• 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 not a .. Core i9 ?

Do You Agree to Rename the Enthusiast Class?

  • Yes .. Core i9 is a nice name

  • Yes .. But not Core i9

  • No .. Core i7 is just fine

Results are only viewable after voting.
A

adnank77

Member
It's not a secret that there are clear differences between the Enthusiast line of Core i7 (SB-E / IB-E) and the mainstream Core i7 (Haswell) .. At least the extra PCIe lanes is a major differentiation ..

So why Intel call both of them Core i7 ? If a Hyper Threading alone is enough to segregate between Core i5 and Core i7, then I guess totally different chipset and socket is more than a reason to segregate ..

Question is : Do you agree to re-name the Enthusiast class to a different name (e.g. Core i9) ? What are the pros and cons of such a re-name ..

Let's see the opinions ..
 
Let's see, do I give a giggle whether the processor has an "i9" or an "i7" marketing label printed on the box?...or do I give more of a giggle that the darn thing isn't released until nearly a full year AFTER the mainstream Enthusiast class i7 version has been out on the market? (and that when it actually does get released the performance improvement, YoY, is a meager 10% 🙁)

The last thing I'm personally worried about is Intel addressing the naming convention adopted by their marketing team. If Intel has time to get the product out the door in a reasonably decent time frame then I say spend the extra resources doing something to tweak the marketing name itself.

For now, if the name gets changed to anything it should be iL8 😉

(iL8 = I late)
 
27Pt5BO.jpg
 
i9 would just confuse the proles, and make them ask why they can't have it in their Ultrabook if they pay extra.
 
I think this makes 1000% more sense than intel's current strategy, as i3/i5/i7 makes sense but it starts mixing prev and curr generations when looking at the EE chips (ie -- i7-3960k is Sandy Bridge but i7-3770k is Ivy Bridge -- WTF?).

I also happen to like 9, it takes me baaaacckkkk to those old skool video cards -- anyone else remember?? The Number Nine Visual Technology company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_Nine_Visual_Technology) . Stands out in my brain as they had some pretty cool advertising back in the day. Can't find any of the cool adverts tho -- maybe someone else can locate those. Apparently the maker of the first 128 bit GPU as well per wiki
 
I think Intel should sell unlock codes at Best Buy and Apple stores...that do nothing more than change the product ID from Core i7x to Core i9x and wick the clock speed up by 100 MHz. All for $100.

This will happen, and it will all be AMD's fault.
 
Tsavo said:
I think Intel should sell unlock codes at Best Buy and Apple stores...that do nothing more than change the product ID from Core i7x to Core i9x and wick the clock speed up by 100 MHz. All for $100.

This will happen, and it will all be AMD's fault.
Click to expand...

If it happens then it will only be the fault of the people who pay the $100 and enable the business model itself.

Businesses can't sell something for which there is no demand.
 
Tsavo said:
I think Intel should sell unlock codes at Best Buy and Apple stores...that do nothing more than change the product ID from Core i7x to Core i9x and wick the clock speed up by 100 MHz. All for $100.

This will happen, and it will all be AMD's fault.
Click to expand...

Don't blame AMD for not having the R&D budget to compete with Intel's big cores. Blame reality.
 
They should have an i9, but it should be a 16C/32T 4Ghz part w/32MB of cache 😀 I bet they could actually fit it on a 2011 socket lol.
 
Intel's cpu numbering schemes are somewhat crazy.

It should be something like:

Executive:4C8T8R3.5G-Has
Medium:4C4T4R3.2G-Ivy
Economy:2C2T2R2.8G-Sdy

Where Executive = premium chips
Medium = average chips
Economy == cheapest chips
#C = number of cores
#T = Number of threads
#R = Megabytes of Cache
3.5G = Clock speed in GHz
-Has, Ivy, Sdy = Haswell, Ivy bridge, Sandy bridge etc.

Executive:4C8T8R3.5G-Has

short form = Ex-4883.5-H to mean above
Ex4883.5HK = K = overclockable

The current horrifically large range of semi-random numbers, is a nightmare for potential buyers.
 
Last edited:
SOFTengCOMPelec said:
Intel's cpu numbering schemes are somewhat crazy.

It should be something like:

Executive:4C8T8R3.5G-Has
Medium:4C4T4R3.2G-Ivy
Economy:2C2T2R2.8G-Sdy

Where Executive = premium chips
Medium = average chips
Economy == cheapest chips
#C = number of cores
#T = Number of threads
#R = Megabytes of Cache
3.5G = Clock speed in GHz
-Has, Ivy, Sdy = Haswell, Ivy bridge, Sandy bridge etc.

Executive:4C8T8R3.5G-Has

short form = Ex-4883.5-H to mean above
Ex4883.5HK = K = overclockable

The current horrifically large range of semi-random numbers, is a nightmare for potential buyers.
Click to expand...

Too freaking confusing.
 
T_Yamamoto said:
Too freaking confusing.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree.

It turned out NASTIER and clunkier than I hoped for, before I wrote the post.

If I spent a serious amount of time at it, and/or was given more resources (survey(s) and/or other people helping), I'm convinced i could come up with something better.

Since know one has asked me to do it, I did a quick job.

What I have learnt is that it is MUCH easier to criticize something, than it is to actually design something which is better.

Maybe a 4 digit number, the first 2 digits represent number of cores and threads, the last 2 digits represent clock speed, with something like i3/i5/i7 to represent economy/medium/executive price classes, would have been better.

E.g. I7-4835H = I7 Executive, 4 core , 8 thread, 3.5 GHz, H = Haswell
 
Last edited:
SOFTengCOMPelec said:
I somewhat agree.

It turned out NASTIER and clunkier than I hoped for, before I wrote the post.

If I spent a serious amount of time at it, and/or was given more resources (survey(s) and/or other people helping), I'm convinced i could come up with something better.

Since know one has asked me to do it, I did a quick job.

What I have learnt is that it is MUCH easier to criticize something, than it is to actually design something which is better.

Maybe a 4 digit number, the first 2 digits represent number of cores and threads, the last 2 digits represent clock speed, with something like i3/i5/i7 to represent economy/medium/executive price classes, would have been better.

E.g. I7-4835H = I7 Executive, 4 core , 8 thread, 3.5 GHz, H = Haswell
Click to expand...

Still confusing for the average user.

I think Intel's current system is doable.
 
T_Yamamoto said:
I think Intel's current system is doable.
Click to expand...

I am DEFINITELY NOT happy with the existing Intel cpu number systems.

I think their existing numbering system is terrible, even if I am the ONLY person in the world, who thinks that it is SO.

When I am advising people on which Intel processor to buy, their numbering system makes it a nightmare to give advice.

If it's the topish chip, i.e. 4770K, it is quite straight forward.

But the economy chips (especially) are a real minefield of what I think is a confusing set of numbering systems, which is a real nightmare to understand, memorise and explain to non-tech computer people.

There should really be one unified numbering system, it should not go all funny when you are talking about Celerons, Pentiums, etc.
 
Last edited:
T_Yamamoto said:
Remember the C2D Pentium era? Now that was confusing.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was.

The basic concept of i3, i5, i7 is ok.
In my opinion WITHOUT an i9, but calling the socket 2011+ system I9, might make some sense.

But throwing in Pentiums and Celerons, and even making some of them "ATOMS", is making for a very confusing system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top