First off, the old naming scheme from Intel, was just dumb. Its the "Core" architecture. Okay. So Ford should name their next car "Wheels" or "Motor", its confusing, are we talking about part of the product, or a code name?
Core 2 quad. Whats that mean if I know zero about microprocessors. Does it have two cores, four, two times quad is eight? Sure we get it, because we read up on the stuff, but does Joe Blow understand?
Now, whats an i7? Sure I understand the tier structure, i3 (slow, but cheap), i5 (good, but nothing special), and i7 (cost prohibitive).
But, higher number, more performance, okay, but what the heck is it, really. At least with a Phenom II, its a statement, hey, here it is, its Phenomenal, oh, and its the 2nd generation of Phenomenal.
Pentium / Athlon / Celeron / Sempron, all kinda meaningless, but catchy, I can dig em.
i7, okay? Its a chip that can perform 8 threads, that makes sense. Cute lowercase friendly little i, like the wii I guess. Who comes up with this stuff?
Seriously, If I run a processor company, I am hanging my design right out there and calling it what I want. How about this CBF is the name of the company, we will call our first chip the BMF, and when people ask what that means, I will just tell them to reference the last scene in Pulp Fiction.
The naming conventions of Intel remain about as clear as ever. And by clear, I mean "clear as mud". Why do they need the whole "i" thing, again? Hasn't Apple already whored out the "i" prefix enough as it is? Apparently not.
lol @ The worst of the best (or some marketing doublespeak like that), the Core i3 moniker is the dumping ground for sundry untouchable GPU-on-CPU chips.
First off, the old naming scheme from Intel, was just dumb. Its the "Core" architecture. Okay. So Ford should name their next car "Wheels" or "Motor", its confusing, are we talking about part of the product, or a code name?
First off, the current naming scheme from AMD is the same. It's the "Phenom" architecture. Okay. Ford should name their next car "Athlon" or "Sempron," it's confusing, are we talking about a part of the product or a code name?
Core 2 quad. Whats that mean if I know zero about microprocessors. Does it have two cores, four, two times quad is eight? Sure we get it, because we read up on the stuff, but does Joe Blow understand?
What does Phenom II X4 mean if you know zero about processors? Does it have two cores, four cours, two times four is eight? Sure we get it, because we read up on the stuff, but does Joe Blow understand?
Now, whats an i7? Sure I understand the tier structure, i3 (slow, but cheap), i5 (good, but nothing special), and i7 (cost prohibitive).
But, higher number, more performance, okay, but what the heck is it, really. At least with a Phenom II, its a statement, hey, here it is, its Phenomenal, oh, and its the 2nd generation of Phenomenal.
Pentium / Athlon / Celeron / Sempron, all kinda meaningless, but catchy, I can dig em.
But what's a Phenom II? Higher number, more performance, okay, but what the heck is it, really. At least with Core 2 Quad I know that quad is more than duo. Four is definitely more than two.
The point being that IT marketing never, ever describes the product. It sells an image and an attractive name, and never anything more.
That said, this whole debate is stupid. When hasn't a company's naming scheme been misleading? A Radeon HD 4770 is a better card than a Radeon HD 4830, yet it's numbered lower. An 8800GT was better than a 9400GT (if they made one, who knows). As Thrax pointed out, at least Core hints at what a processor actually is to a computer. What the hell's a Phenom got to do with my PC?
Core and Phenom are two totally different naming conventions, here is why.
Core, is not just the architecture, its a quantifiable part in the thing. Thus, when you start throwing numbers behind it, it becomes confusing.
Phenom X3 and X4 is pretty self explanatory, even if you don't know its about the cores, you know its quantifiable to the type of unit it is.
For the sake of arguement, lets say AMD comes along and calls there next CPU I don't know, the Gigahertz 2 quad. Lets say it runs at 3.2 gigahertz per core. Could a Joe Blow look at that name and wonder if its trying to tell him something about how many gigahertz its running at? Sure, same with the "Core" architecture. I'm sorry, its a stupid name for a product.
For my next product, I am going to create a beverage, its H2O based, I'll call it H20 2 quad. H20 is the architecture by the way.
From a performance aspect, having the three tiers make since. I still don't know what has two and 4 cores. I'm guessing there will be a mix of dual cores and quad cores in the Core I5 segment.
Cliff, I'd have to agree with Thrax, Core duo and Core duo Quad was a great naming scheme for Intel. Marketing is one thing Intel has always excelled at. Have you seen their rock star commercials? Or the ones for mobile chips that have British accents? Great stuff. I only remember one commercial from AMD. It was horrible.
Core duo and Core duo Quad just sounds cool.
Phenom X3 and X4 is ok. Phenom II X3 and X4 just reminds me of a Pentium II X3 and X4. Honestly, Phenom overall just sounds a little cheesy to me.
I liked I7 as it stood out as a performance part, but I'm not crazy about i3, 5, and 7 as a group. But it still is not that bad. I could just imagine people sneering at i3's and 5's, though.
Komete - Don't even get me started on the insult to human intelligence that are the Intel Rock Star adds. When you have to look at "Napoleon Dynamite" for inspiration??
Komete - Don't even get me started on the insult to human intelligence that are the Intel Rock Star adds. When you have to look at "Napoleon Dynamite" for inspiration??
Anyone who looks to Napoleon Dynamite for inspiration instead of for an example of how to make the most annoying movie ever should have their head examined. I never understood how ANYONE could like that movie.
As for the naming themes... meh... who understands marketing anyway? Seriously, I think even the ad-gurus are just making it up as they go.
The Intel rockstar ads are brilliant. They're funny, they take a slap at their competitor, and they make a point about their company in 30 seconds. I've never been so amused by a PC company's advertisements.
Cliff, I could never put my finger quite on why I hated then Intel commercials so much. I think you just nailed it though. It is kind of a Vote for Pedro rip off and that whole movie annoyed the hell out of me. Thanks for finally pegging it for me.
Cliff, I could never put my finger quite on why I hated then Intel commercials so much. I think you just nailed it though. It is kind of a Vote for Pedro rip off and that whole movie annoyed the hell out of me. Thanks for finally pegging it for me.
Exactly, they took a scene from Napoleon Dynamite and recycled it using Intel's Halls instead of a high school. Bad adds are bad.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
The most puzzling thing to me is why they even have Pentium as a brand right now.
First off, the old naming scheme from Intel, was just dumb. Its the "Core" architecture. Okay. So Ford should name their next car "Wheels" or "Motor", its confusing, are we talking about part of the product, or a code name?
Core 2 quad. Whats that mean if I know zero about microprocessors. Does it have two cores, four, two times quad is eight? Sure we get it, because we read up on the stuff, but does Joe Blow understand?
Now, whats an i7? Sure I understand the tier structure, i3 (slow, but cheap), i5 (good, but nothing special), and i7 (cost prohibitive).
But, higher number, more performance, okay, but what the heck is it, really. At least with a Phenom II, its a statement, hey, here it is, its Phenomenal, oh, and its the 2nd generation of Phenomenal.
Pentium / Athlon / Celeron / Sempron, all kinda meaningless, but catchy, I can dig em.
i7, okay? Its a chip that can perform 8 threads, that makes sense. Cute lowercase friendly little i, like the wii I guess. Who comes up with this stuff?
Seriously, If I run a processor company, I am hanging my design right out there and calling it what I want. How about this CBF is the name of the company, we will call our first chip the BMF, and when people ask what that means, I will just tell them to reference the last scene in Pulp Fiction.
lol, wut? I don't see how that makes sense.
First off, the current naming scheme from AMD is the same. It's the "Phenom" architecture. Okay. Ford should name their next car "Athlon" or "Sempron," it's confusing, are we talking about a part of the product or a code name?
What does Phenom II X4 mean if you know zero about processors? Does it have two cores, four cours, two times four is eight? Sure we get it, because we read up on the stuff, but does Joe Blow understand?
But what's a Phenom II? Higher number, more performance, okay, but what the heck is it, really. At least with Core 2 Quad I know that quad is more than duo. Four is definitely more than two.
The point being that IT marketing never, ever describes the product. It sells an image and an attractive name, and never anything more.
That said, this whole debate is stupid. When hasn't a company's naming scheme been misleading? A Radeon HD 4770 is a better card than a Radeon HD 4830, yet it's numbered lower. An 8800GT was better than a 9400GT (if they made one, who knows). As Thrax pointed out, at least Core hints at what a processor actually is to a computer. What the hell's a Phenom got to do with my PC?
Stop fanboying it up in here
Core, is not just the architecture, its a quantifiable part in the thing. Thus, when you start throwing numbers behind it, it becomes confusing.
Phenom X3 and X4 is pretty self explanatory, even if you don't know its about the cores, you know its quantifiable to the type of unit it is.
For the sake of arguement, lets say AMD comes along and calls there next CPU I don't know, the Gigahertz 2 quad. Lets say it runs at 3.2 gigahertz per core. Could a Joe Blow look at that name and wonder if its trying to tell him something about how many gigahertz its running at? Sure, same with the "Core" architecture. I'm sorry, its a stupid name for a product.
For my next product, I am going to create a beverage, its H2O based, I'll call it H20 2 quad. H20 is the architecture by the way.
(You know this is a dumb argument. You KNOW it.)
Cliff, I'd have to agree with Thrax, Core duo and Core duo Quad was a great naming scheme for Intel. Marketing is one thing Intel has always excelled at. Have you seen their rock star commercials? Or the ones for mobile chips that have British accents? Great stuff. I only remember one commercial from AMD. It was horrible.
Core duo and Core duo Quad just sounds cool.
Phenom X3 and X4 is ok. Phenom II X3 and X4 just reminds me of a Pentium II X3 and X4. Honestly, Phenom overall just sounds a little cheesy to me.
I liked I7 as it stood out as a performance part, but I'm not crazy about i3, 5, and 7 as a group. But it still is not that bad. I could just imagine people sneering at i3's and 5's, though.
Komete - Don't even get me started on the insult to human intelligence that are the Intel Rock Star adds. When you have to look at "Napoleon Dynamite" for inspiration??
Anyone who looks to Napoleon Dynamite for inspiration instead of for an example of how to make the most annoying movie ever should have their head examined. I never understood how ANYONE could like that movie.
As for the naming themes... meh... who understands marketing anyway? Seriously, I think even the ad-gurus are just making it up as they go.
Knowing this still, its a total Vote for Pedro knock off bit. The "cool nerd". Not origional.
Goes to eleven, baby!
Cliff, I could never put my finger quite on why I hated then Intel commercials so much. I think you just nailed it though. It is kind of a Vote for Pedro rip off and that whole movie annoyed the hell out of me. Thanks for finally pegging it for me.
Exactly, they took a scene from Napoleon Dynamite and recycled it using Intel's Halls instead of a high school. Bad adds are bad.