Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

boringtextreviews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 142 posts

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#91

Post by precompute »

MBCook wrote: post #11

I’ve been out of the enthusiast game since the P4. I understand that an i5 is better than an i3 and worse than an i7. Outside of that I’m totally lost. Different core counts, different kinds of cores, multiple clock speeds (minimum, normal, max, ultra-boost), etc. and of course a current i3 probably destroys an older i7 in benchmarks. GPUs aren’t quite as bad. A 3060 is better than a 2060, but is a 3060 better than a…

> I understand that an i5 is better than an i3 and worse than an i7.

That isn't always true. It's pushed by intel as a "handy reference" for specifications, when it's actually just a price bracket. Many noobs will see it as a three-level hierarchy and conclude that they need an i7 for their mundane office work, when a pentium would have sufficed.

You gotta read and understand the specifications.

AMD has an actually useful naming spec for their processors, unlike intel.

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#92

Post by SlackingOff123 »

void-pointer wrote: post #90

Apple understood this from the word go and I don’t understand why everyone else is struggling so much: M 1 Pro ^ ^ ^ Form Gen Intra-gen Factor Differentiator Admittedly, the Pro/Max/Ultra names are arbitrary, but it’s still easier to pronounce and understand than “Intel Core i9-10900K”

Yes, but each intel CPU generation has more than 3 models. Having arbitrary names for 12 (?) models would just be silly.

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#93

Post by tracker1 »

abricot wrote: post #63
MBCook wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kind of like what Nvidia has been doing in GPUs. They have series. 1000s, 2000s, 3000s. Each generate is a new series. Then the products inside seem to be in performance order. A 3080 is better than a 3060 is better than a 3020 (if that exists). I know it gets messier than that. The fact that they add the titanium versions kind of screws with it. And in the last year they had that card they had to renumber because…

It's not just the Titanium, they have also launched 1650 and 1660 in between the 20s and 30s generation, and then you have the SUPER, TI and Foundation models. AMD could also do better.

They've (AMD) made their laptop CPU numbering even worse.

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#94

Post by ddtaylor »

opportune wrote: post #46
ddtaylor wrote: post #13

Can we just go back to numbers where higher is always better?

You can’t preserve ordering mapping permutations of a high-dimensional space (specs: clock rate, power, cores, cache, pipelining/vectorization, etc) with another high dimensional space (benchmarks, workloads, and scenarios) to a single number. It’s possible even for a chip with superior numerical specs across the board from another chip to perform worse due to lack of support for specialized instructions or differenc…

Almost every other industry makes some kind of attempt to do exactly that because consumers want simple choices.

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#95

Post by ddtaylor »

MBCook wrote: post #39
rincebrain wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if we have 32 cores at 2 GHz, and 48 cores at 1.5 GHz, from the same chip architecture, which is better? For some workloads, it's one; for others, it's the other. A one-dimensional performance axis is hard in practice.

You could use a synthetic benchmark. Create your own Geekbench like thing and use those numbers. Intel-$singlecore-$multicore So an Intel-6-12 had twice the single core performance of the Intel-3-48 but is much worse in multicore. Yeah, things are WAY more complicated. But at least it gives you a chance without memorizing spec sheets first. Higher numbers are always better. No redefining. This year’s 5 can’t be bette…

For the most part the transistor count (or something akin to it) is usually increasing, even if the die space is larger.

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#97

Post by fulafel »

gambiting wrote: post #84
speedgoose wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BMW i3 when from 22kWh to 42kWh in a few years but that’s a bit the exception.

kWh is measure of battery capacity not performance.

It's a dimension of performance, like many others. But lifecycle CO2 footprint is currently the most important performance metric of cars from the holistic pov.

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#98

Post by lynguist »

MBCook wrote: post #26
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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.” I feel like you're either in one of two groups: 1. a PC "nerd" (kind of deragotory) who is obsessed with specs all the way down to things like L2 cache size, etc. 2. somebody who has 0 clue what any computer/laptop specification means whatsoever

> somebody who has 0 clue what any computer/laptop specification means whatsoever Life was so easy in the MHz-wars days. The bigger number was basically always better, and you could easily tell by how much.

Nope, the IPC was hugely different in the MHZ wars days.

Pentium III had 20% higher IPC than Pentium 4 Northwood; AMD K8 (Athlon 64) had 35% higher IPC than Pentium 4 Prescott.

Same in the RISC vs CISC days: Pentium had 33% higher IPC than the original PowerPC 601. Late generation RISCs like Alpha were a completely different beast again, with the DEC Alpha 21264 (EV6) having 25% higher IPC than Pentium III.

It was never obvious back then, and it was also never obvious since then.

IPC keeps rising among different architectures. A couple years ago Apple overtook Intel, and ARM did as well.

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#99

Post by iforgotpassword »

p1necone wrote: post #89
iforgotpassword wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahem, the same happened with ATI, they just were lucky to have been renamed to AMD on the way.

I wasn't saying they didn't, just recounting my personal trajectory in the GPU model space.

Yeah, I think I actually wanted to reply to your parent comment and messed up

Re: Intel to drop the “I” moniker in upcoming CPU rebrand

#100

Post by Macha »

gonzo41 wrote: post #56
klodolph wrote: post #6

I 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.

You think this is bad, never own a bicycle. My god the confusion. I just wish all manufactures would name the product generation, and then incrementally increase numbers in the range based on quality and spec. Skylake-1 (basic) Skylike-1000 (really good) etc. Especially for chips, it seems the current naming specs across industry is needless complexity.

The other thing the bike manufacturers seem to do is bump the year number of the model with no real changes. The. You get situations where the 2018, 2019, 2020 difer only by paint job, then switch from a 2x8 to 1x12 gear setup, and then the 2021, 2022, 2023 are back to differing by paint job only again.

I guess it's them trying to incentise buying new in an industry that's much more slow moving than PC parts.

Post reply on HN