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

111–120 of 142 posts

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

#111

Post by unethical_ban »

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.

F150, f250, f350.

i"X" is the tier, and the number after that hints at generation and rank.

There may be better ways of doing it but it isn't hard to figure out for someone who needs to know.

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

#113

Post by jdiff »

gxt wrote: post #105
p1necone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've touched on the main problem (imo) that seems to happen with large hardware companies adopting consistent naming for performance segments in your comment. Once you've got a sane naming scheme and you've used it for a few generations the incentive to use it to mislead consumers is very high. Why sell this generations X070 equivalent as an x070 when you can call it an x080 instead and know that a very large chunk…

Let's just adopt an open-sourced hardware naming scheme then.

That's kind of a nonsensical suggestion. You can't define this in a way significantly different than it already is that makes sense across devices. You can use metrics like "% of performance vs flagship product," which a lot of people have used to point out that lately the xx80-class-turned-xx70-class cards of today are looking more like xx60 Ti-class cards of yesterday in relative performance, but performance isn't always that simple and there's no way any company will conform to it. Even if they use it, there's no incentive not to break from it the same way they do now.

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

#114

Post by lostgame »

borissk wrote: post #64
Maursault wrote: post #60

This strategy isn't going to work. Dropping the moniker isn't going to make any difference. They need to drop the platform. Until they do, they'll never catch up to Apple. Intel has been pwned by Apple since 2020, and that trend will only continue if Intel keeps on beating their dead horse. This is ridiculous, the kind of decision-making that killed Sun, and obviously the brain child of some ambitious MBA.

Haha, you're an Apple fanboy. Intel CPUs are more than fast enough for current software. Just today I took out of storage an almost 5 year old laptop (a Dell Precision) with Intel i7-8750h (6 cores, 12 threads) and 32GB RAM. Put in a new SSD (Samsung 980 Pro) and it flies with Windows 10 - browsing, watching 4K movies, using JetBrains WebStorm with a fairly large TypeScript project all work perfectly well and the lap…

'iSheeple'

cringes

You had some credibility up until then...

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

#115

Post by bluedino »

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…

Wait until you get to the Xeons. Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze.

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

#116

Post by red-iron-pine »

gxt wrote: post #105
p1necone wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've touched on the main problem (imo) that seems to happen with large hardware companies adopting consistent naming for performance segments in your comment. Once you've got a sane naming scheme and you've used it for a few generations the incentive to use it to mislead consumers is very high. Why sell this generations X070 equivalent as an x070 when you can call it an x080 instead and know that a very large chunk…

Let's just adopt an open-sourced hardware naming scheme then.

I'm all about the FOSS but I can't see what an "open source naming system" would due for us or how that would work.

How do we account for nuances on AMD, Intel, or Qualcomm chips? Does that apply to other ARM chips?

And then there is the issue of trademark, copyright, and branding, which could get into legal struggles.

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

#117

Post by bluedino »

Here's my question. Why are there SO MANY PROCESSOR SKUs?

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/platforms/d...

I lost count at 75 SKUs for Cascade Lake. Do we need 2-core increments? Do we need 0.2 GHz increments? Is this just part of the binning process? Wouldn't it make it easier for everyone if they had 1/4 the amount?

I'm trying to think of the amount of manhours wasted in meetings where IT staff debate 16-core vs 18-core and 20-core, alonge with 2.1GHz vs 2.3Ghz and 2.5GHz, when all the CPU's are within $100 of each other.

I think back to the Pentium days when you'd only have a handful of clockspeeds and then something new (like MMX), or a new socket would come out and then you'd get a couple more chips.

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

#118

Post by otterpro »

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.

I see a lot of Ebay listing selling pc with "intel i5 CPU" without description with the exact CPU model #, so I have no idea whether I'm dealing with 4th gen i5 or 8th gen i5. It's confusing to less technical buyers who think they are getting a mid-level CPU only to find out that their CPU is not as good as expected. It'd be nice to have just the number, like 13900k, which makes more sense than i7-13900k.

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

#119

Post by vanviegen »

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.

They could prefix the i with the generation year, to make it somewhat meaningful. "I have a 23i5" would tell most of what you'd need to know to figure out how well it's going to run a certain piece of software. It's also clear that a 29i5 should be a lot faster and more featureful. (Perhaps I should upgrade!) You'd still have to dive into the details to weigh a 23i5 against a 25i3 though.

For the complete SKU some more jibberisch can of course be added. Like 25i7-32mg. This suffix could be generation specific though, allowing for some flexibility. Most people wouldn't need to care.

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

#120

Post by red-iron-pine »

gambiting wrote: post #76

Brands are just going bananas trying to get rid of their own identity for some reason. It's the same as Land Rover(JLR) announcing that they won't call their cars land rover anymore, "because customers find it confusing". Apparently according to their spokesperson "no one says they own a Land Rover Defender, it's just a Defender". Like.....everyone ok in the head over there at the HQ?

Fundamental shifts in the market -- i.e. the "K shaped recovery" where the poor got poorer and the rich got much richer -- require brands to start recalculating who and what they're marketing.

A race to the bottom but also a race to the top, and requirements to re-shape what those brands mean as they reach to those segments. Definitely an issue for a luxury brand, too.

Post reply on HN