131–140 of 142 posts
As usual, Apple does it so much better. It’s just a MacBook Air, except in the documentation it’s “Macbook Air Late 2019” except when you ask the machine itself it uses yet another name.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BMW is also still selling the 5 series.
Well, they're selling the ~ 2022 BMW 5 Series or the 20223 BMW 5 series. The year is part of it. That's not the case for CPUs.
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.
A naming scheme:
Manufacturer Code: A short abbreviation or code for the manufacturer, e.g., 'IN' for Intel, 'AMD' for AMD, 'NV' for NVIDIA, etc.
Component Type: A short abbreviation for the component type, e.g., 'CPU' for Central Processing Unit and 'GPU' for Graphics Processing Unit.
Generation: A two-digit number representing the generation of the component. For instance, '01' for the first generation, '02' for the second generation, and so on.
Performance Tier: A letter representing the performance tier of the component, with 'A' being the highest tier and 'E' being the lowest tier. This can be expanded to include more tiers as needed.
Sub-Tier: A two-digit number representing the sub-tier within the performance tier, with '01' being the highest sub-tier and '99' being the lowest sub-tier.
Examples:
IN-CPU-03-A05: This would represent an Intel third-generation CPU, in the highest performance tier (A), and positioned in the fifth sub-tier within that tier.
NV-GPU-02-C15: This would represent an NVIDIA second-generation GPU, in the middle performance tier (C), and positioned in the fifteenth sub-tier within that tier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like the real issue here with Intel is they got it backwards. Nvidia leads with the generation (2xxx, 3xxx) and then differentiates within the generation (xx60, xx80). Intel leads with the intra-gen differentiation (i5, i7 etc.) which is most often included in marketing, with the generation buried in the particular CPU model number that often isn't included (10xxx, 11xxx). It doesn't help that there's also…
Intel gets more confusing when you include the Pentium and Celerons. There, they have different leading numbers for generations compared to the iX. And if you get mobile chips, you've got trailing suffixes like U and H? that indicate a 'core series' cpu, and leading prefixes like N that indicate a 'atom series' cpu. The codenames are hard to keep straight, especially when they started making everything a Lake, but at…
Honestly, I'm somewhat convinced that Intel did this scheme intentionally to sell older hardware (hey this has an i5/'gold' too and it's slightly cheaper!), but perhaps it backfired: folks who already have an iX think that new fancy iX laptop isn't worth it.
Here's hoping there's a tell-all book in a few years with some insight.
In the grand scheme of things, it's still better than the Microsoft Xbox naming convention.
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…
The problem with Nvidia is that I blinked and the numbers wrapped around, so a GeForce RTX 4070 is really new, but a GeForce FX 5200 is really old.
Would you like to buy my Xbox One X Box?
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 debat…
You answered the question already. Binning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>Intel-$singlecore-$multicore There will be power specs, and igpu specs, and ecc, and so on. It's hard to capture succinctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intel gets more confusing when you include the Pentium and Celerons. There, they have different leading numbers for generations compared to the iX. And if you get mobile chips, you've got trailing suffixes like U and H? that indicate a 'core series' cpu, and leading prefixes like N that indicate a 'atom series' cpu. The codenames are hard to keep straight, especially when they started making everything a Lake, but at…
Let's not forget what they started calling 'gold', which in many cases is just Celeron+. But don't confuse that with 'silver', designed for ultralight computing. Honestly, I'm somewhat convinced that Intel did this scheme intentionally to sell older hardware (hey this has an i5/'gold' too and it's slightly cheaper!), but perhaps it backfired: folks who already have an iX think that new fancy iX laptop isn't worth it.…
Both Gold and Celeron don't really mean anything. Celeron is often available with the same architecture as the other brands, often with less cores, maybe less speed, maybe some features disabled, but especially if you're comparing across architectures, the brand isn't important, the details are.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's just adopt an open-sourced hardware naming scheme then.
Not sure I understand all the downvotes and replies.. 5 secs of gpt4 later: A naming scheme: Manufacturer Code: A short abbreviation or code for the manufacturer, e.g., 'IN' for Intel, 'AMD' for AMD, 'NV' for NVIDIA, etc. Component Type: A short abbreviation for the component type, e.g., 'CPU' for Central Processing Unit and 'GPU' for Graphics Processing Unit. Generation: A two-digit number representing the generatio…