Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel To Rebrand Atom Chips Along Lines of Core Processors

Posted by samzenpus on from the keeping-it-consistent dept.

angry tapir writes Intel has announced that going forward it will use style of branding for its Atom chips that is similar to its branding for Core chips. Atom CPUs will have the X3, X5 and X7 designations, much like with the Core i3, i5 and i7 brands. An Atom X3 will deliver good performance, X5 will be better and X7 will be the best, an Intel spokeswoman said.

109 comments

  1. can't wait by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    for dual-core X3 and quad core X5!

  2. "Good", "Better", "Best"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When somebody uses a scale like ["Good", "Better", "Best"], are they really just trying to avoid using ["Total Shit", "Mostly Shit", "Mildly Shit"]?

    1. Re:"Good", "Better", "Best"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In highschool/college I worked at a retail place with the MBA speak: "Good, Better, Best" It pretty much boils down to "Shit", "OK", and "Same product as OK but with a brand name and 30% markup."

    2. Re:"Good", "Better", "Best"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hyperthreading"

      But on a more serious note, I look to make sure VT-x and VT-d are available. Other than that I don't really care what "I" series it's in.

    3. Re:"Good", "Better", "Best"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good, Better, Best wouldn't be bad if it was that simple, but Intel cow tows to their vendors, producing CPUs for many performance levels within each of these categories, and within each genre (embedded, mobile, desktop, and enterprise) which takes the focus away from real technological advancements because they spend too much time creating umpteen different processor sku's with all kinds of performance levels to satisfy the "mattress" vendor model.

      Here's an example of my version of an Intel (one with a spine):
      There are only 3 CPU's available in the mobile/laptop market. An 2.0 GHz i3M (dual core), a 2.5GHz i5M (quad core), and a 2.8 GHz i7M (six core HT). Now, if we mass produce the proper quantity for each of the target markets. Bamm!, everyone at every budget wins, because the consumer is getting the best Intel was producing at that time. [Don't get caught up in the specs, I was just trying to make a point]

      I know my idea won't work because it doesn't fit the mattress manufacturing philosophy, which is produce one mattress, but give it different labels so a dozen different vendors can pretend to differentiate themselves from their competition when they sell it. Which is essentially, what Intel is doing by producing a crap load of junk CPUs to satisfy every OEM.

      Because, you know through extensive research their is clearly a HUDGE market for not only a 1.5GHz, but a 1.7GHz. and 1.8GHz Celeron. And the performance, and financial numbers back up this need. And yes, this was meant to be sarcastic.

      But Intel's not the only company that operates this way.

    4. Re:"Good", "Better", "Best"? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that i3, i5, and i7 have never been good, better, best.

      My core2duo E6850 is now absolutely ancient (and feeling it's age after having been run at nearly 100 degrees Celsius for a significant portion). My dad was going to retire his old i3 to the garage as a backup, but I jumped at the chance to nick it. That was, until I looked at the benchmarks. They're about the same. New thermal paste is easier.

      It's all about the benchmarks, people. There are plenty of i5's that will outperform i7's in many tasks.

    5. Re:"Good", "Better", "Best"? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      At least on desktop, the differential is core number. i3 is dual core, i5 is quad core, and i7 is quad core with hyperthreading (8 virtual cores). That means higher iX will crush lower iY in parallel tasks like video encoding. But at the same time single thread application that only care about maximum speed of a single core, higher clock i3 has a chance to eat lower clock i7.

  3. You mean BMW numbering? by Carewolf · · Score: 2

    Since the core lines are meant to follow BMW numbering, I guess that means Atom now will too.

    I wonder when Intel realizes BMW have introduced 2, 4 and 6 series in recent year ;)

    1. Re: You mean BMW numbering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder when they will notice that BMW releases new models every year.

    2. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting series 1 (and 8).
      That's as odd as Intel's numbering :-)
      Now in BMW's case X are all wheel drive and way more powerful than i which is electric.
      Do Intel's X series run on gasoline?

    3. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BWM have had even/odd numbers for a long time, odd numbers for the regular models, even numbers for the coupe/cabrio versions

    4. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the BMW 3-series did not come as cabrios?

    5. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      So the BMW 3-series did not come as cabrios?

      It did. I think by a "long time" he meant the last 3-4 years.

    6. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by Maxwell · · Score: 1

      Fixed last year. 3 series coupe/conv are now called the 4 series. Lineup is now consistent as OP stated

    7. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The 1-series and 3-series did have both 2-door and 4-door versions, and this was confusing in respect to where they were going with their numbering schemes.

      Thus, the 2-series and 4-series were born as the 2-door versions of the 1-series and 3-series, respectively.

      Want 4 doors? Get an odd-numbered first digit. 2 doors? Even.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    8. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by JRV31 · · Score: 0

      I would drive a Trabant before I would drive a BMW

    9. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story, bro.

    10. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Bzzzz! Wrong!

      http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newv...

      http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newv...

      http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newv...

      http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newv...

      http://www.bmw.com/com/en/newv...

      Nice try, but their new scheme makes no fucking sense at all so don't worry about it.

      Before the recent change there was nothing to be confused about - you had most models in various body styles: coupe, convertible, sedan, or wagon. Of course it'd look ridiculous if they made even more (expensive) variants of the same car so they had to make a bigger mess to hide it.

    11. Re:You mean BMW numbering? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? They just started this a year or two ago.

      The last two digits used to be the engine displacement in liters, and the letters meant something too (i.e. 535i was a 5-series, 3.5L engine, fuel injected) but that hasn't been true for a long time.

  4. But I want faster... by telchine · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely there should be an X11 chip, for those that want to go louder and faster?

    1. Re:But I want faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought they rebranded that as 'Wayland' ?

    2. Re:But I want faster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That'd mean doing away with the FPU and telling people the software ought to make up for it using the vectorisation extensions.

      On another note, X3 for "good", X5 for "better" and X7 for "best", where does that leave the i3, i5, i7 series? Plusgooder, doubleplusbetterbetterst, tripleplusbestest?

    3. Re:But I want faster... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      They tried one, but the networking code proved to be such a performance drag that they abandoned it for a Wayland chip.

  5. Dubious premise . . . by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Funny

    An Atom X3 will deliver good performance

    I highly doubt that.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
    1. Re:Dubious premise . . . by mgf64 · · Score: 1

      An Atom X3 will deliver good performance

      I highly doubt that.

      I wish I had mod points...

    2. Re:Dubious premise . . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, compared to what is the question, and are they comparing TDP or just IPS?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Dubious premise . . . by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      The name change will infuse confidence in the chips and make them perform more confidantly and faster

    4. Re:Dubious premise . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mod points are only available if you have an X5 or better.

    5. Re:Dubious premise . . . by sensei+moreh · · Score: 1

      You just need the right benchmark. I'm pretty sure that an X3 will deliver good performance in comparison to my netbooks' N270s.

      --
      Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
    6. Re:Dubious premise . . . by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      An Atom X3 will deliver good performance

      I highly doubt that.

      The silvermont generation have actually been decent. Just too bad they have shared naming with the shit that came before.

    7. Re:Dubious premise . . . by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      An Atom X3 will deliver good performance

      I highly doubt that.

      Pick up an HP Stream 7 tablet and try it ($100). It's surprisingly perky and speedy despite its 1GB of RAM, Windows and Atom processor.

      it's no speed demon, and yes it can bog down, but it runs Windows impressively fast

    8. Re:Dubious premise . . . by Bengie · · Score: 2

      Current Atom CPUs are 8 core with ECC so-dimms, only consume 25watts at the wall at full load and perform non-SIMD related workloads between 1x and 0.5x of a quad-core 8 thread Haswell Xeon of similar frequencies, will nearly identical AES-NI performance.

    9. Re:Dubious premise . . . by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm actually familiar with the real performance of Atoms, and they aren't actually as bad as all that, but I figured I'd take the opportunity to drop a good laugh line.

      I have been using a dual-core Atom-powered PC for several years now to DJ. It's been able to hold its own.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    10. Re:Dubious premise . . . by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I noticed recently that AMD's AM1 processors support ECC and AES-NI as well. It seems odd that in AMD's case AM1 processors support ECC while their FM processors do not and in Intel's case the least expensive way to get ECC is now with Atom.

  6. In other news... by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ARM just renamed their chips X3000, X5000, and X7000 :-)

  7. Why follow BMW? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0

    All these numbers are BMW models. Coincidence?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  8. Problem with this scheme by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    The problem with this scheme is that currently is a 1st generation i7 better than a 5th generation i3? My guess would be "probably not", but having looked at a very limited amount of information, the answer appears to be a definite "maybe". Basically, ever since Intel gave up on 80x86 designations for its chips they have failed to settle on a naming convention that allows me to easily compare their CPUs (although the Core series is easier to compare than what came just before that). I used to regularly do a review of CPUs from both Intel and AMD to determine what I considered to be the best bang for the buck, but it has become too much work to do so any more. Now I only do it when I am buying a new computer, and I put that off as long as I can.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    1. Re:Problem with this scheme by itzly · · Score: 1

      It wasn't so much the loss 80x86 designations, as the increase of different parameters that could be tweaked for different markets.

    2. Re:Problem with this scheme by slaker · · Score: 1

      On a per-core basis, a Haswell i3 is significantly faster than an i7-920, but the extra threads and dynamic overclocking in the i7 feature set make up for it. In day to day computing, the two are probably about equivalent. For thread intensive tasks like video encoding, the i7 is still the better option. Which just shows how completely insane i7s are, to remain competitive with mainstream desktop CPUs FIVE YEARS after their launch date.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    3. Re:Problem with this scheme by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree that they currently make it way too hard to determine which CPU is better than the other. Currently they have 2 things called i3/i5/i7. The i7 that's used in desktops is not the same i7 that you will see in a standard desktop chip. And they also sell small form factor desktops that use the laptop version of the i3/i5/i7. Then there's the lower end chips like Celeron/Pentium/Atom, that I can't figure how how they are supposed to compare to eachother. It was a lot easier when they actually changed the marketing name of the chip each time they actually made a change to the processor. 386,486, Pentium, Pentium 2, Pentium 3, Pentium 4 and so on. They've had the i3/i5/i7 names since 2008, and it's gone through Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, and Broadwell all without changing the marketing name of the chip. You have to look at stuff like i7-4770 , or even worse, look up the exact model number (BX80646I74770) to try and figure out exactly what you are getting.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Problem with this scheme by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Even within one generation the good/better/best breaks down once you start looking across product categories, an "ultra mobile" i7 can be considerablly less capable than a "mobile" i3.

      Like most stuff marketers come up with it's pretty clearly designed to mislead customers into thinking they can have both an ultra slim lightweight machine and top-tier performance.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:Problem with this scheme by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      A comparision of a first generation desktop i3 (which is slightly newer than a first generation i7) from january 2010 to a current generation desktop i3 from may 2014 (there was a slight speed bump released in july but anandtech don't have that one in their list) can be seen at http://www.anandtech.com/bench... . We see that performance has less than doubled in over four years

      We see a similar comparison when we compare a first generation desktop i5 from september 2009 to a current one from may 2014 http://www.anandtech.com/bench...

      I'm not sure i'd consider it insane for a high end desktop part to have double the performance of a contemporary desktop part. I think it's more that we just aren't making the massive jumps in performance anymore that came from the move from 1->2->4 cores as the typical core count in the mid-mainstream or that came from retiring the crappy pentium 4 architecture.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    6. Re:Problem with this scheme by slaker · · Score: 2

      Generally speaking, the CPU branding is an indicator of feature set and relative performance within a generation and product class. We have desktop, mobile and (ultra)low-voltage part. If you're getting hung up trying to determine which CPU is faster between two CPUs of wildly different architectures (desktop Sandy Bridge vs. low-voltage Broadwell, for example), it's almost always going to be an apples to oranges comparison anyway; you're probably looking at different classes of devices. Just pay attention to the product class (desktop/mobile/LV) and product generation and the i3/i5/i7 designations will be appropriate.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    7. Re:Problem with this scheme by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I see that no so much that the i7s were insane as desktop CPUs have hit a wall and per-core performance just doesn't increase much year over year. This is why Intel has been more aggressive about power savings and secondary features than scalar performance.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    8. Re:Problem with this scheme by adler187 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the numbering confused me as well when I first started looking at it, but it does make sense after a bit. You have the model class: i3, i5, and i7 and then you have the model numbers.

      The marketting class tells you at a glance (for a given generation) how the CPUs compare: a 2nd gen i7 has more features and generally faster than a 2nd gen i5, etc... Then the model number shows the relative performance/feature within a given generation: 2500 has fewer features or performance than a 2700, etc...

      What may not be apparent at first blush is that it is the model number that encodes the generation bit, not the model class. Tthey've gone through 4 generations of Core i7/i5/i3 and the marketting classes haven't changed. The model numbers have changed, though:

      Core i7 965 (Nehalem)
      Core i7 2700K (Sandy Bridge)
      Core i7 3770K (Ivy Bridge)
      Core i7 4770K (Haswell)

      As you can see, the first digit encodes the generation of chip, with only the original Core i7 generation being the outlier. You can't usually compare across generations, since there are too many variables, though you can crudely estimate that a Zxxx model will be better than a Yxxx model.

      The big pain is knowing what features a given chip has and for that you need http://ark.intel.com/

    9. Re:Problem with this scheme by Bent+Spoke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well if it comes from a large marketing dept. and you are confused then "mission accomplished".

    10. Re:Problem with this scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish they would go to FLOP and/or another rating system... Shot, even just CPU compared to a Pentium 100 single core would be nice.

      I have this with my IBM Power series. It tells me how this machine lines up with other machines in the family. So a 16core machine would equal X, 32core Y. Even though 2X>Y could be true, at least I feeling for the expectation of the equipment. Then again my IBM machines are in the 6 to 8 figure ranges.

    11. Re:Problem with this scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the purpose is to confuse you and frustrate your attempts at making sense of it. The reason is so salesmen can point to this or that number at will.

      Let's look at i7-4770.

      i7 means high end.

      4 means Haswell

      770 means high end

      Haswell desktop i7s have four cores with hyperthreading.

      AMD's CPUs are named very similarly.

      It would be great if Intel and AMD would put the number of cores, the type of cores, the number of graphics cores, the type of graphics cores, and the clocks speeds together in some format.

    12. Re:Problem with this scheme by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      it's almost always going to be an apples to oranges comparison anyway

      Faster is not an apples to orange comparison. It is a simple workload type question. I open a photo in Lightroom which processor does it the fastest? The current generation i3? Yesterday's generation i5, or yesterday's generation i7 mobile chip?

      The problem is that it really should be an apples to apples comparison and the feature set should be separated from the performance.

    13. Re:Problem with this scheme by toddestan · · Score: 1

      For my work load, a first generation i5-680 (3.6Ghz, dual core, fastest clocked processor from the first generation) is about 10% slower than a fourth generation i5-4430 (3.0 Ghz, quad core, slowest clocked "normal" i5 from the current generation that's not a low power or mobile variant). Note that this workload is extremely single threaded, so if you're doing something that's multi-threaded the two extra cores in the Haswell i5 will make a huge difference. But this does suggest that cores in a Haswell are about 30% or so faster than the original "Clarkdale" processors on a per-clock basis.

    14. Re:Problem with this scheme by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The mainstream desktop I7's are pretty easy to keep track of because there's actually not been that many of them. If someone tells you they have an i7 in their desktop, it's probably one of the four chips in your list. Now dive into the mess that's the Pentium/i3/i5 lines. Most i5's are quad's, but some are dual's with hyperthreading. But that's what the mobile i7's usually are. But so are the desktop i3's, except that they can't turbo boost. And the very high end Haswell i7's have a 5xxx number. Shouldn't that be a next generation chip? Why do the Haswell-based Pentiums get a 3xxx number? What's better, a G3460 or a i5-3340? Probably the Ivy Bridge i5 but why does the Haswell Pentium chip have a bigger number? Why do most of the "K" chips not support VT-d, but the 4790K does?

  9. Good performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And which one will deliver "bad performance"? Is there an X1?

  10. like eggs by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    An Atom X3 will deliver good performance, X5 will be better and X7 will be the best,

    Eggs used to be sold as "small", "medium", or "large" in the UK. Then the marketing guys rebranded "small" as "medium", "medium" as "large", and "large" as "extra large".

    1. Re:like eggs by itzly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Likewise, instead of selling condoms as small, medium and large, they are branded: regular, tight, and extra tight.

    2. Re:like eggs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, like tiny little robin's eggs the Brit's are when compared to the American "Jumbo". Just like our testicles!

  11. Core branding is utterly useless by DrXym · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have an Core i5 CPU in a tablet. It's clocked so low and steps down so fast that it may as well be in a different CPU family for all the comparison it bears to one in a desktop PC.

  12. Sounds like the old Sears catalog by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    An Atom X3 will deliver good performance, X5 will be better and X7 will be the best

    Is anybody here old enough to remember the old Sears catalog? Years ago, they sold many items in three grades: "good", "better", and "best". But here's what I always wondered: if "good" was so darn good, why was it clearly at the bottom?...

    Anyway, I guess marketing is marketing: it doesn't matter whether you're selling refrigerators or microprocessors. Sears never went beyond three grades and marketed anything as "pretty good", "slightly better", or "almost best." But I guess Intel can sell an Atom "X4" or "X6" if they ever want to.

  13. While you're at it... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please dump the Pentium and Celeron brands, which are relics from a bygone era.

    Just call your brands either Core or Atom and be done with it.

    Obfuscation doesn't help the consumer.

    1. Re:While you're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Xeon.

    2. Re:While you're at it... by guytoronto · · Score: 1

      Modern Pentium chips are decent for small business applications, MS Office, internet, email, those kinds of things. Unfortunately I.T. purchasers still think of Pentiums as ancient technology, and order i5 boxes for secretaries.

    3. Re:While you're at it... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      It would be difficult to find any modern x86 CPU that is not good enough for those tasks. Heck even a pretty old CPU should work for most of those.
      The amount of CPU power available today borders on the unbelievable.
      Outside of power users like gamers, developers, CAD, Video editing, and other high end users a Pentium is more than good enough.
      Frankly they would get better value out of an SSD than an I5.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:While you're at it... by slaker · · Score: 2

      Pentium as a brand name has too much consumer good will for Intel to drop it. Remember that Intel Marketing spent 20 years convincing people to buy them. I have met people who bought a Pentium-based notebook rather than a Core i3 specifically because of the Pentium sticker. And current Pentium CPUs certainly aren't bad. They're pretty much i3s without hyperthreading support. They're perfect adequate for light-use machines.

      I jokingly tell people that Celeron is an ancient geek word that means "Don't Buy Me", but the fact that they continue to exist is mostly a statement to the levels of ignorance present in the computer-buying public.

      --
      -- I wanna decide who lives and who dies - Crow T. Robot, MST3K
    5. Re:While you're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obfuscation doesn't help the consumer.

      It was never the intention to help the consumer.
      Helping the consumer means that the consumer only buys and pays for what he needs.

    6. Re:While you're at it... by crow · · Score: 2

      Just think of "Celeron" as "i1" and "Pentium" as "i2" and then they fit just fine.

    7. Re:While you're at it... by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      The problem I was referring to is some Pentiums are Haswell based (core), while others are Silvermont based(atom).

      Similarly, there exist both Core and Atom Celerons.

    8. Re:While you're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Nvidia and AMD as well.
      Holy SHIT those names.

      Graphics cards have got to be the worst named products in the whole of computing.
      Even more so because they are deceptively named in the sense where you can buy a new product that is in fact (sometimes horribly) inferior to a previous product because they made a gimped card so they can still make some money off of failed yields for the main products.
      The concept isn't bad, throwing away low yields is horribly wasteful, but the awful naming schemes are bad.

    9. Re:While you're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think of "Celeron" as "i1" and "Pentium" as "i2.000739068902037589" and then they fit just fine.

      FTFY

    10. Re:While you're at it... by rssrss · · Score: 1

      Since when is the aim of marketing helping the consumer?

      In my experience it is spreading FUD, and chivvying the consumer into wasting his money on buying things he does not need.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    11. Re:While you're at it... by amalcolm · · Score: 1

      Don't you think that's getting old? Like 20 years?

      --
      Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
    12. Re:While you're at it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is simply not true...I'm currently on an HP Stream laptop, with a dinky Intel Celeron Processor that doesn't need a fan, and it has not once stuttered when playing HD Youtube videos or Netflix or high-bitrate bootleg movies. Like the grandparent said, it's fine (and basically indistinguishable from my desktop computer) when doing anything except video games.

    13. Re:While you're at it... by JRV31 · · Score: 1

      and it has not once stuttered when playing HD Youtube videos or Netflix or high-bitrate bootleg movies. .

      That is because of the GPU, not the CPU.

    14. Re:While you're at it... by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Just think of "Celeron" as "i1" and "Pentium" as "i2.000739068902037589" and then they fit just fine.

      FTFY

      No, since we are using integers here. The Pentium had a floating point bug.

    15. Re:While you're at it... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, some of the Pentium and Celeron CPUs are based on Haswell. Some are based on Bay Trail (Atom). As someone who helps recommend low-end laptops to friends and clients trying to get the best deal for a budget, it's become a hassle having to look up every model number of Pentium or Celeron to verify which type it is.

    16. Re:While you're at it... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean 20.00739068902038 years?

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    17. Re:While you're at it... by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      The people who faithfully buy "Pentium" are like the people who faithfully bought "Oldsmobile".

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    18. Re:While you're at it... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I never had an issue with Windows 7 on a core 2.
      But then a core 2 is three generations back I am talking about Sandy-Bridge or higher but even a Core2 is probably going to be just fine.
      If you are talking about one of the first gen Atoms yea they where terrible but modern ones are pretty good.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:While you're at it... by bayankaran · · Score: 1

      I never had an issue with Windows 7 on a core 2.

      My old Thinkpad X61 was replaced a few months back with a used Thinkpad X1 for precisely this reason.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    20. Re:While you're at it... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My favorite are the cheap notebooks that are advertised as "Quad core processor!". What they don't tell you is that it's a quad core Atom. Granted, for a lot people it would be good enough, but I'd rather have one of the Haswell-based Pentiums even if it's just a dual core.

  14. Oooh, exciting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More marketing bullshit. Obfuscation doesn't help the customer, but it's hard to make shit not smell.

  15. Tell me these are 64bit? by AbRASiON · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft is releasing 32bit versions of Windows 10, due to idiot Atom 32bit machines manufactured only a few years ago.
    It's time for 32bit to die out entirely, hopefully no more 32bit only CPU's from Intel.

    1. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, people are barely finished the conversion from their aging 16bit apps, and you want to go to 64bit?

      Excuse me while I insert my DOS 5.0 boot floppy into my emulator so I can make a bootable USB key, for my USB floppy emulator, so I can get my aging CAD/CAM machine to run. Thank goodness for decades or backwards compatibility.

    2. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the first atom core were 64bit WTF did intel remove that support for some chips ?

    3. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Yes, the current generation Silvermont Atoms are (I believe) all 64bit.

      (You might still find prev-gen Saltwells in tablets and phones)

      Intel won't kill off x86 entirely - they have their Quark project for Internet of Things.

    4. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      the first atom core were 64bit WTF did intel remove that support for some chips ?

      Not quite. It was WTF from the beginning, as these were released like 5 years after the introduction of x86-64. I got an Atom board in 2010 and I remember the mess of making extra sure it's 64-bit, as new 32-bit models were still being made.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    5. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all these small lightweight machines need to be able to address 16GB of RAM?

    6. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      So 32bit and large memory addressing is a problem for an low power low performance device?

      I have 2 Atom machines here. I guarantee they'll never see a workload where they would benefit from a very large addressable memory space that comes with 64bit processors as the chips just aren't powerful enough to do that kind of work.

      So really what is the point of a 64bit chip like that?

    7. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Easy, software developers targetting a single platform. 32bit should be long dead by now, it's time to let it go.

    8. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which makes no difference to 99.99% of software vendors out there. Most 32bit programs run just fine on a 64bit platform. You make it sound like it's a real hard piece of work maintaining support for multiple platforms. That may be true only if your application has a specific need to run in 64bit.

    9. Re:Tell me these are 64bit? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      To make it even more fun, Intel won't release 64-bit drivers for a lot of their integrated graphics for the Atom. Which means that if you want to run Windows on them, you pretty much have use the 32-bit version. Luckily there's always Linux.

  16. more confusion by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    Ever since a T4400 is faster and newer than a T5500, Intel has been screwing up. Recycling the name Pentium was idiotic. They don't even have standards anymore. In case you didn't know, the latest Haswell "celeron N-series" is actually an atom chip and it has a pathetic passmark rating of around 1000. It doesn't meet the minimum requirements for Windows 8.1 but they still sell it.

    1. Re:more confusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget the pentium-branded (n- and j-series) atom-based pieces of shit... which are, naturally, marketed by pc makers as 'quad core pentium', which sounds awesome for $250-350 until you get it home, wait 5 minutes for it to boot up and another 5 to get into a web browser.. they are the only 'quad core' pentium chips that exist, but they're still atom-based and slower than shit after a cheese festival,

  17. Marketing Grading by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    They should be more honest and say X3 is lowest performance, X5 average performance, X7 better performance.

    If you were to rate products out of 3 stars, where 1 star was the lowest you could give, then 1 star would be worst, 3 be best.

  18. Grades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Atom X3 will deliver good performance, X5 will be better and X7 will be the best"

    Yes, this is a potential grading.
    Another one is:

    Atom X7 will have shitty performance X5 will be shittier, and X3 will be the shittiest.

  19. Miss the days. . . . by tpwade · · Score: 1

    I miss the days when there were maybe two classes (eg the original pentium 1 through 4 vs celeron) of chip running with a few different speeds each. Now it's as if they want to make it as complicated as possible with an overabundance of options. X3 X5 X7 is at least some attempt at simplification for those that don't have days to spend poring over all the options and combinations of options currently available.

  20. There goal is at odds with yours. by waspleg · · Score: 1

    They make more money on confusion. Most people don't know WTF they're buying anyway so they can more easily fleece someone in to overpaying for a sub-par processor which will be blamed on the manufacturer's name on the cover not theirs.

    People just buy shiny (Apple/Alienware/"Ultrabooks",etc), cheap (Chromebook/Netbook), or at a certain price point without a clue until it doesn't do something they want and then they will blame everything but themselves. I see this shit every day; most consumers are ignorant and think computers are appliances.

    1. Re:There goal is at odds with yours. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much this. Same goes for actual brands. Toshiba made tank-durable laptops during the Vista days then redesigned the Satellite line with the cheapest plastics possible. The things break, literally, from the simple act of opening the lid more than a couple hundred times. Same with high end Envy HP's! Toshiba has thankfully gotten better, but it's sad to see this issue so prevalent and I see so many people with this problem I can't help but take pity that there wasn't someone there to tell them to buy something that isn't total garbage.

      But then again so much out there IS garbage! Apple is pretty much the best thing out there (13" models, that is), as well as the business-class machines from Lenovo, Dell, and HP.

      Maybe that's just how it is. I'm neck deep in consumer tech, and even my head spins at all the FUD and misinformation out there. Everything under $600 is sub-par, and pretty much everything under that is unusable. There can be some decent laptops under than price point, hardware-wise, but it's either got a crappy screen, keyboard, touchpad, or plastics, and usually a combination of a few of those.

      And it definitely seems to originate with Intel hype. A manufacturer will make an unmitigated piece of crap, and people will buy it up with gusto because it's got an intel sticker on it. (Usually this happens with sub-i3 models that don't offer AMD equivalents.) To me, if the best sticker on it is to advertise it's got a Pentium Inside, it's got nothing else going for it. The cool black stickers usually mean it's a decent piece. And, yes, I'm aware it's petty to pin the worth of a machine to a sticker, but that's the best I can figure and I work with a lot of different models and manufacturers so I see them all.

    2. Re:There goal is at odds with yours. by Smauler · · Score: 1

      The point is that they deliberately obfuscate. "This generation is better than the last" can be sold to people with higher powered processors, whilst still being technically true. Like I said earlier in the discussion, I still use a core2duo E6850, and I do use it for gaming. It's nearly 10 years old.

  21. current naming scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that Intel's naming scheme for its current crop of CPUs boils down to the following target audiences:

    Pentium G & i3: Mainstream users
    i5: Power users, including gamers
    i7: Special needs users

    (Obviously this is not Intel's idea of what the world looks like.) Now unless there's a rather dramatic change there's no way a gamer or special needs user will buy an Atom. So I don't think this new scheme will help anyone decide anything.

    Of course it makes some sense to have categorization outside of a four-digit number. The trouble is that these numbers are not chosen to mean that high is better or faster, but instead reflect other things like the time or event of a product release, which is hardly helpful. Intel's solution has been to let its marketing team come up with some simple scheme, with predictably idiotic results.

  22. I just want to know: backdoor or nobackdoor by ad454 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With recent Intel chips containing AMT (Active Management Technology) and vPro, which contain integrated 3G radio support plus hidden processing core running separate hidden "management" instructions from the main core, what I really want to know is which Intel chips have a potential backdoor and which do not.

    https://fsf.org/blogs/communit...

    Otherwise any smart competitor which can prove that their don't have any backdoors, would have a significant marketing advantage. (Are you listening AMD?)

    1. Re:I just want to know: backdoor or nobackdoor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMD and Arm seem to have similar things.
      This is probably government mandated.

      Kinda like the "no marrying young girls" thing or the "no useful weaponry for civillians" thing.

      The only way to stop it is an armed rebellion

  23. Blame intel for desktop demise due to proc naming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest issue is that they are not creating demand for new processors. i7 is the latest, coolest so why should I upgrade my i7 even though it is 5y old?

    Before people would notice that their Pentium 1 is way behind current P4 and think about upgrading. Now ask a friend what they have and they will tell you i7 while being proud of it it is probably quite aged i7. Why would one want to change i7 to i7 - it is still i7 right? I know, I know all of the bridges, but most of population doesn't care, doesn't know.

    Now think about Apple doing yearly presentation with great fanfare just to present iPhone (iPhone not iPhone6, 7, 8). They would loose customer interest and market.

  24. Cross Branding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BMW introduces i3 and i8.
    Intel introduces X3, X5 and X7.

    Hmm....

  25. Why 3, 5 and 7? by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    It just seems odd.

    1. Re:Why 3, 5 and 7? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While they are odd, i think the biggest factor is that they are prime.

  26. Re:tic - toc + marketing by ichthus · · Score: 1

    That's not the market that matters for the Atom. ARM-based micros are their real competition and, with processors like Samsung's Exynos, Qualcom's Snapdragon and Apple's A8, Intel doesn't have any lead at all.

    --
    sig: sauer
  27. intel 'yellow books' by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    http://everist.org/eevblog/201...

    I have no idea if this is true or not. interesting read. and its plausible, given how deep corporate secrets are these days and how those in charge LOVE to have backdoors into your systems.

    wish someone would confirm this. without confirmation, its just a rumor.

    posting it here for the slight chance an AC might confirm this with actual first-hand info.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."