3 ms·

As someone who understands the intel naming convention quite well and could understand the AMD naming convention if I had a reason to I can still empathize with

by IE6 5y ago

As someone who understands the intel naming convention quite well and could understand the AMD naming convention if I had a reason to I can still empathize with random-consumer-x who does not need to have that any practical understanding of the naming convention and could be confused as to what they are really purchasing...

paulmd 5y ago
Well, sadly, there is more than one use-case for computers so we need multiple power brackets, so U and Y SKUs are going to continue to exist. It's appropriate to call it out with the naming scheme, but that's exactly what AMD and Intel have done here. There is no solution which is going to be 100% intuitive to someone who specifically doesn't know anything about what they're looking for. If you move those products out to their own separate series, that's what Intel did with the Y series ("m7-xxxY" line - contrast to "i7"). You specifically don't like that. If you mark them within the existing series, that's what Intel and AMD do with the U series. You specifically don't like that either. If you move them into a single series, you end up with something like the Intel Ice Lake/Tiger Lake naming convention, where there is some part of the name that means "cores" and some part of the name that means "power" and part that means "graphics". Other people really didn't like that, because now you have one name that means 5 different things. (And this is what I mean about the naming discussion being dumb and boring - whatever you think is how it should be done, someone else hates that, and thinks it is too complex and requires too much knowledge on the part of buyers. It's bikeshedding, product naming is low-stakes so everyone has an opinion on it and is very upset that AMD and Intel are ignoring their urgent forums posts. At the end of the day it's just not that interesting, nor are any of these naming schemes that difficult if you bother to learn what they mean.) Anyway, it's unfortunate that there are features and distinctions which laymen may not understand, but that's a fact of life, there's things car people really care about that a Camry Buyer doesn't know, and that's fine. Someone who bought an expensive truck with a base-model trim might be upset that a Camry with a top trim is "nicer", because they didn't understand what a "trim" is before they laid down their money, and that's unfortunate but it's not exactly hidden either, nor should we call to get rid of trim levels because one person didn't understand. Someone else might be really upset that their SUV doesn't tow like a truck even though they got the nicest trim level on the SUV. Again, sorry if this seems frustrated, but this is a topic that has been bikeshedded endlessly. The stakes are low, there's multiple reasonable options available, and there's a whole lot of people who are all really upset that AMD and Intel aren't taking their forums posts on the topic seriously. Naming conventions are fine, they're good enough to not matter.

by IE6 5y ago

paulmd 5y ago

Well, sadly, there is more than one use-case for computers so we need multiple power brackets, so U and Y SKUs are going to continue to exist. It's appropriate to call it out with the naming scheme, but that's exactly what AMD and Intel have done here. There is no solution which is going to be 100% intuitive to someone who specifically doesn't know anything about what they're looking for. If you move those products out to their own separate series, that's what Intel did with the Y series ("m7-xxxY" line - contrast to "i7"). You specifically don't like that. If you mark them within the existing series, that's what Intel and AMD do with the U series. You specifically don't like that either. If you move them into a single series, you end up with something like the Intel Ice Lake/Tiger Lake naming convention, where there is some part of the name that means "cores" and some part of the name that means "power" and part that means "graphics". Other people really didn't like that, because now you have one name that means 5 different things. (And this is what I mean about the naming discussion being dumb and boring - whatever you think is how it should be done, someone else hates that, and thinks it is too complex and requires too much knowledge on the part of buyers. It's bikeshedding, product naming is low-stakes so everyone has an opinion on it and is very upset that AMD and Intel are ignoring their urgent forums posts. At the end of the day it's just not that interesting, nor are any of these naming schemes that difficult if you bother to learn what they mean.) Anyway, it's unfortunate that there are features and distinctions which laymen may not understand, but that's a fact of life, there's things car people really care about that a Camry Buyer doesn't know, and that's fine. Someone who bought an expensive truck with a base-model trim might be upset that a Camry with a top trim is "nicer", because they didn't understand what a "trim" is before they laid down their money, and that's unfortunate but it's not exactly hidden either, nor should we call to get rid of trim levels because one person didn't understand. Someone else might be really upset that their SUV doesn't tow like a truck even though they got the nicest trim level on the SUV. Again, sorry if this seems frustrated, but this is a topic that has been bikeshedded endlessly. The stakes are low, there's multiple reasonable options available, and there's a whole lot of people who are all really upset that AMD and Intel aren't taking their forums posts on the topic seriously. Naming conventions are fine, they're good enough to not matter.