources say at the time, but it's also not that simple!

ExtremeTech says Lunar Lake architecture (that is, Lion Cove and Skymont architectures, I assume) was unveiled and a paper launch at Computex 2024 (June 2024), but also that Intel didn't mention any "SKUs, pricing, or launch dates". Back then no CPU models were announced. Would you consider Lunar Lake's "launch date" to align with Computex 2024? (I would personally not, despite the mention of a paper launch, and technical resource papers were not available for the processors.)

VideoCardz (possibly unreliable source?) added to confusion here, and even contradicts itself by Intel is launching "Core Ultra Series 200V" (Lunar Lake) on 3 September 2024, and then stating the launch is not scheduled for that day, at the end of the one and same news article. Three weeks later on September 24th, VideoCardz reported Intel launches Core Ultra 200V and Today [on September 24th] marks the release date for the Core Ultra 200V series, codenamed Lunar Lake. VideoCardz lists their pseudonymous editors on their website, but I couldn't find an editorial policy, so I have my doubts whether this source is suitable or reliable for encyclopedic use.

According to AnandTech, Intel also previously demoed or "teased" Lunar Lake at Intel's Innovation 2023 conference on 19 September 2023, and at Computex 2024 with an (estimated) release date Q3'2024 for Lunar Lake (and Q4'2024 for Arrow Lake). I'm inclined to say and opinion these events / conferences were preview dates for Lunar Lake, not to be considered as launch dates. AnandTech dissolved/shut down before the launch of Lunar Lake, thus AnandTech only has news coverage from pre-launch of Lunar Lake.

Nonetheless, the third-party sources all seem to agree about market availability on September 24th.

I'm inclined to set the infobox launch date to 3 September 2024 per my personal bias and favorism towards (in my opinion, more reputable) Tom's Hardware, TechPowerUp, The Verge and Intel's press room statements, with or without a footnote for minority viewpoints in third-party sources and explanatory notes, to follow the statements of what third-party sources verifiably said, even though this is practically partly contrary to what the Raptor Lake article has named for a launch date (but consistently, reports on what the press media said).

Throwing an off-topic tangent in here: I hope I don't also need to talk about the media using "Core Ultra Series 2" moniker informally, instead of the official term "Core Ultra (Series 2)" used by Intel and system original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) selling the products. I guess WP:COMMONNAME reigns in the end, possibly in favor of the informal variant without parenthesis, as much as I dislike it without parenthesis personally.

References

84.250.15.152 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The date when a product is announced is not the same as when it actually releases. If that was the case, then Raptor Lake "launched" when it was merely announced on September 20, 2022 rather than its actual release date of October 20, 2022. All reviews of Lunar Lake came three weeks after Intel's September 3rd announcement. Reviews embargoes only lift around the time that a product actually becomes available to buy. Intel can say they have "launched" a product with a powerpoint presentation but that is very different to independent reviews and consumer access to the product. 4202C (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Xselant

Hello, Xselant, long time no see. Ah, wait, you're now called @4202C your twentieth account on Wikipedia.

Again you have removed readable information, the bullet point list, and made WP readers wade through pages of prose.

Again, you've made the table completely unwieldy, and it doesn't even fit on my 2560 pixel wide screen, and oh boy, do you enjoy repeating the information.

I have zero mental strength to fight editorial wars with you. You've won. Wikipedia is yours. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree that those lists should be presented in encyclopedic prose tone, but if Special:Diff/1252961396 is to set a precedent, then the same would need to be done to other articles: Rocket Lake, Raptor Lake, etc. Improving the article would often be better than deleting useful information outright. 84.250.15.152 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I too quite liked that simple bulletpoint list over the lengthy wordy prose, actually, and disagree with its removal too. I think what we should do instead is restore it, but move it all the way up to the top of the architecture details section, and have it clearly labelled as a "summary" of all the prose below, or something like that. Calling it simply "Features" is a bit of a bad idea because then it feels redundant and out of place to the other sections on the article. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)