3 ms·
I'm puzzled by Espressif's naming here. We had the ESP32-S3, so "S31" sounds like "S3, variant 1," but this part doesn't really look like a simple S3 variant. A
by Lwrless 6mo ago
I'm puzzled by Espressif's naming here. We had the ESP32-S3, so "S31" sounds like "S3, variant 1," but this part doesn't really look like a simple S3 variant. And then there's an ESP32-E22, but no E21 or even a plain E2 anywhere.
Edit: found an article explaining some of their naming logic, and said that the SoC naming will get its follow-up article, but sadly it never happened.
https://developer.espressif.com/blog/2025/03/espressif-part-numbers-explained/ https://developer.espressif.com/blog/2025/03/espressif-part-...
- maartin0 6mo agoIt reminds me a bit of the new STM32s (STM32MP2) which are actually 64 bit, but they kept the name STM32 because everyone knows it
- beng-nl 6mo agoDidn’t Intel also try to brand the 64bit x86 extensions as ia-32e initially? Seemed like wasting an opportunity to me. (Disclaimer: I work at Intel but this was way before my tenure.)
- p_l 6mo agoIt was because IA-64 was a completely different unrelated architecture that until AMD succeeded with K8 was "the plan" for both 64bit intel roadmap and the roadmap to kill off compatible vendors (AMD, VIA)
- madduci 6mo agoI stopped following the producer logic when Intel went from Pentium 4 to Pentium D