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.'"

Comments

Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Real speed != clock speed

[JimBowen]

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.

The loser always wants to hide.

[r00t]

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.

Re:All Intel has been doing...

[Cutie Pi]

As a female, I take offense to this. I believe the smell is closer to tuna fish. :)

Intel is being evasive about true performance

[tomcres]

The problem is that Intel is using an arbitrary numbering scheme which has absolutely nothing to do with any objective measure of performance. Their numbers simply refer to the relative number of features and relative speed of processors within the same family. This makes it impossible to compare processors across different brands. A Celeron-D 560 is not going to necessarily be as fast as a Pentium-D 320, but you'd never know by the numbers. On top of which, you'd never know that the -D in Celeron-D is for "desktop" whereas the -D in Pentium-D is for "dual-core." Of course, we techies know this, but this is Intel's way of deliberately misleading consumers.

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.