3 ms·
The problem is Intels incredible tendency to cut, slice, and dice their market into tiny slivers of segments. For example Comet Lake has 80ish SKUs listed on it
by zokier 5y ago
The problem is Intels incredible tendency to cut, slice, and dice their market into tiny slivers of segments. For example Comet Lake has 80ish SKUs listed on its wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Lake_(microprocessor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Lake_(microprocessor)
Combine this with the fact that they have completely different processor families for different segments concurrent with these, there are going to be hundreds of SKUs in total on the market at any point.
I don't know if there is any sort of naming system that can salvage that to make any intuitive sense. The actual product names mostly serve to function as keys to search ARK.
- derefr 5y agoIs that Intel marketing 80 SKUs of their own volition; or is that 80 large customers each ordering a million-piece custom configuration, and then Intel figuring that, if they're going to make a part in quantity, they may as well let other people buy it if they want?
- r00fus 5y agoCompare/contrast to others e.g. Qualcomm. If Qualcomm can do this without fracturing their product line into incomprehensible gibberish then why can’t Intel?
- seoaeu 5y agoA lot of it is presumably binning [0]. They make a bunch of CPUs and check each to find the number of defective cores and the max clock speed it can run at before malfunctioning, then slap on the appropriate product number for that combination. [0]: https://www.techspot.com/article/2039-chip-binning/ https://www.techspot.com/article/2039-chip-binning/
- seoaeu 5y agoHonestly 80 models that differ by clock speed, core count, or target form factor bothers me way less than trying to figure out the difference between Comet Lake, Cascade Lake, Ice Like, Rocket Lake, etc.