3 ms·

Intel is just hurting itself with the naming scheme. I've lost count how many times I've heard people say "Oh, it has only i5/i7. I've had i5 already for X year

by vardump 11y ago

Intel is just hurting itself with the naming scheme. I've lost count how many times I've heard people say "Oh, it has only i5/i7. I've had i5 already for X years. No point to upgrade." I guess Nvidia / AMD graphics card style naming might work the best. Product name (Xeon, Pentium, whatever), #generation digit, 1-3 digits of entry/mid/premium level. Like Celeron 120 (generation 1, premium level 2(0)). Right now non-technical people seem to be still expecting i6 and i8 CPUs.

bsilvereagle 11y ago
When Intel's iX series was first released, the numbering scheme they had is almost exactly what you described. i7-720: "7" was the performance tier, "20" the generation So an i7-820 was the same generation, but a higher performance tier, and the i7-940 was yet another higher performance tier and a later generation. They've later switched to a 4 digit numbering scheme which is decipherable, but not nearly as clear as the 3 digit scheme. The introduction of quadcore i5s and dual core i7s really muddled the waters.
- icegreentea 11y ago
  What? The "20" was never the generation. The i7-720, i7-820, and i7-940 are all Nehalem (ie first generation) core parts. The numbering more or less makes sense if you prepend a 0 to the "720". Now your generations make perfect sense. Current desktop product codes still more or less make sense. Mobile is a complete clusterfuck though.
  - bsilvereagle 11y ago
    I guess "generation" may have been the wrong word. "Age" or "iteration" may have been more appropriate. The 720 was launched Q3'09 and the 740 was Q3'10.
cnvogel 11y ago
Oh, it's not only that you have "i5" CPUs spanning many years of iterations and different cores. You sometimes even have i5-<4digit> CPUs with a suffix: There's at least 3 versions of a i5-3470 (no suffix, S or T suffix). Then there's the branding as Pentium or Celeron...
ender89 11y ago
are you insinuating that the commoners dont know the difference between ivy bridge and skylake? Between a richland and a kaveri apu? Are you telling me.... Actually, I think I see your point.

by vardump 11y ago

bsilvereagle 11y ago

When Intel's iX series was first released, the numbering scheme they had is almost exactly what you described. i7-720: "7" was the performance tier, "20" the generation So an i7-820 was the same generation, but a higher performance tier, and the i7-940 was yet another higher performance tier and a later generation. They've later switched to a 4 digit numbering scheme which is decipherable, but not nearly as clear as the 3 digit scheme. The introduction of quadcore i5s and dual core i7s really muddled the waters.

icegreentea 11y ago
What? The "20" was never the generation. The i7-720, i7-820, and i7-940 are all Nehalem (ie first generation) core parts. The numbering more or less makes sense if you prepend a 0 to the "720". Now your generations make perfect sense. Current desktop product codes still more or less make sense. Mobile is a complete clusterfuck though.
- bsilvereagle 11y ago
  I guess "generation" may have been the wrong word. "Age" or "iteration" may have been more appropriate. The 720 was launched Q3'09 and the 740 was Q3'10.

cnvogel 11y ago

Oh, it's not only that you have "i5" CPUs spanning many years of iterations and different cores. You sometimes even have i5-<4digit> CPUs with a suffix: There's at least 3 versions of a i5-3470 (no suffix, S or T suffix). Then there's the branding as Pentium or Celeron...

ender89 11y ago

are you insinuating that the commoners dont know the difference between ivy bridge and skylake? Between a richland and a kaveri apu? Are you telling me.... Actually, I think I see your point.