Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

I HATE INTELS NAMING SCHEMES.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:03:11 AM

i3, i5, i7...

friggin 1 quad core, 1 quad core + HT, 1 dual core, 2 different sockets yet they can only come up with i3, i5, and i7?!?!??!

STUPID INTEL. I hate having to keep up with numbers and HT and socket types. They really should have completely renamed name with different sockets - not combined them and changed the numbers. Confusing as all hell... I hope they lose some business due to this dumbass marketing strategy.
January 12, 2010 4:28:14 AM

Even though I understood all of Intel's naming strategies just by viewing a single, say, Wiki page on its processor brands, I have to admit, that's just too many brands, sockets and technologies.

I thought it was a lot better with the new CPUs, just Core i3, i5 and i7 but when I read that they would be adding a Pentium G9650 and keeping the Celeron line...><

It's extremely hard explaining all this to my friends and family.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 4:43:38 AM

Their chip names are really cool though. I like the names Clarkdale, Wolfdale, Lynnfield, Gulftown and the rest. Whereas AMD names become a bit weird, favourite one would be Bobcat!

Its just that Intel has its hands dipped in too many bowls, that's why they have all those confusing sockets numbers and the works. i3, i5 and i7 were not enough. They have LGA1156, LGA1366. They could have gotten all into one socket and be done with it. Would have made upgrade and downgrade easier.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 5:22:34 AM

Meh, im not really confused by all their naming schemes. But less tech savvy people might have trouble.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 6:18:22 AM

Less tech savvy people need not care. They simply buy.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 6:19:28 AM

Just Intel and AMD is enough for them! :D 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 6:37:11 AM

Here's how I would have done it:
i7: LGA1366 Qd w/ HT
i6: LGA1156 Qd w/ HT
i5: LGA1156 Qd wo/ HT
i4: LGA1156 Dl w/ HT
i4g: above with GPU
i3: LGA1156 Dl wo/ HT
i3g: above with GPU

Hmmm.... 7 ranges? Maybe not!
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:44:06 AM

Lets just hope they dont come out with tri cores
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 6:47:51 AM

randomizer said:
Less tech savvy people need not care. They simply buy.

And Tech savvy people don't find it at all that confusing. It really does not phase me at all (the naming scheme).
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 8:22:26 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Lets just hope they dont come out with tri cores

They leave that to lesser companies. ;) 
m
0
l
January 12, 2010 9:23:00 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Lets just hope they dont come out with tri cores


Intel's fab process doesn't suck like AMD's used to (or maybe still does?)... so no tricores :kaola: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 9:37:28 AM

bige420 said:
Meh, im not really confused by all their naming schemes. But less tech savvy people might have trouble.

Agree.
m
0
l
a c 172 à CPUs
January 12, 2010 10:18:39 AM

Yes, but remember. The new naming convention was supposed to make it more simple for everybody.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 1:47:56 PM

least its not as crap as the early 775(800 fsb) the midterm 775(1066 fsb) and the latter 775 (1333+ fsb) fiasco

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 2:06:55 PM

in short, when naming schemes are used to hide a processor's true capability, then it has to be confusing hoping the consumber won't notice and just buy.

if it was clear as C3Q (core 3 quad) or C3DH (core 3 quad hyperthreaded) then people will realize that the majority of the mainstream intel stuff is all dual core with ht while amd offers true quad cores for the price.


right now, you can have the buyer say, ha i got i7 and they are the best in the world when they are i7-1156s and can't do the beast tri/quad sli/xfire configuration properly

or say I have an i5 and still have a dual core box when others have quad core boxes.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 2:14:33 PM

ElMoIsEviL said:
And Tech savvy people don't find it at all that confusing. It really does not phase me at all (the naming scheme).

Another + 1
It defines performance level pretty well.
If you like cars and engines you probably know many more variables- cylinder head, CI, valve sizes, compression ratios etc.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 12, 2010 3:17:05 PM

m
0
l
January 12, 2010 6:33:18 PM

werxen said:
i3, i5, i7...

friggin 1 quad core, 1 quad core + HT, 1 dual core, 2 different sockets yet they can only come up with i3, i5, and i7?!?!??!

STUPID INTEL. I hate having to keep up with numbers and HT and socket types. They really should have completely renamed name with different sockets - not combined them and changed the numbers. Confusing as all hell... I hope they lose some business due to this dumbass marketing strategy.

The naming scheme was intended to simplify things for the masses. It's supposedly related to performance, i.e. 7 > 5 > 3

It was never intended to convey the technical details about the chip. Intel has a processor spec finder (Processor Spec Finder) for that.
m
0
l
January 14, 2010 2:45:31 AM

theholylancer said:
in short, when naming schemes are used to hide a processor's true capability, then it has to be confusing hoping the consumber won't notice and just buy.

if it was clear as C3Q (core 3 quad) or C3DH (core 3 quad hyperthreaded) then people will realize that the majority of the mainstream intel stuff is all dual core with ht while amd offers true quad cores for the price.


right now, you can have the buyer say, ha i got i7 and they are the best in the world when they are i7-1156s and can't do the beast tri/quad sli/xfire configuration properly

or say I have an i5 and still have a dual core box when others have quad core boxes.



You sir are mentally ill.

The only reason AMD's QC's are that cheap is because they have the performance to match the price point.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
January 14, 2010 4:25:06 AM

theholylancer said:
in short, when naming schemes are used to hide a processor's true capability, then it has to be confusing hoping the consumber won't notice and just buy.

if it was clear as C3Q (core 3 quad) or C3DH (core 3 quad hyperthreaded) then people will realize that the majority of the mainstream intel stuff is all dual core with ht while amd offers true quad cores for the price.


right now, you can have the buyer say, ha i got i7 and they are the best in the world when they are i7-1156s and can't do the beast tri/quad sli/xfire configuration properly

or say I have an i5 and still have a dual core box when others have quad core boxes.


Um who in their damn mind needs tri/quad SLI/CF? it only takes a ATI HD5970 to play Crysis maxed at 2560x1600 and thats just 2 GPUs. Hell no one even plays at that res that often. In fact most people play arounf 1680x1050/1600x900 area and even a large chunk still play at 1280x1024.

TBH if you get a i7 LGA 1366 for only gaming you deserve to be whacked in the back of the head. For high res gaming its great but the CPUs true potential is outside of gaming where it eats baby AMD CPUs ALIVE!!!!!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 4:46:38 AM

At least we're getting away from that "Core 2" vs. "Core Duo" mess...
m
0
l
January 14, 2010 5:21:08 AM

Yea, those superior cheaper tri cores beating the more expensize poor lil ol dual i3s, it aint fair I tell ya, and a joke to boot
m
0
l
January 14, 2010 9:35:44 AM

Actually, most of the time if people present me with specific models, I just give them a straight answer of what's better, regardless of core count and the users' tasks.

Because I know they just won't understand when I explain it to them.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 9:45:11 AM

How do you define "better"?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 10:18:12 AM

Bloodblender said:
Actually, most of the time if people present me with specific models, I just give them a straight answer of what's better, regardless of core count and the users' tasks.

Because I know they just won't understand when I explain it to them.


How can there be a "better" CPU without taking the user's tasks into account?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 11:25:48 AM

SuperFly03 said:
You sir are mentally ill.

The only reason AMD's QC's are that cheap is because they have the performance to match the price point.



and really, if you can say that these are on the same level

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... (AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition, $165)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... (Intel i5-650, $194)

there will be blood

if you say the I7-920 = the PII X4 965 BE, there will be blood

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 14, 2010 11:28:36 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Um who in their damn mind needs tri/quad SLI/CF? it only takes a ATI HD5970 to play Crysis maxed at 2560x1600 and thats just 2 GPUs. Hell no one even plays at that res that often. In fact most people play arounf 1680x1050/1600x900 area and even a large chunk still play at 1280x1024.

TBH if you get a i7 LGA 1366 for only gaming you deserve to be whacked in the back of the head. For high res gaming its great but the CPUs true potential is outside of gaming where it eats baby AMD CPUs ALIVE!!!!!


Well, the sins of a early adaptor, i only got the i7 for gaming and some virtual machining (i'm not a server provider so it's for home work segeration from games without dual boot), but the choices were I7-1366, C2Q, or PII X4 (which were not as cheap as they are today)
m
0
l
!