AFIACT, their micro-architecture naming scheme is intended for internal consumption (naming projects in burn-down charts, etc.). The closest they get to “marke

AFIACT, their micro-architecture naming scheme is intended for internal consumption (naming projects in burn-down charts, etc.). The closest they get to “marketing” naming is the UPC-code-like numbers their processors get; and these, I believe, are optimized for the needs of enterprise buyers, who actually understand the ‘meaning’ of the parts of the number, since it’s pretty easy to see when you’re staring at it as one row among many of a spreadsheet of all the part-buy options they’re selling. In this sense, they’re just retaining the very classical electronics parts-numbering tradition — see the naming of pretty much everything in this list (https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/25-microchips-that-shook-the-world https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/silicon-revolution/25...). They’re all just random codes, because parts buying on an industrial scale was always about vendors sending you these long sheets of different possible configurations each chip can be made in, and the buyer ticking off the ones they want as if they’re placing a dim-sum order. I believe Intel still gets the majority of its business from enterprise buyers (OEMs, but these days also IaaSes doing their own integration), so this part-code is still the leading number for their products. Even though it’s mystifying to the average consumer. Of course, they do try to hand their downstream integrators a bone by coming up with random marketing terms that apply to some of these processors but not others (i3/5/7/9, etc.) so that they can have something to badge a computer with. I do get the sense that this isn’t something Intel themselves think is very important, though; in about the same way that Nvidia thought “Max Q” was kind of silly (and first tried fixing that by enforcing a specific meaning to it, before just explicitly renouncing it, letting vendors use it however they like as pure marketing buzzspeak.)