Real life locations of Intel CPU codenames

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
P

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
Someone showed me a photo of Main St. Haswell, Colorado, and I had to laugh, so I thought that I'd post up a link to Google Map's Street View of all of Intel's recent CPU's.

I couldn't find a Sandy Bridge, and the only Ivy Bridge that I could find is in England (lovely looking place though).

But my favorite remains Haswell, Colorado.

Prescott, Arizona
Nehalem, Oregon
Westmere, New York
Sandybridge, England
Ivybridge, England
Haswell, Colorado - the corner of Main St. and 1st St.
(all links are using the shortened URL's for Google maps... yeah, they look weird but they are legit. You get these by clicking "link" and then "shortened URLs")
 
Last edited:
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Banias_Spring_Cliff_Pan%27s_Cave.JPG


Banias

http://g.co/maps/2em2y
 
B

Blades

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
856
0
0
I'm from Bulldozer, FL.. jk there is no such place. AMD cpu's named after WWE 'moves'
 
ThatsABigOne

ThatsABigOne

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 2010
4,422
23
81
pm said:
Someone showed me a photo of Main St. Haswell, Colorado, and I had to laugh, so I thought that I'd post up a link to Google Map's Street View of all of Intel's recent CPU's.

I couldn't find a Sandy Bridge, and the only Ivy Bridge that I could find is in England (lovely looking place though).

But my favorite remains Haswell, Colorado.

Prescott, Arizona
Nehalem, New York This place is in OR
Westmere, Oregon This place in in NY
Sandybridge, England
Ivybridge, England
Haswell, Colorado - the corner of Main St. and 1st St.
(all links are using the shortened URL's for Google maps... yeah, they look weird but they are legit. You get these by clicking "link" and then "shortened URLs")
Click to expand...

Corrections above.
 
Charlie98

Charlie98

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2011
6,298
64
91
...and I've been meaning to ask this question for a while...

What's the deal with the names in the first place, and where do they come up with them? It's not like they are trying to sell cars or something, I would think model numbers (like they already have) would be sufficient.

Not cracking on it, just find it kind of curious...
 
D

dma0991

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2011
2,723
1
0
Charlie98 said:
What's the deal with the names in the first place
Click to expand...
Names are far easier to remember than 3-4 digit numbers. Try explaining to a regular customer who looks at their PC as a blackbox. Tell them today that the Core i7 3960X is the best CPU in the market. Then ask them tomorrow or a week from now.
 
A

Aluvus

Platinum Member
Apr 27, 2006
2,913
1
0
Charlie98 said:
...and I've been meaning to ask this question for a while...

What's the deal with the names in the first place, and where do they come up with them? It's not like they are trying to sell cars or something, I would think model numbers (like they already have) would be sufficient.

Not cracking on it, just find it kind of curious...
Click to expand...

Their original purpose was (mainly for internal use) to keep track of designs that were still in progress. This was extremely helpful to the trade press, who are of course very interested in future products. The manufacturers generally try to stop all mention of the code names after release, but that never works. After months to years of using a code name, people don't really want to stop. And it turns out they are useful even after products hit the market.

For people that are trying to actually follow the market, code names are much more useful (and memorable) than model numbers. They provide information about which generation a product is from, and therefore what capabilities it should have. Model numbers have helped the situation in some ways (it used to be a pain to tell different Pentium 4 products apart, because multiple generations would be sold at the same clock speed but have significantly different performance and features). And in other ways they haven't (they tend to be a mouthful, both AMD and Intel have reused model numbers in confusing ways, and model numbers for different products tend to overlap in confusing ways).

There's also a significant marketing aspect to it now. When AMD had a great product that they wanted people to remember and associate with power and strength, it's not a coincidence that they called it Sledgehammer. May not have worked out quite so well with Bulldozer.
 
P

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
Charlie98 said:
...and I've been meaning to ask this question for a while...

What's the deal with the names in the first place, and where do they come up with them? It's not like they are trying to sell cars or something, I would think model numbers (like they already have) would be sufficient.

Not cracking on it, just find it kind of curious...
Click to expand...

Well, you need a name to tell the teams apart and you need a name to put on presentations and such. So clearly you have to call the projects something. But you are right, numbers are easier. Back when I first joined Intel in 1995, all projects just had names that were like model numbers.

The original Pentium was internally called the "P5" project which was a 0.8um process (800nm :) ) called p650 (6" wafer, process node #50, they increase by two with each generation, 22nm is p1270 - 12" wafer, process node #70, or 10 more than the p650 process... but I digress). Then they did the equivalent of a "tick" ported it to the p852 process technology which was 0.6um process generation, and called that project P5C (the "C" for compaction), then they ported P5C to 0.35um (p854) and called that P54CQS (the "QS" for "quick-shrink"), then they did a better compaction of the design for the process and called that P54CS. Then after that, the Pentium Pro was internally called the P6, and then there was P6C, etc.

The problem was, as I recall, that other companies would name their things by Intel's model numbers and that got confusing. I don't remember what the actual example was, but it was as if someone called something their chip "P54CS" and then because Intel was calling it something and some other company called their thing the same thing, it led to confusion. So then Intel tried to trademark these project numbers - like "P6" - but the trademark office said that the numbers were too generic - again, all this is from my memory, and I'm old (and thus forgetful) and I wasn't directly involved so this is hearsay as well. So the trademark office effectively said "you need something that's not just a letter and a couple of numbers" so then Intel started naming things after local cities, towns and landmarks and then trademarking these names as project names. And they still do this today.

At the time, there was a whole lot of engineers who were irritated by the change. Before if someone said "I work on P6CS" then you knew right away what it was. But then after we made this shift to project names they'd come back afterwards and say "I work on Klamath" and you'd have to ask "I forget... what is Klamath again?" and then they'd say - and this is totally true because I remember it - they'd say "oh, it's P6C" and as an engineer you'd nod and go "oh, P6C, cool. How's that going?". And for a long time after that, people would still call the projects by the old naming system when they would talk to each other, but all the slides would have the names, and there was a fair bit of confusion translating so then we'd have "decoder rings" that would tell us what the names meant. But nowadays, we just use the names and there's less confusion... sort of.

And for what it's worth, I am not an official Intel spokesperson, and you should take my stories as accurate as I remember them, but not as anything official from the company.
 
Last edited:
Charlie98

Charlie98

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2011
6,298
64
91
Thanks, PM, that's probably the best explanation I'm liable to see... and it makes sense, especially from a marketing and consumer point of view (like dma0991 mentioned.)

It's kind of funny, one of the other interests I have is firearms and reloading. I have a hard time keeping the Smith & Wesson model numbers straight (there is/was no rhyme or reason to the base model revolver numbers; ) many companies are naming their new firearms, probably to get away from the number/alphabet soup. Reloading powders are the same... there is IMR4895 and H4895... which used to be the same powder, but isn't any longer. They are naming the newer powders, now...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom