Why did they call it "i7"

[HexiumVII]

I remember when it was first announced, it was stated they would have a full explanation on why it was called the "i7". I never found this explanation, it seemed to come from nowhere and the number is off. I mean i7 has 8 threads, i5 has 4 cores, i3 has 2 cores. 2 ,4, 8 would make a little more sense.

 

[ShadowVVL]

I looked around and all I found was this from Wikipedia.




With the release of the Nehalem microarchitecture in November 2008,[14] Intel introduced a new naming scheme for its Core processors. There are three variants, Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7, but the names no longer correspond to specific technical features like the number of cores. Instead, the brand is now divided from low-level (i3), through mid-range (i5) to high-end performance (i7),[15] which correspond to three to five stars in Intel's Intel Processor Rating[16] as opposed to the entry-level Celeron (one star) and Pentium (two stars) processors


You could also ask PM he might be able to tell you more about the names.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Intel reps, *may simply* fancy BMW's naming scheme.

 

[ShadowVVL]

Ah thats right it was bmw who had I series .

Good job Magic Carpet

 

[IntelUser2000]

I mean i7 has 8 threads, i5 has 4 cores, i3 has 2 cores. 2 ,4, 8 would make a little more sense.

It's a differentiation within a subcategory. Simply put:

i7: High End
i5: Middle
i3: Low

Like within 95W desktop chips the i7 is high end. Or in mobile quad core standard voltage chips, again the i7 is the high end. In ultra low voltage parts, they can't really put a quad there so there's another i7 but using dual core.

There's also a premium for lower power, so it wouldn't make sense from a marketing standpoint to label laptop chips as simply "i3s". Also, back in the Arrandale days, the 35W dual core Core i7s were on par with cheaper "i7" quad cores in multi-threading and beat it in everything else. If they branded the dual core 35W the "i3", that wouldn't make sense versus the quad core "i7".

So again, the names are simply differentiation within the subcategories.

 

[khon]

Intel makes great processors, but you're going to need a decoder ring to figure out the naming scheme.

For example, try comparing the i7-970 to the i7-975 extreme edition, and tell me how that makes sense.

 

[Lonyo]

From an overview perspective, it makes sense to pick those specific numbers.
The only other option would be 2/4/6, but then people might get confused with it representing core count. You wouldn't want to really use 1, except as a backup number, plus you could argue that Celeron is 1 and Pentium is 2, meaning that 3 is the lowest reasonable marketing and logical number.
If you're using 3, you don't want to use 4 for two reasons, because you want the option of adding another series if you decide to restructure, adding products between the current ones (when it's established that the unmbers don't refer to core or thread counts) and also you can add an i9 series, so you move up by two, giving 5.
If you have three products, then 3/5/7 makes most sense. Gives you option to expand upwards, while not confusing model numbers with core counts, and prevents people thinking they are getting the very lowest "1" model.

When you consider that these families extend to mobile as well, you can't use thread counts because the i3 has 4 threads, so making an 8 thread core an i8 and a 2 core, 4 thread core an i2 would be confusing. The mobile chips also don't share the same characteristics as the desktop chips.
Then there are the 6 core i7 chips for 1366/2011 sockets, which would also break the pattern.

 

[toyota]

I remember when it was first announced, it was stated they would have a full explanation on why it was called the "i7". I never found this explanation, it seemed to come from nowhere and the number is off. I mean i7 has 8 threads, i5 has 4 cores, i3 has 2 cores. 2 ,4, 8 would make a little more sense.

so how would 8 for 8 threads make sense but only 2 for the i3 which is 4 threads? not to mention there are many different i7 and i5 cpus with various core counts and threads.

no matter what you name them it could get confusing.

 

[lOl_lol_lOl]

The naming scheme is made purely with marketing in mind.

They need to establish a hierarchy within the product line to influence consumer spending. So the next time you go to the store you will overlook the negligible performance difference between the top i5 and i7 and buy the i7 simply because its an i7.

 

[Denithor]

Actually the most confusing thing was the i5 6xx series - 2C/4T chips with an 'i5' nomenclature just didn't make sense, these should have just been higher model i3 chips.

Current SB/IB generations make better sense, i3 is 2C/4T, i5 is 4C/4T and i7 is 4C/8T.

 

[Kenmitch]

Current SB/IB generations make better sense, i3 is 2C/4T, i5 is 4C/4T and i7 is 4C/8T.

Guess you haven't looked in the mobile arena lately.

 

[Subyman]

IMO it should just be good, better, best.

good-2120
better-2500k
best-3930k

That would be funny and easy.

 

[exar333]

Guess you haven't looked in the mobile arena lately.

Yeah, mobile are a lot different and play with the turbo capacity and threads more. AFAIK though, all quad mobiles are i7, but not all i7 mobiles are quads.

The Desktop naming scheme does make a good amount of sense; mobile is a little more muddy.

 

[paperwastage]

Guess you haven't looked in the mobile arena lately.

or that i7-3930K and i7-3960k is 6C/12T

 

[aaksheytalwar]

The naming scheme is made purely with marketing in mind.

They need to establish a hierarchy within the product line to influence consumer spending. So the next time you go to the store you will overlook the negligible performance difference between the top i5 and i7 and buy the i7 simply because its an i7.

+1

 

[fixbsod]

Does anyone else miss the old days of :

Pentium II 450MHz
or Pentium III 800 Mhz
etc etc?

I actually do as intel's scheme KIND of makes sense but then they keep tweaking cpus and then having to shoehorn them into the existing name scheme which causes serious confusion.

 

[aaksheytalwar]

Old scheme was any day much better

 

[Puppies04]

I really don't see what would be the problem calling chips what they are, for example.

I3 2120 = SB2c4t3.3 or once you know this naming method simply a SB2-4-3.3 so an I5 2500K would be a SB4-4-3.3+k (the + denoting turbo mode), a 2600K would be a SB4-8-3.4+k.

Hel you could even remove the "-" and SB would still run in numerical order.

SB2433 { I3 2100
SB4433+ { I5 2500
SB4433+K { I5 2500K
SB4834 { I7 2600
SB4834+K { I7 2600K

Now I just came up with this idea in 2 mins so if intel decided to go with their current naming plan there has to be a good reason for it which involes market research and them making more money form you.


Edit. (missed out the microarchitecture letters)

 

[sm625]

All 2 core 2 thread should be i2.
All 2 core 4 thread should be i3
All 4 core 4 thread should be i4
All 4 core 8 thread should be i6.

I'm sure someone thought of that at one point, but then turbo was thrown into it. So now we logically would have:

All 2 core 2 thread with turbo should be i3.
All 2 core 4 thread with turbo should be i5
All 4 core 4 thread with turbo should be i?
All 4 core 8 thread with turbo should be i7.

But they never made a 2 core 2 thread with turbo, and they never made a 4 core 4 thread without turbo. So we ended up with what we got now with i3, i5, and i7.

Then the marketing geniuses didnt understand it so they butchered it and we ended up with two different schemes for desktop and mobile.