Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
boringtextreviews.com
Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
1–10 of 142 posts
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#2Er… what? As they say in the comments, they’re getting hammered by AMD… so throw away the brand recognition?
I personally never understood why they didn’t spread it to all their lines. Their GPU line could have been the G3, G5, and G7; SSDs could have been S3, S5, and S7; Wi-Fi could have been W3, W5, and W7; and Chipsets could have been C3, C5, and C7. Oh well…
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#3Er… what? As they say in the comments, they’re getting hammered by AMD… so throw away the brand recognition? I personally never understood why they didn’t spread it to all their lines. Their GPU line could have been the G3, G5, and G7; SSDs could have been S3, S5, and S7; Wi-Fi could have been W3, W5, and W7; and Chipsets could have been C3, C5, and C7. Oh well…
You gotta do more than practical to impress the VPs and Board. Do some sillyness, point to line go up, promotion!
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#4Er… what? As they say in the comments, they’re getting hammered by AMD… so throw away the brand recognition? I personally never understood why they didn’t spread it to all their lines. Their GPU line could have been the G3, G5, and G7; SSDs could have been S3, S5, and S7; Wi-Fi could have been W3, W5, and W7; and Chipsets could have been C3, C5, and C7. Oh well…
I think this is overestimating the amount of "brand recognition" that Intel gets out of the "i". Ordinary consumers don't give a damn about it whatsoever, hell, I guarantee 99% of ordinary people don't even know which manufacturer produced the CPU on any given device that they own.
Meanwhile, enthusiasts will roll their eyes and use whatever dumb naming scheme Intel replaces it with. It was terribly convoluted before, and it will certainly be terribly convoluted after. This is a non-event.
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#5> The “i” branding is extremely powerful with the average consumer and removing it is bound to cause confusion amongst consumers who aren’t technically-inclined.
There's no way this is true. The iNumbers were never used consistently enough to mean anything.
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#6I do think the i3/i5/i7/i9 monikers are actually pretty confusing, just speaking as someone who has been using computers much longer than the brand existed. Problem is that a CPU from 2009 is going to be called an “i5” and there are just so many people who say they have an “i5” or “i7” without knowing what generation it is from.
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#7“The “i” branding is extremely powerful with the average consumer and removing it is bound to cause confusion amongst consumers who aren’t technically-inclined.”
Who’s the “average” consumer here? I’m skeptical that the majority of PC buyers have internalized the “i” branding. Gamers, sure. But average consumers? I’ve talked a number of less computer savvy friends and family through computer purchases and there was awareness of Intel, but beyond that not so much.
I don’t think a rebrand is going to change much for Intel either way. Average consumers are either going to buy by price point and familiar brand (Lenovo, Dell, etc.) or phone a friend to get advice. Or use whatever they get handed by their employer.
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#8That leaves us with Intel 3, Intel 5 and Intel 7, which is quite strong IMO because it drops the i sub-brand?
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#9Nothing says executive floundering quite like blowing millions on a rebrand. Here's an idea: make it a new product, a good one, and give that a different name.
Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand
#10> The “i” branding is extremely powerful with the average consumer and removing it is bound to cause confusion amongst consumers who aren’t technically-inclined. There's no way this is true. The iNumbers were never used consistently enough to mean anything.
When they were first released they were.
i3: single core, hyperthreading
i5: multi core, no hyperthreading
i7: multi core, hyperthreading
It only jumped the shark once hyperthreading stopped being a differentiating feature, and Intel tried to retcon equivalent performance levels into their previous numbering system.
Edit: Nehalem (~2008). Apparently i3 didn't exist until the Westmere die shrink?