Intel’s Ice Lake CPU Naming Needs a Manual

[Admin]

Intel’s Ice Lake 10th Gen CPU naming convention may be more confusing to consumers who aren’t in the know about specs.

Intel’s Ice Lake CPU Naming Needs a Manual : Read more

 

[jimmysmitty]

The only thing I agree on is they should have put the Y or U in the front of the number to help differentiate the two. The rest makes sense, the 6 is i7, 3 is i5 and 0 is i3. If there is an i9 part I would assume it would be 9 so Core i9 - 1095G7 for example.

The last number seems to be for the base clock speed. For the i7 5 is 3.5GHs and 8 is 3.6GHz. Notice all the i5s are 5 and are all 3.3GHz base clock. It doesn't seem to take boost clock into account.

The only difference between an i5 and an i7 is the cache it seems. The i5 has 6MB while the i7 has 8MB.

So here is how to tell what it is:

Model:
i7 - 4c/8t 8MB Cache
i5 - 4c/8t 6MB Cache
i3 - 2c/4t 4MB Cache

Gen:
10 - 10th generation

First number:
6 - i7
3 - i5
0 - i3

Second Number - Clock speed

Last part - GPU:

G7 - 64EU Iris Plus
G4 - 48EU Iris Plus
G1 - 32EU UHD

They all seem to support all the same features as well otherwise. I also expect Intel to make the Core i9 line their 6 or possibly 8 core. Or they do i9 6c/12t and make something else 8c/16t.

 

[bigdragon]

I think Intel deliberately makes confusing and complicated naming schemes so that they can convince system vendors to just say "10th generation" on their product spec sheets. Finding the exact CPU model can be wildly frustrating for mobile systems of some vendors.

I'm hoping AMD jumps in here to push mobile technology forward. We shouldn't still be stuck on 4c8t on mobile. Intel appears content to leave a wide opening for AMD to do to mobile what they did to desktops. All of those i7 parts should be 6c/12t at the minimum.

 

[jimmysmitty]

I think Intel deliberately makes confusing and complicated naming schemes so that they can convince system vendors to just say "10th generation" on their product spec sheets. Finding the exact CPU model can be wildly frustrating for mobile systems of some vendors.

I'm hoping AMD jumps in here to push mobile technology forward. We shouldn't still be stuck on 4c8t on mobile. Intel appears content to leave a wide opening for AMD to do to mobile what they did to desktops. All of those i7 parts should be 6c/12t at the minimum.

Its really not as confusing as the author makes it out to be apart from the leaving the U and Y out, which they didn't in previous generations.

Intel currently does have 6c/12t parts in the mobile and goes up to 8c/12t for the insane people.

However its not as simple as slapping moar!!!!! cores into the platform. The mass majority of people purchasing a laptop do it for the mobility aspect and don't require more and more cores. They want something that can browse the web, do office work and some other basic tasks while having a long lasting battery and light, thin profile.

AMDs current Ryzen mobile lineup is also up to 4c/8t and no news on anything else yet. I am sure they will launch something to compete with Intels top end 8c/16t parts but I doubt you will see them in the 15w and 25w segment where the majority of people buying laptops live.

 

[TJ Hooker]

The last number seems to be for the base clock speed. For the i7 5 is 3.5GHs and 8 is 3.6GHz. Notice all the i5s are 5 and are all 3.3GHz base clock. It doesn't seem to take boost clock into account.

You're looking at all core boost, not base clocks.

 

[jimmysmitty]

You're looking at all core boost, not base clocks.

Ahh misread it. Not sure why they wouldn't list those. Still seems to be the pattern. The Max all core boost seems to change the last number.

 

[JamesSneed]

Is this a legit doc from Intel? I mean really three chips with the same major name but different G variantes? This seems too jacked up for even Intel.

i5-1035G7
i5-1035G4
i5-1035G1

Edit: This was a rhetorical question. I know the author reached out to Intel.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Is this a legit doc from Intel? I mean really three chips with the same major name but different G variantes? This seems too jacked up for even Intel.

i5-1035G7
i5-1035G4
i5-1035G1

Edit: This was a rhetorical question. I know the author reached out to Intel.

Its legit

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...10th-generation-intel-core-i5-processors.html

They are all listed on Ark. It isn't that convoluted though as the only major difference is the iGPU and the lowest end one has a slightly lower single core turbo but the same all core turbo

 

[bit_user]

...
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...10th-generation-intel-core-i5-processors.html

They are all listed on Ark. ...

Exactly.

I was just commenting to say the author should've included a link to ark.intel.com. That's the first (and usually the last) place I always check, pretty much no matter what. Wikipedia sometimes has useful information, as well - particularly tables that aid in comparing across the model ranges.

 

[apone]

From a Marketing perspective, it sounds cool when a company says "3rd Generation" or "5th Generation" which makes it sound appealing and next-generation-ish. When you get up to 9th and 10th generation, it just sounds stale that has marginal improvements. Also the confusing naming scheme isn't helping. At this point, Intel should just come out with something completely new already to start with a clean slate.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Is this a legit doc from Intel? I mean really three chips with the same major name but different G variantes? This seems too jacked up for even Intel.

i5-1035G7
i5-1035G4
i5-1035G1

Edit: This was a rhetorical question. I know the author reached out to Intel.

Even worse is all 3 of those have different clock speeds not just different GPUs.