• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New crappy naming scheme from Intel...

If true, totally bleh. Their current scheme makes little sense, but with a little info can be understood. This however sounds like something Engineers would use in memos in order to keep others from knowing what they're up to. Perhaps Intel should do with naming what they have been doing with Technology lately, adopt AMDs scheme. 😉
 
I think Intel has no idea what the end user wants...

I think Intel has a very nasty idea of the average Joe's understanding...

Average Joe Sixpack: "Uhh... yeah... I want an... um... Intel 1x1045"

bleh-
 
Well, if I had any say in the matter, Intel would rely more on the name and less on code numbers to differentiate processors, then use a number as a performance rating.
I think Intel get themselves so tangled up in codes primarily because they are somehow compulsed to retain Celeron, Pentium and Xeon names at all cost. The customer gets confused because the name do not any longer honestly identify and differentiate technologies. "Celeron" has suffered from this phenomenon for long. Ideally, Intel should already have used name variations like "Celeron II" and "Celeron III" earlier instead of Celeron as a blanket name.

The fact that they haven't is interesting, and suggests that there is someone high up in marketing, who is in love with the idea of brainwashing the market with generic, static brand names, Celeron, Xeon, for each market segment. If that theory is true, we're going to see that ambition extend to "Pentium" and we'll see not "Pentium4" or "Pentium5" in the future, but "Pentium T1201" and similar.

"Joe" is eventually supposed to demand "Pentium". That's where this new code number scheme fits in.

I think that scheme is mostly marketing religion. "Celeron" shows the danger of using a blanket name. Intel were eventually forced to introduce "Celeron D" to distance it from the taint that the anemic P4-core Celerons had acquired.

Then we have the example of laptops. Buyers are not asking for Pentium M or Celeron M. They are asking for "Intel Centrino processor". Note the nature of this misunderstanding well. People are not asking for a wellworked brandname. That assumption - that they do - is behind the naming of Pentium M and Celeron M. Names that are associated with other technologies.
People are asking for a technology, long battery life and good performance on low power, something they have come to associate with Centrino technology. And of course neither Pentium nor Celeron technology can provide this. - It has to be a "Centrino" processor.
 
I think Intel's current scheme is well enough.

If I take what Vee said, theen the difference between a Pentium and a Celeron is well marked. A Pentium us 6xx, which is twice of a Celeron, which is 3xx, and a Pentium D is 8xx and PXE is 9xx; so its progresive performance wise.

Sure, it doesnt say if it has xMb in cache, or uses xxxsSkt, or anything by the like... but most certainly point a performance difference between different brands.

I would like AMD to do something like that;

Joe may not get the right idea when geting explained why X2 3800+ is better than San Diego 3800+... less be said on Sempr0ns. "Wait... Sempr0n 3100+ is higher than Athlon 64 3000+, and its cheaper! I'll take that."
 
Originally posted by: Aenslead
I think Intel's current scheme is well enough.
Click to expand...

I agree. But wouldn't something more traditional like this be cuter:

Celeron4 (= Celeron D)
Pentium4E (= 500 series)
Pentium4J (= 500J series)
CentrinoII (= Dothan)
CentrinoA (= Celeron M)
Celeron64 (= 301 series)
Pentium64E (= 501 series)
Pentium64F (= 600 series)
Pentium64G (= 602 series)
PentiumD (= 800 series)
CentrinoD (= Yonah)
CentrinoIII (= Merom)
Pentium5 (= Conroe)
Celeron5 (= cheepo neutered Conroe)
PentiumQ (= quad Conroe)

Why put something into a code number that can be put into the name instead?
Then a following number should only be a naked, representative performance rating, replacing clockrate.
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Why not use the codenames and some numbers?
I want a Pentium Conroe please.
Nice and simple.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just follow what AMD did. I think their naming scheme is very clear.
AMD (brandname) Athlon(branch?)64(bits) 3000+ (performance) Venice (core).
Intel (brandname) Pentium(branch?) Conroe(core)64(bits) 4000(performance) or something.

Whatever.
 
ahh, the fanboys come in droves....

are you saying that this is better than a naming scheme like calling a processor "3200+" and that can mean Athlon XP, Athlon 64...and who knows how many different cores? get a grip...how often do you see a current 561J processor marketed in an ad as such? you dont, they say "3.2Ghz, or 3.4Ghz", ect....

for the user who knows what they want, its a great tool...much like the naming for the A64 mobile processors that lists the voltage...are you saying that is stupid too? no, becasue AMD does it....

I hate fanboys...
 
Am I the only one that really likes this naming scheme?

It makes a lot of sense.

A letter modifer for different classes, a number for the series, and a number for speed.

It actually reflects the naming scheme on BMWs, and not many people are confused by that.

(in case you don't know, BMW names their cars with a series - engine size - modifer format. eg. a 330Ci is a 3 series with a 3.0L engine, that's a Coupe, and is fuel injected (gasoline) )
 
Don't know what to think really. I don't the current numbering system is bad at all.

I wonder if perhaps, even though average joe isn't the smartest, Intel just went back to numbering by mhz, and maybe just used a letter to represent any small changes (like adding cache/bumping up the fsb).

So lets say for example conroe is pentium 5, a 2.5 ghz, 2nd version - that could be called:

pentium 5A 2.5


Anyway i think something like that would make it easier again to choose between processors.
 
Originally posted by: Vee
Originally posted by: Aenslead
I think Intel's current scheme is well enough.
Click to expand...

I agree. But wouldn't something more traditional like this be cuter:

Celeron4 (= Celeron D)
Pentium4E (= 500 series)
Pentium4J (= 500J series)
CentrinoII (= Dothan)
CentrinoA (= Celeron M)
Celeron64 (= 301 series)
Pentium64E (= 501 series)
Pentium64F (= 600 series)
Pentium64G (= 602 series)
PentiumD (= 800 series)
CentrinoD (= Yonah)
CentrinoIII (= Merom)
Pentium5 (= Conroe)
Celeron5 (= cheepo neutered Conroe)
PentiumQ (= quad Conroe)

Why put something into a code number that can be put into the name instead?
Then a following number should only be a naked, representative performance rating, replacing clockrate.
Click to expand...


As a matter of fact, I was hoping AMD to include their current Turion (two letters/two numbers) or Opteron (three numbers) on their desktop naming scheme. I like Opteron's better... even though its a lot like Intel's, and Turion 64's naming is pretty nice, too... like MT-37; (I guess that goes for Mobile Turion model 37), so maybe we could have an Athlon X2 DX-44; sounds even nice, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top