Intel To Change The Product Name, Again

by Kristopher Kubicki on 10/16/2005 5:06 AM EST
Comments Locked

34 Comments

Back to Article

  • Sunner - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Ok, AMD's scheme caught a lot of flak back in the day, but this is just ridiculous.
    At least AMD's scheme makes some kind of sense in that a higher number tends to mean higher performance, even though it will vary somewhat depending on what apps you run.
    But you can always bet a 4000+ will beat a 3000+ in everything.

    WTF is up with a 530 and a 620? The 620 has the higher number, so it should be better right? What about if we throw a 570 in there? Or maybe a 570J, it's even got a letter so that's sure to be a good sign. But the 571 then...it's missing that nice letter but it's got a slightly higher number...and why doesn't the 670 come with a letter?
    And so on, it's a huge fvcking mess, you'd need a damn manual just to understand what's what in Intel's product range.
  • StriderGT - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Well I was considering giving intel a break, who wants to flog a dead horse forever, but they keep coming up with more bull every day...
    What they lack in proc speed & features, they envision balancing it with more fuzzy logic names poping up in netburst mode.
    Really intuitive they are, no two persons in this world can communicate which model they bought without the use of the intel proc refference encyclopaedia.

    These are really signs that intel is going forward, but where exactly is that forward thing?!?
  • dragonballgtz - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    /head explodes
  • Beenthere - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    If you can't dazzle potential customers with brilliant products, baffle them with B.S. as Intel has been doing for the past 6 years.

    SOS, DD.
  • stateofbeasley - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    So if you don't like it, vote with your dollars instead of whining about it. I bought AMD because it was the best bang for my $.

    Did Intel kill your dog or something?
  • bob661 - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Did Intel kill your dog or something?
    Killed it AND ate it. Bastards.
  • Questar - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Hope it was tasty.
  • melgross - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Yes.
  • OvErHeAtInG - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    When did "mobility" replace "mobile" as a type of processor?

    Hey PR illiterati: Mobility is a noun; mobile is the adjective. PR doublespeak drives me nuuuuuuuts.
  • Scrogneugneu - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    So, why did Intel chose to use those four letters to determine the TDP?


    E : Extreme power
    T : Total power
    L : Low power
    U : Uber low power


    ?

    Then we got a zillion numbers meaning nothing next to it... a 1700? What is that again... is a L1700 better than a T1600? What about the E1500? Would I be better with a U2700 after all? What is the difference between the L2700 and the L2800? Where's my Celeron? My Pentium?


    We end with a thousand models, all with letters and numbers meaning nothing to nobody... am I alone being unable to quantify the performance of, say, a P4 630 vs anything else than another P4 ? Is it supposed to get better by adding another digit and a letter before it?


    I guess AMD is gonna push up sales just because their naming scheme is better than Intel's...
  • Shintai - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    E=Extreme gaming (Think 2.5Ghz+)
    T=Transportable/Mobile (Same as todays standard Dothans)
    L=Low voltage (Same as todays Low voltage Dothans)
    U=Ultra low voltage (Same as todays ultra low voltage Dothans)

    Remember this is for LAPTOPS only (Well and bladeservers and some offspring media centers and desktops)

    A U1500 is the same as a T1500. The U just using less power.
    The 1000 is used by Yonah, the 2000 is gonna be used by Merom.
  • mino - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    "U1500 is the same as a T1500"

    NO, it isn't if you read that correctly and that is the real issue.

    And about all You talking abou thow bad AMD's scheme is, sorry guys but AMD has 3 mainstream products:

    Sempron
    Athlon 64
    Athlon 64 X2

    between these the performance closely resembles the ratings

    turion scheme is also pretty simple:
    MT28 => "MT" means model; "28" means performance class - the higher the better
    But intel's 753 is clearly far worse performing than 750(i know why). And _many_ people believe otherwise!!!

    For anybody without current IT bacground(even if one was on the edge 2yrs ago now he'll be lost at shopping for intel) the Intel's scheme as of right now is just shooting at random.
  • Shintai - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Let me repeat it for you:

    A U1500 is the same as a T1500. The U just using less power.
  • Scrogneugneu - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Using less power, but offering the same performance?
  • Johnmcl7 - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    AMD's naming scheme is currently a joke, it was originally a good idea but the Semprons and A64's threw it out the window, the 3000/3200 area being the best example of the problem.

    John
  • SEAWOLF607 - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    Seem's too me that Intel didn't learn the first go arounnd. Intel if you read this; The peole do not want crazy naming schemes. Give us the name of the cpu and it's actual speed rating not some crazy numbering system.
  • ksherman - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    is there a performace differentce between the different power consumption letters? they really only need two: one for uber-long amazingly thin laptops, and then the other for everything else. MABYE they could add a third one for real-high end DTR notbooks, but those should just use X2's anyway, since you cant take them away from the wall
  • semo - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    the original naming scheme that they replaced made the most sense.
    e.g.
    3.0ghz 512k 800fsb

    you know exactly what you are looking for but that's the problem... it all made logical sense so it was absolutely critical that is was canned.

    when a joe average is told facts about what it/(s)he is buying, it/(s)he gets confused and shivers at the thought that something it/(s)he will have to learn/remember; even more terrifying: joe averages learns/remembers something.

    step in big corp with made up names/numbers that portray no factual/useful information whatsoever.

    joe average: so what is that processor thingy like?
    intel: well, very simple to describe it actually; it's a p4 3.0ghz ...
    joe average: *flinches
    intel: 512 kilo... urhh.. umm it has hyperthreading technology.
    joe average: ohh. makes perfect sense!!!
  • Xenoterranos - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    there were so many slashes/hyphens in that sentance/statement that I/me(s)he? got a little comfused/obfuscated.

    Hey, since my name is Joe, and I know exactly what I'm talking about, would that make me Joe Above Average? Or by extension, UltraJoe? That sounds cool, im changing my name to UltraJoe.

    But seriously, I completely agree. I liked the days when you could go to the local PC shop and say "I want an Athlon 2.0ghz 512KB sktA and that was it! I hate the fact that there the 5XX line is better than the 6XX line up untill prc XX where the 6XX line is better...blah blah blah. ANYthing would be an improvement at this point.
  • Kalessian - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    rofl, I was thinking to same thing.

    We'll get used to it... or we won't and they'll change it agian.
  • bob661 - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    I think AMD's naming convention is pretty good. I know eactly what I'm getting. Sorry that you guys can't figure it out. Intel's naming scheme on the other hand makes absolutely no friggin sense at all. I have to carry around a cheat sheet so i don't look like an asshole. Oops, too late. :)
  • melgross - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Except for one little problem. AMD's names were dependent on Intel having Pentiums that had the speeds they did so that AMD could say that their chips were as fast or faster than those.

    They can't do that anymore, so now their names make no sense whatsoever.
  • bob661 - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    quote:

    so now their names make no sense whatsoever
    Makes sense to me as all I need is to be able to compare one AMD CPU to another. I don't on buying Intel anytime soon so it's quite simple to figure out which AMD CPU is slower and which is faster. I don't see the problem.
  • Shintai - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    But you still can´t with AMD. One might have 512KB cache, another 1MB cache. Another again single channel while the other got dualchannel. Don´t try and tell us AMDs is better.

    Both AMD and Intels scheme sucks, however since they both started mixing up their CPU line with bastard kids, in forms of different caches and technologies they ruined the game. Old days...P4 was a 512KB part, celeron was a 128KB part. AMD had the same with Durons etc. Now we have 3 or 4 variants of the same performance CPU. However the performance ain´t the same, but in average it´s somewhat close.

    So AMDs misleading scheme? Or Intels nosense scheme is what we can choose from.
  • imaheadcase - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    I think everyone can agree the original way was the best. The only reason they changed it was because of pride. AMD was saying "processor speed is not true performancee" so intel figured they would change there to reflect that. AMD is just to blame by putting numbers in naming that don't equal processor speed. We are lucky enough to have online stores actully say what true mhz the CPU is. hehe
  • 9nails - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    I totally agree. If the day ever comes when Intel makes a 3.6 Ghz "Pentium 5" CPU and it outperforms the 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 CPU on all scores, then this silly nameing convention will make a little sence. But if they're not going to do any more work per CPU cycle, then the clock speed is still the best measurement that we have in determining the needs of the customer to the CPU. I liked it better when it was left alone.
  • overclockingoodness - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    Is it just me or are the new chip names similar to AMD's Athlon XP line. T2700 = 2500+ and so forth and so one.
  • raskren - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    It is just you.

    Last time I checked, AMD didn't rate their processors based on TDP.
  • Brian23 - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    I'm pretty sure they rate the Turion processors this way.
  • CurtOien - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    If the customer is confused, the sales person at the retail store sounds like they know what they are talking about no matter what and can talk some poor fool into anything.
  • FastEddie - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    A duck is a duck. Why spend so much energy trying to make processor speeds so mysterious.
  • Cygni - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    Ugh, terrible. This is as bad as the chipset naming Intel currently does, with the V's P's G's etc. Or ATI's 30,000 different X800 variants. Or AMD's 3 clock speeds with 10 speedrating Sempron line up.

    Come to think of it, who has a GOOD naming scheme these days?
  • Shintai - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    Nobody got a good naming scheme today.

    And why is this "top news" 3 days old other places.
  • jkostans - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    Yeah haven't seen any breaking news on anand in awhile, always seems like a repeat of somthing I read somewhere else....

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now