4 ms·
I still find it fascinating how the choice of Intel chip generation is almost an afterthought (well, maybe only for a minority, but do most buyers look carefull
by supernova87a 6y ago
I still find it fascinating how the choice of Intel chip generation is almost an afterthought (well, maybe only for a minority, but do most buyers look carefully? are they aware?) in the difference between models or computers when you click to buy something.
Is this a strategy of Apple (or Intel) to be able to get people to ignore (and therefore they can optimize the cost of) the generation of chip used? It's almost as if they realized people fixate on the GHz figure, and overlook the chip generation, which (I guess?) must contribute much more to effective clock speed than a small difference in Hz rate? I even fall into this trap sometimes.
It is a bit complicated for the casual buyer to have the clock speed which was the previous metric of "goodness" of your machine now have to be weighed with the generation of processor. When the name of the processor itself doesn't provide clear differentiation between generations.
- thomasedwards 6y agoI still don’t fully understand this world, I ‘downgraded’ from an i7 to a slower i5, and my computer got faster. I wish they’d use sensible clear names for the generations so you can clearly understand what’s better.
- jandrese 6y agoThe first number after the i# is the generation. i5-5350 is fifth generation, i3-9350k is ninth generation. That said, the difference between generations is pretty minimal thanks to Intel's huge process blunder last decade. If you want to know which chip is actually faster for your workload that turns out to be a fairly difficult question to answer. A lot depends on what you're trying to accomplish and how your code is built.
- supernova87a 6y agoAnd I would point out, the level of chip model detail you gave above isn't even provided in the buying screens! For some users this is ok -- does the fact of not providing it give some hint about what level of user is being aimed at? I think even for the Mac Pro, they don't go into this detail.
- flywheel 6y agoYour comment seems a bit disingenuous - how much time passed between when you got the i7 and when you got the i5? Today's i5's can be faster than long-ago's i7's but todays i7's are still far faster than today's i5's.
- spideymans 6y agoTheir comment isn't disingenuous - that's just how a regular, normal, non hardware nerd would most likely interpret Intel's branding. Bigger number = faster, as far as consumers are concerned. If you understand the i3/i5/i7/i9 tiers, you're in a small minority.
- flywheel 6y agoI guess this isn't really "hacker news" then, because I would expect just about any "hacker" would know the difference.
- avianlyric 6y agoI think part of this is driven by the fact the Intel chip generations are a bit of a mess at the moment. It's takes them over year at this point to release a full line of new generation chips, and even within that generation you get a mix of tech thanks to Intel's fabrication struggles. Obfuscating the chip generation is almost a necessity at this point because the variations within and between generations is too complicated to keep track off.
- paulpan 6y agoI think so, the only time Apple seems to have highlighted the use of Intel chips was during the transition from PowerPC architecture. They focus on the value of the computer as the entire package. Interesting deviation is how they've been highlighting the performance of the A-series chips since the A7.