Slashdot Mirror
Intel Roadmap Update: The Art of Naming Processors
THG writes "CoolTechZone.com has compiled a list of Intel processors from its roadmaps, and discusses Intel's naming convention. According to the article, 'Gone are the days when processor names were something as simple as their clock speeds. If you wanted a nice and powerful 3GHz processor, you simply asked for a P4 3.0GHz and that was it. Ever since Intel has decided to revamp its naming conventions, the confusion makes you wonder if the whole idea of renaming was a smart move. Moving on with Intel and it's desktop endeavors, the problem is that if the names were as simple as stated above, we would've somehow managed to figure them all out. But someone at Intel obviously wanted to ensure that we don't remember processor names without having a 100-page manual on product families, so there are modifications to each series, which may or may not be consistent across different series.'"
This is only going to get more and more confusing with multi-core. Users are going to have to distinguish not only based on clock speed, but number of processors, and with HT (number of logical processors). Add to that the fact that it is unclear what advantages these multiple cores have with current client operating systems, given that there aren't too many true multi-threaded applications out there, and this becomes bewildering for even a savvy consumer.
The reason for scrapping clock speeds in favour of these 'strange' naming conventions is not confusion, it is to help people realise that clock speed does NOT indicate how fast a processor is.
If people thought that a 3GHz celeron is as fast as a 3GHz P4 with HT, or indeed a 3GHz Athlon64, then they would be very confused indeed.
Many people did think this though, before the new naming conventions applied, so I think it is a good thing.
If you are behind in GHz, avoid discussing it.
If you are behind in benchmarks, avoid discussing it. (Look! GHz!)
If you are behind in low-power, avoid discussing it.
If your expensive flagship "server" CPU is only 2% faster
than the gamer version, avoid discussing EVERYTHING that
could possibly matter.
Grrrr.... I wish I could force them to include SPEC benchmark
numbers in the processor names. Put the lowest number first,
then a "-", and then the highest number. Slimy bastards always
hide from the light.
Intel's architecture is deep pipe but few IPC. So pretty much clockspeed is performance.
The problem isn't the idea of renaming, its how they did so. AMD's renaming is simple- higher number, higher performance. Dual core is called an x2. ^4 bit is called just that.
Intel's renaming scheme- umm, I really can't find a pattern in it.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
As a female, I take offense to this. I believe the smell is closer to tuna fish. :)
Didn't AMD start the whole thing? We could also blame Apple for starting the conversation of the "Mega Hertz Myth" too. But I like those 2 companies, so lets just blame Microsoft for the whole thing instead. ;)
AMD, on the other hand, uses a P-number which is directly comparable across processor lines and uses an established standard of a 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird = P1000. Everything else is relative to that. So you know right off the bat that an Athlon64 3000+ is only marginally faster than a Sempron 2800+, you don't have to play games like with Intel.
Added to that, any techie for which it's a matter of importance (eg: the bloke at your local computer fixit shop, 14 year old gamerz) will have memorised which marketing name has which processor features within hours of them being released, lest they not appear to be l33t enough.
Everyone else just picks a price point and then buys whichever machine is at that price point the salesman tells them is best.
AMD's naming system may not be the best, but I like their rating system. Clueless n00bs have been complaining that they were "cheating" by not giving the actual clock speed (which alone means very little). You can tell approximately how much faster is a specific chip over another one they sell using that (and an equivalent P4 somewhat). It's not totally accurate, but you know a 4200+ will be about twice as fast as my old Athlon XP 2100+ or a P4 2.0GHz. Anyone can buy a chip using a system like that.
Whereas with the current Intel chips... Model numbers (a 519? how fast is that really?), different sockets, different FSBs, different cache sizes, different cores, different intructions sets (SS3 or not, EMT64 or not), dual core or not... You can't easily tell how fast one is over the other ones (nor can you tell easily which ones run cooler). They're finally victim of their own GHz ratings and they got nothing to go by anymore (as a measure of relative speed) it seems. Unless you're following their offerings closely (most people aren't), then it's pretty hard to pick one.
///<sig