AMD Restructures Entire CPU Lineup

another naming scheme again? confusing...

can i have a diagram tom?

The new naming scheme 'should' eliminate some of the confusion that is out there now. The only problem is that all the chips we have now will still be on the market and there will be some overlap as always in terms of performance.

To bad we can't go pack to the simple Athlon days. The xp1700 is fast, xp1800 is faster xp2500 is even faster. None of this 3-4 different series of chips being outed crap!

AMD has been making good decisions lately. It's nice to see them moving up.

I don't what to say except this ----> T.T

Who cares what they name the end product I just want to know if Bulldozer is going to end up being as fast as an i7 core to core.

It is confusing now but this will simplify things down the road. The idea is to take more of the thinking and research out of the equation for the common consumer. Right now a Phenom, depending on which model could fall into at least two of those categories.

They should focus on releasing chips, not names. Who cares what they want to call it?

The new naming scheme helps convey the appropriate performance level of AMD CPUs.

FX= Slow
A Series= Slower
E Series= Slowest

Unless the AMD articles are about the release date of Bulldozer, it's tl,dr.

AMD was at their best with the FX lineup which leads me to believe they have something great. Not a fan of either company. I just want the best product for the dollar.

I wish Intel would murder their Pentium name (and line).

Seems like a sound strategy, although naming the mid range systems and top end with the same AMD Vision Ultimate moniker certainly does confuse things...

Ahhh...*sniff* everything is starting to smell so fresh and clean....

"Vision is AMD's contribution, which comes with the intention of simplifying the purchasing for folks who know what they want to do with their PC and don't care to learn the intricate sub-component technical nuances to make a buying decision. Will we do the same with Llano and Zambezi? You'll have to wait and see."

I dont like this, naming schemes need to informative to people who know the "technical nuances" as well as simple to the idiots.

a produce number should incorporate these things:
# of cores
clockspeed
generation
some sort of indication of cache if needed

Phenom II x4 965 does ok at this
-second generation phenom
-clockspeed differences between chips can be interpreted (965 vs 955)
-quad core shown by x4
-9 series means 6 megs of L3, 8 series means 4 megs of L3

an improvement would be something like:
Phenom II 4634 = 4 cores, 6 meg L3 cache, 3.4 Ghz
or just drop the 6 as its not that important
Phenom II 434
if there was a version with less cache then you could add a "B" to it or something

434>432>328
easy for consumer^

At least it isn't as complicated as amd GPU naming

Why the hell would I want to pay a premium for an APU core that will include a graphics processor that I'll never even use? No way AMD! Oh well, I hope they continue their GPU technological evolution and not throw the baby out with the bath water -- so-to-speak!

why not cores/speed/cache?

b3506 for a dual core 3.5 ghz 6 mb l3 core

c for tricore, d for quad, f for six, etc. or just the number even for cores too?

Its no more confusing than nvidias naming...oooo the gtx480 outperforms the gtx560.....oooo "contraversy" "im so confused because 560 is a bigger number than 480"....is what you would be saying if it was AMD. what bullplop! you can figure out the naming using 1% of your brain, i suggest you use it and do some research.

There is hardly a point in trying to make codes that general consumers understand. They will get confused with about everything unless it is blatantly obvious.
If they want their line to make sense to consumers they will have to simplify their line to just a few products, three for example; The AMD Basic, AMD Fast, AMD Very Fast. It says right in the name how fast the chip will be to minimize confusion as to how fast it should perform, since that's all consumers care about.

I think what intel did with their i-series makes sense for the most part and is a good compromise. The code says:
-Generaly how the chip performs in the lineup with the i3/i5/i7
-The first number to note the generation
-A couple more for relative clock speed, features and TDP.
It's a little disorganized but not too bad.

Amd should have a similar logical naming scheme:
-FX, A, E denoting relative speed with a number denoting generation attached
-1 or 2 numbers denoting core count
-2 numbers denoting stock frequency
-a number denoting and special features, like Black edition
-a m at the end if the chip is mobile
So a first gen high end Black edition chip with 10 cores at 3.4 ghz would be an AMD FX-1034B and a mainstream second gen 6 core chip at 2.8ghz would be an AMD A2-628.

What people fail to notice is that with new multithreaded and multimedia applications, APU's with higher core counts as you go up in processor models, will result in higher performance. As someone said, no average consumer knows what any of this means -- AMD Vision is good enough and has already done very well in the marketplace. Pricing and the OEM's marketing make up the rest.

Intel already used the Core iX YYY model number system, and yet it tells you nothing about core count, cache, or processor speed. Now they're moving to a four-digit numbering system. What's next? YY3Y and YY5Y numbering? End the numbers in a 1? Intel has done this all before while just confusing consumers. It didn't work for Core 2 chips, and it doesn't work now.

Why not just go like:

Phenom III FX (High-mid range)
Athlon III (Mid-low range)
Sempron ? (server)

Keep things simple, and as they are now. I like the Phenom name (Not just because I just bought one lol), always liked Athlon. My first 2 PC's were Athlon XP's, a 1500 and 3200.