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's naming scheme is convenient

[nizo]

Actually I like Intel's complicated scheme; instead of looking up which CPU is which I just remember to go buy an AMD processor instead. Probably not what Intel had in mind when they came up with an overly complicated naming scheme however.

All Intel has been doing...

[grub]

... is take a few letters or a small word and add "ium" to it. They had a chip which gave off a musky odour but was irresistable. Unfortunately the "Cuntium" never made it out of the lab.

Re:All Intel has been doing...

[poot_rootbeer]

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

As an enthusiastically straight male, I believe I've had my nose closer to the source than the typical female has.

Assuming no foreign matter found its way into the cleanroom, I would agree that musk is a better description of the scent.

I thought they used...

[sczimme]

I thought Intel just put a regional map over a dart board:

*thunk* - "Williamette"

*thunk* - "Tillamook"

et cetera, et cetera

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.

Intel's naming scheme has been fucked up since...

[Caspian]

...the "Pentium Pro".

'Pentium' derives from 'penta'-- i.e. FIVE, as in "five-eighty-six", as in 80586-- the successor to the four-eighty-six.

That made sense. Kinda.

But then Intel designed the six-eighty-six, and instead of "Hexium" (or, Allah/Yahweh/Zeus/Vishnu/InvisiblePinkUnicorn/Flyi ngSpaghettiMonster-forbid, "Sexium"!), they called it the "Pentium Pro". So, evidently, the number six was then redefined as "Five Pro".

Then Intel kept improving (well, or at least adding to) the 686 design, but not only did they never label any of these newer-gen chips the 80786, 80886, 80986, etc., but they kept the goddamned 'Pentium' brand.

This makes perfect sense from a marketing (read: "a suit's") perspective, but absolutely no mathematical or logical sense.

If Intel invented counting, we'd all count something like this:

"Zero, zero, one, two, three, four, five, five pro, five II, five II point xeon, five III, five III point xeon, five IV, five IV point xeon, five IV extreme edition, five M..."

Of course, this isn't all that different from the convoluted way the French count... ;)

All this naming confusion

[n6kuy]

..makes me reach for my Nexium.