Do you think CPU model numbers are better than the ghz rating we had before?

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Well what do you guys think? I cant stand CPU model numbers, TL-60, T7500, PentiumIV 531, E6450 they all mean absolutely nothing to me, not a damn thing. I would need to google to find out what speeds they are and what they support. At least with the ghz naming scheme i could tell what the speed was! As a technologically inclined person i dont like them at all. I would be guessing if i said the E6450 is 2.4ghz, same as the E6400 which is also 2.4, i don't really know. At least before i would be sure as it would be in the name.

Suppose you could argue its better for average joe who would think a 3.8ghz pentium 4 is better than a 3.0ghz core2duo. But is average joe any better off with model numbers?

Averageperson1 - Hey dude! I just got my sweet new rig with an E4500 in it!

Averageperson2 - Wow really! Damn thats like 4000 bungholio points faster than my PentiumIV 531, i should really get a new one!

Averageperson1 - You should look into the new Athlon X2 6000+, its 6000! and it has a plus so it can probably go faster than 6000.

Averageperaon2 - Killer!

I could see the above happening somewhere. I dont really think model numbers help at all, with average joe or tech savvy people. Anyone else agree? Or do you think they are useful, if so tell me why?
 

Cutthroat

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,104
0
0
Add GPU's to that list.

I agree, naming schemes are confusing to the Average Joe. But I think that's why they do it.
 

StopSign

Senior member
Dec 15, 2006
986
0
0
You gotta pick the lesser of the two evils.

"My Athlon X2 6000+ is faster than your E4400."

"My Celeron 3 GHz is faster than your Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz."
 

zach0624

Senior member
Jul 13, 2007
535
0
0
I like the ability to differentiate between to equally clocked chips at a glance and tell what cache and fsb that chip had. It killed me during the early p4 era when they were all by clock but had overlapping fsbs(2.4?). So I guess my point is that it would get pretty hard to distinguish between the e6320 and the e4300 while one is a better stock performer than the other.
 

CalvinHobbes

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2004
3,524
0
0
I hate the model numbers. Everytime I see a new one I have to look it up to see the speed, cache, bus, etc.

They need something like this:

"Intel Penryn_30_1333_4MB"

Intel (model) (speed) (Bus) (Cache)
 

nyker96

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
5,630
2
81
Oh sure, now I'm so confused about what I'm buying it's practically challenging to figure out what these things mean. But then again AMD is right, Mhz can't be compared correctly.
 

nullpointerus

Golden Member
Apr 17, 2003
1,326
0
0
I much prefer the model numbers. Dealing with different code names, manufacturing processes, bus speeds, caches, and overclockability all on the same GHz level was a mess. It's much better to have a new model number for a new config (i.e. 6320 vs. 6300) and just use x's to refer to the whole family (i.e. 63xx or 6xxx) when needed.
 

masteraleph

Senior member
Oct 20, 2002
363
0
71
I very much like the model numbers.

Was a 2.4c more powerful than a 2.6a? Was it more powerful than a 2.53? (Which was automatically a b). Make sure you're getting a P4 1.8a because the 1.8 is more useful as a back scratcher than as a processor. You have to pay attention now, but at least there's some sense- an E6xyz is more powerful than an E4xyz, for example (note that xyz here are supposed to be the same numbers in both cases).
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,604
15
81
Originally posted by: Shimmishim
i think it makes sense

Q = quad
E = dual
X = extreme (unlocked)

6 = desktop
4 = midrange
2 = budget

Q6600 = quadcore 2.4 ghz 1066 chip :)

eh, maybe i'm just so used to it.

rumor has it intel is going to redo their numbering / naming scheme

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/o...ay/20070806163053.html

Yeah then factor in pentium4's and pentium D's and AMD's line and the chips that have 6420 instead of 6400, or 6450, whats the difference between these? Also your forgetting about celerons, they are the budget chips, how does a celeron 420 or 4xx fit into it? Its crazy stuff.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: Soviet
Originally posted by: Shimmishim
i think it makes sense

Q = quad
E = dual
X = extreme (unlocked)

6 = desktop
4 = midrange
2 = budget

Q6600 = quadcore 2.4 ghz 1066 chip :)

eh, maybe i'm just so used to it.

rumor has it intel is going to redo their numbering / naming scheme

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/o...ay/20070806163053.html

Yeah then factor in pentium4's and pentium D's and AMD's line and the chips that have 6420 instead of 6400, or 6450, whats the difference between these? Also your forgetting about celerons, they are the budget chips, how does a celeron 420 or 4xx fit into it? Its crazy stuff.

You're soviet, so i can understand your distaste for variety. But really, it's a much better system than 2 years ago if you ask me. Back then, it was not only confusing for us, but very misleading to the public consumer who were completely unaware. At least now, confusion will hopefully bring with it a seeking of answers, especially when you're spending so much on PC and laptops.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Originally posted by: Soviet
Originally posted by: Shimmishim
i think it makes sense

Q = quad
E = dual
X = extreme (unlocked)

6 = desktop
4 = midrange
2 = budget

Q6600 = quadcore 2.4 ghz 1066 chip :)

eh, maybe i'm just so used to it.

rumor has it intel is going to redo their numbering / naming scheme

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/o...ay/20070806163053.html

Yeah then factor in pentium4's and pentium D's and AMD's line and the chips that have 6420 instead of 6400, or 6450, whats the difference between these? Also your forgetting about celerons, they are the budget chips, how does a celeron 420 or 4xx fit into it? Its crazy stuff.
Quite simple really.
abcd
a = family (e.g. 6, 4 or 2)
b = clock speed within the family (so a 7 has a higher clock speed than a 6)
cd = feature level (00 meant 1066MHz FSB/4MB Cache for most, then 20 meant 4MB for those which only had 2MB before, then 50 means 4MB cache and 1333MHz FSB, while 40 means 4MB/1333MHz with no "Intel VT" support)

Quite easy really, even if you don't know the specific clock speed, you can work out how they compare. Higher number = faster processor or more features.
 

Shimmishim

Elite Member
Feb 19, 2001
7,504
0
76
i just think they need to stick with one just like ATi/AMD and nvidia

NVIDIA since i've followed started at 5x00

then you had the 6x00
7x00
8x00
and the next will be 9x00

might be a little confusion with ati's old 9800 model but it should be fine
 

dguy6789

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2002
8,558
3
76
It is fine.

E6400 is faster than E6300. E6750 is faster than E6700.

Geforce 7900 is faster than Geforce 7800.

Look at benchmarks if you want to compare different companies.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
I prefer it to be honest. I couldn't stand the GHZ days because people that where generally ignorant about computer found some number to cling to (with some help from intel) and use to say "You have an Althlon XP 2800, but its only a 2.0 GHZ processor, I have a Pentium 4 2.5 GHZ therefor my computer is faster!!!" I hated it because you just couldn't explain to them that GHZ means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Intel kind of shot themselves in their foot by pushing it because they had to change naming schemes to hide the fact that "yeah, our processors are going down in clock speed now because we are being more efficient".

Yes, it is confusing the the average joe, but the average joe was confused by the meaning of the word Gigahertz anyways so I would much rather deal with an completely ignorant person then with one that has a little bit of knowledge that is completely skewed and messed up. You just can't reason with someone who thinks that everything they where told first or came to a conclusions on their own is correct.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,570
10,200
126
Originally posted by: Soviet
Yeah then factor in pentium4's and pentium D's and AMD's line and the chips that have 6420 instead of 6400, or 6450, whats the difference between these? Also your forgetting about celerons, they are the budget chips, how does a celeron 420 or 4xx fit into it? Its crazy stuff.
What's worse is that Intel is using the same sort of model-number scheme across different lines of CPUs, and they mean different things.
For example, the recent Celeron 440 CPU, is a C2D Conroe-L (single-core), 2.0Ghz, 512KB L2, LGA775. But there is also a "Celeron M 440", that is a totally different 1.6Ghz CPU!

 

imported_rod

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2005
1,788
0
0
The model numbers aren't great, but clock speeds are worthless these days. And at least you can compare CPU's of the same family with model numbers.
 

CurseTheSky

Diamond Member
Oct 21, 2006
5,401
2
0
Originally posted by: Cogman
I prefer it to be honest. I couldn't stand the GHZ days because people that where generally ignorant about computer found some number to cling to (with some help from intel) and use to say "You have an Althlon XP 2800, but its only a 2.0 GHZ processor, I have a Pentium 4 2.5 GHZ therefor my computer is faster!!!" I hated it because you just couldn't explain to them that GHZ means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Intel kind of shot themselves in their foot by pushing it because they had to change naming schemes to hide the fact that "yeah, our processors are going down in clock speed now because we are being more efficient".

Yes, it is confusing the the average joe, but the average joe was confused by the meaning of the word Gigahertz anyways so I would much rather deal with an completely ignorant person then with one that has a little bit of knowledge that is completely skewed and messed up. You just can't reason with someone who thinks that everything they where told first or came to a conclusions on their own is correct.

I'd give you a medal for that quote if I could.

I really can't express how many times I've built computers for people, only to have them frown at the processor's clock speed. Time after time I tried to explain that the Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, and Pentium 4 days are over. My dad, for example, hangs on to the "loving memory" of the 3.0GHz Pentium 4 he had. When I rebuild a casual gaming rig with an E4300, he thought I tried to cheap him out. "It only runs at 1.8GHz? My last computer was faster than this!" Nevermind trying to explain dual core...
 

flxnimprtmscl

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2003
7,962
2
0
What really bothers me, and I never thought I'd say this, is too many choices. I've been out of the hardware loop for about a year and just ordered a bunch of parts for an uprgrade. It's honestly gotten way too confusing.

Take your pick from 25 or so different chips, 3 different bus speeds, 3 different cache levels, a few different core architectures, dual or quad core, clock numbers that seem almost arbitrary at this point, etc.. Is a 2.2x E4500 with a 2mb cache faster than a 1.8x e6320 with a 4mb cache? Who the fuck knows. How about when you overclock them? And that's just for intel. Throw AMD into the mix and it becomes even worse.