Wikidata:Property proposal/CPUID code

CPUID code edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description	CPUID identification code
Data type	String
Template parameter	"cpuid" in en:template:Infobox CPU
Allowed values	hexadecimal string
Example	Intel Core i7-6700 (Q28739510) → 506E3 (see http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/CPUID.pl?CPUID=57560)

Motivation

CPUID code to identify a specific CPU microarchitecture. List of these codes can be found here : http://www.cpu-world.com/cgi-bin/CPUID.pl. Maybe other codes can be created too for family, model and stepping (in decimal) Mikayé (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Comment - no formatter URL to link directly to these values? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took the liberty of adding the formatter URL. --Swpb (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Swpb, Mikayé: That formatter URL does NOT work with the supplied example of 506E3 - it gives an invalid CPU ID error. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The formatter is not good. The value should be the value returned by the cpuid instruction, not the id on cpu-world website. I gave the website as an example of source to obtain the value for a specific CPU. I think Swpb made a confusion between the two cpuid. Maybe the cpu-world id can be another property but that's another story... I removed the formatter. Mikayé (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This looks very useful to me. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the description to contain more information about what the item is about, so that people who don't already know the abbrivation have an ID of what it's about by reading it. @Mikayé: ChristianKl (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Intel documentation for how this code should be formatted for Intel processors is provided in figure 3-6 on page 3-204 of Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Developer's Manual: Vol. 2A. AMD documentation is provided at the top of page 11 of AMD CPUID Specification. This proposal concerns me a little bit because it is actually an accumulation of multiple identifiers. I assume this accumulation is meant to be a mixture of Base Family (4 bits), Base Model (4 bits), Extended Family (8 bits), Extended Model (8 bits), but this proposal does not make it clear how these identifiers are to be arranged together. I propose an alternative approach which is to create 4 distinct properties for CPUID Base Family, CPUID Base Model, CPUID Extended Family and CPUID Extended Model. You may also want to investigate whether a CPUID Stepping (4 bits) property could be useful as well to capture revisions/manufacturing variants of each CPU. Dhx1 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to be clear that the "CPUID code" being talked about here is part of the x86 / x86-64 CPU architecture, and so doesn't exist on CPUs of other architectures such as ARM, SPARC, POWER, MIPS, etc. (Those other CPU architectures may in some cases have similar facilities, but they probably won't be called "CPUID" and will likely have a different format.) So, I think the property proposal should be amended to clarify that this property is only for x86/x86-64 CPUs. Maybe change the label to "x86 CPUID code" or something like that to make it clear. SJK (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. ChristianKl (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having thought more about this I don't support it in its current form. What is being proposed here is something specific to the x86/x64 CPU architecture (predominantly Intel and AMD). There are many other CPU architecture families (ARM, SPARC, POWER, MIPS, etc), many of which have similar but distinct concepts. The proposal has no explanation of how it could work for those other CPU architecture families. I would be happy to support a proposal which demonstrated that those other CPU architectures had been thoughtfully considered, but see no evidence of that here. SJK (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you please explain how this relates to CPUID (Q1024235)? -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
marking as not done (no consensus and not much activity) − Pintoch (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]