3 ms·

For those of us with feebler minds than you or him, the name is just full of qualifiers that make no sense.

• ethbr1 3mo ago
  To expand, positional definition of adjectives tends to be a bad marketing scheme. Nobody knows that pro and max mean specific things. If AMD needs to create a full cross-product of their hardware feature set, because they intend to have a SKU for every possible combination, they probably need a better scheme. Say what you want about Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5/i7, but it mostly got the idea across (except on the occasions Intel hijacked it to upbrand SKUs).
  • izacus 3mo ago
    So why do so many of major successful product corporations use this kind of naming scheme?
    • lebca 3mo ago
      It is possible to be successful in spite of one’s decisions
    • ethbr1 3mo ago
      What other popular products use five separate identifiers in mass market products? (Ryzen) (AI) (Max+) (Pro) (495)
• w0m 3mo ago
  To be fair - I'd much rather the name be overwrought but clear (once you know or have the decryption key to translate) than to have to look up an even uglier chart that i have ~no chance of memorizing to go 'ok, the Tiberian has X, Y, Z and Q and the Cyrian has Q, Y, but Z is nerfed'