• 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.

Why does Intel reuse product numbers?

aphex

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Just curious, as I'm searching the web for prices on an E6300, I keep coming across hits for both an older C2D E6300 and the newer Core Duo E6300.

Is there a reason Intel reuses the product numbers?
 
Herr Kutz said:
Intel® Pentium® Processor E6300 - http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41493
Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6300 - http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27248




To OP: I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

To confuse the customer into buying a more expensive CPU or one with higher profit margins. Also, could be a combination of technical issues(Nvidia) and a desire to confuse the customer by muddying the waters.

The low and mid range Nvidia cards are a fluster clunk of renamed and rebadged architectures across 3 generations of GPUs now.
 
Bateluer said:
To confuse the customer into buying a more expensive CPU or one with higher profit margins. Also, could be a combination of technical issues(Nvidia) and a desire to confuse the customer by muddying the waters.

The low and mid range Nvidia cards are a fluster clunk of renamed and rebadged architectures across 3 generations of GPUs now.
Click to expand...

Holy crap....you just used this thread to bash Intel and nV at the same time.

Let me guess.....you use AMD?


I have a better one for you..AMD coming out with X4 920 after the i7 920 came out. Could that be considered "muddying the waters"?
 
Last edited:
Can't blame AMD for using other companies' model #. Intel though initially had 2000, 4000 and 6000 with 1000, 3000 and 5000, 7000 and 8000 later on. Perhaps they didn't believe they'd get that far though I wonder why they don't keep it in the 5000s and have a naming scheme such as 5*50 = higher fsb, which the 6000s are. At least I thought that's what they tend to do, at least on the mobile side.

Oh and how about nVidia using 9500, 9600 and 9800 long after ATi did?
 
OK, I am going to thread-crap here. This is a troll thread and has no real purpose. Intel re-implemented the "Pentium" brand for low-end C2Ds a while back, and re-used this model #. Enough said.
 
Herr Kutz said:
Intel® Pentium® Processor E6300 - http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=41493
Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor E6300 - http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=27248




To OP: I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

Wow! Those two are completely different! I have to say that I am pretty surprised that they did this. It is confusing to say the least.

I don't see why they couldn't have used a different model number for the newer processor. It is better in everyway that I can tell (it has a 1GHz clock speed advantage!) Why name it the same as a product that was much slower? I don't see the benefit in that.
 
maybe we have a name space collision? they need to prequality the product number with a name space like: firstgen.e6300, then later secondgen.e6300 etc. reuse all you want!
 
My lord, guys, are y'all really going to turn this into another one of those tired old AMD/ATI vs Intel/NV threads again? 🙄
 
ExarKun333 said:
OK, I am going to thread-crap here. This is a troll thread and has no real purpose. Intel re-implemented the "Pentium" brand for low-end C2Ds a while back, and re-used this model #. Enough said.
Click to expand...

I don't give a crap about either intel or amd and don't care which one you prefer either, so no I'm not trolling. I wanted to know why they reuse product numbers, if there was some reason behind it, that's it.
 
Last edited:
They used the same product number as they had for a different product from a different product line.

One is an EOL C2D (as already mentioned). The other is a still-available Pentium.

Pentium D 920, 930, 940, 950, 965
Intel Core i7 920, 930, 940, 950, 965

Core 2 Duo E6300
Pentium E6300
 
One is a Pentium Dual Core and one is a Core 2 Duo. The product name is as much of a differentiator as the product number, as Lonyo so kindly illustrated.

OCGuy said:
Holy crap....you just used this thread to bash Intel and nV at the same time.

Let me guess.....you use AMD?


I have a better one for you..AMD coming out with X4 920 after the i7 920 came out. Could that be considered "muddying the waters"?
Click to expand...

Wow your panties are in a bunch.
 
OCGuy said:
Holy crap....you just used this thread to bash Intel and nV at the same time.

Let me guess.....you use AMD?


I have a better one for you..AMD coming out with X4 920 after the i7 920 came out. Could that be considered "muddying the waters"?
Click to expand...

I use both, actually. Current main system has an Intel CPU with an AMD video card, two of my test machines have AMD CPUs with Nvidia base motherboards, with an Nvidia and ATI video card in each. Another test machine uses an Intel Atom with an Nv Ion board. I'm not really partial to either, and I buy what works for me at the time.

I did not mean to direct my ire at Intel and Nvidia solely, as AMD/ATI do it as well. All 3 re-use model numbers and relabel old products under new naming schemes to continue to sell them. Nvidia has been notorious for rebranding old cards under new names the last few years, which is why I mentioned it. These tactics are all to confuse uninformed buyers IMO.

Having said that, I think there's a difference between Intel selling two CPUs with the model E6300, regardless of the CPU name being Pentium Dual Core vs Core 2 Duo and AMD's Phenom X4 920 and Intel's Core i7 920 sharing a model number. A customer's going to scratch their head and probably choose the one with the higher clock frequency. With the 920s, they should be fairly clearly labeled 'Intel Core i7 920' and 'AMD Phenom II 920'. An uninformed buyer may not know the technical differences, but they should be 'informed' enough to know that the CPUs come from different manufacturers and will be different. Unlike the customer looking at two OEM PCs with an E6300 model number from Intel.
 
OCGuy said:
Holy crap....you just used this thread to bash Intel and nV at the same time.

Let me guess.....you use AMD?


I have a better one for you..AMD coming out with X4 920 after the i7 920 came out. Could that be considered "muddying the waters"?
Click to expand...

Lets not forget the C2Q 9550/9650 and Phenom X4 9550/9650 from 2008.
 
Just because one company uses some model name, doesn't mean some other company can't. How about all those xt, gt, gto, lx, le suffixes? And reusing Pentium D model numbers isn't that bad either since that was generations ago. However, having chips for the same platform with the same model numbers does become problematic, such as AM2 5000+ and AM2+ 5000.
 
Lonyo said:
They used the same product number as they had for a different product from a different product line.

One is an EOL C2D (as already mentioned). The other is a still-available Pentium.

Pentium D 920, 930, 940, 950, 965
Intel Core i7 920, 930, 940, 950, 965

Core 2 Duo E6300
Pentium E6300
Click to expand...
This.

The worst offender that I can remember of having confusing model numbers was the Athlon 64 X2 4600+, FIVE different processors sharing the exact same name.

Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Manchestor
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Toledo
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Windsor
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Windsor EE
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Brisbane

I remember debating whether I should get an Athlon 64 x2 4600+ vs an Athlon 64 x2 4600+ to replace my dead Athlon 64 x2 4600+. The former had a higher IPC while the latter offered more overclocking headroom. Alternatively I could replace my dead Athlon 64 x2 4600+ with another Athlon 64 x2 4600+ or I could even save some money and just drop in an old Athlon 64 x2 4600+. Since my motherboard was technically meant for the light power sipping properties of the Athlon 64 x2 4600+ I wasn't sure how well my motherboards power circutry could handle the Athlon 64 x2 4600+. In the end I went with the Athlon 64 x2 4600+ although I think I should have gone with an Athlon 64 x2 4600+ because I wasn't able to overclock very far on the Athlon 64 x2 4600+ I purchased due to said power problems.

That is actually a true story.
 
Ben90 said:
This.

The worst offender that I can remember of having confusing model numbers was the Athlon 64 X2 4600+, FIVE different processors sharing the exact same name.

Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Manchestor
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Toledo
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Windsor
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Windsor EE
Athlon 64 x2 4600+... Brisbane

I remember debating whether I should get an Athlon 64 x2 4600+ vs an Athlon 64 x2 4600+ to replace my dead Athlon 64 x2 4600+. The former had a higher IPC while the latter offered more overclocking headroom. Alternatively I could replace my dead Athlon 64 x2 4600+ with another Athlon 64 x2 4600+ or I could even save some money and just drop in an old Athlon 64 x2 4600+. Since my motherboard was technically meant for the light power sipping properties of the Athlon 64 x2 4600+ I wasn't sure how well my motherboards power circutry could handle the Athlon 64 x2 4600+. In the end I went with the Athlon 64 x2 4600+ although I think I should have gone with an Athlon 64 x2 4600+ because I wasn't able to overclock very far on the Athlon 64 x2 4600+ I purchased due to said power problems.

That is actually a true story.
Click to expand...

lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top