News Intel's New Core Ultra Branding Drops the i, Looks Like AMD's Ryzen

[mwm2010]

Why is Intel doing this? I have a feeling there will be some confusion and possibly anger amongst the average consumers over this new nomenclature.

 

[Giroro]

If Intel really wanted to simplify its branding scheme, it should have dropped the i# altogether as the 'performance tier' number is redundant: "Intel 11400" or "Intel 13900K" already tell you everything you need to know CPU-wise.

They could go even shorter and more efficient than that.

• Drop the first 2 numbers down to a 1, as in this is the first gen with the new naming scheme.
• Drop the last 2 filler zeros at the end, and replace it with something useful, like 2 hex characters signifying core count split
• Replace the letters K and KF with something with more direct meaning. (for example G for graphics, E for efficient, U for unlocked, L for laptop, X for XTREME, etc)
• one additional character only when you need to differentiate that a processor is built on an old architecture. Or better yet just stop trying to trick customers with rebranded old tech.

So an Intel Core 9 Ultra 14900K, assuming it is 8C/8c, could instead be something like Intel 188X

 

[Co BIY]

Why is Intel doing this? I have a feeling there will be some confusion and possibly anger amongst the average consumers over this new nomenclature.

This is such a minor change I don't think average customers will take notice at all.

Ultra is clear - If you want the latest and best get an Ultra.

I think the "Core" is a waste. Represents and says nothing. Processor at least is a accurate product category.

Celeron was always a weak name on weak products. Pentium was a good enough brand it probably could have been reused if brought back to the mid or high end.

3/5/7 - Make no sense to me and never have but maybe they prevent confusion with consumers that might assume an 8 is twice as good as a 4.

I think Intel is trying to get more attention out of this simple name change than it warrants.

I expect that SOCs, stacking, and chiplets are going to multiply SKUs in a way that makes "tiering" processors much more complicated in the future.

 

[Giroro]

So you don't think that within 2 hour of release everybody will already be calling them u5 u7 and so on?!

The numbers don't show physical attributes but generation, tier of performance, and existence of iGPU and or overclocking.
14=generation
700= better than 600 better than 500 better than 400 and so on
K=overclockable
F=no iGPU
It's extremely clear and as short as possible.
10 generations later someone that wants to upgrade can still figure out where on the performance scale a potential new CPU will land.

No, I don't think they will call them u5, u7, because the "non ultra" parts exist. This overloads the numbers too far and will confuse the issue for customers. If u7 caught on, then computer shopping would turn into "who's on first", so they just won't call it that.
This basic conversation wouldhappen 100 times a day in computer stores:
" I want a 7 processor"
" Do you want the Intel 7, the Ryzen 7, or the 7th generation of Ryzen 7"
"I want the intel 7"
"ok so do you want the Intel 7 intel 7, or do you want the intel U7"
"I want the INTEL 7"
"Oh so you want the i7, not the u7?"
"No I want the new one!"

And I understand Intel's current naming scheme, but I understand this due to 15 years of advertising and rote memorization. From the outside looking in, one might understand that a more higher number usually (but not always) means a more better processor... but there's no actual reason or meaning behind why a K would mean overclocking or an F would mean graphics are missing. It's not clear, its a bunch of nonsense that we just happen to have learned how to decode.
Does anybody (even intel) really know why the numbers count up 3, 5, 7, 9 instead of 1, 2, 3, 4? Why not even tier by P cores of 2, 4, 6, 8?

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

What's next? Intel Core Super Ultra Pro 10 14900K!

I prefer INTEL CORE SUPER DUPER BETTER GRAB THAT AIO KEEP YOUR HOUSE WARM IN THE WINTER 14900K.

Will eliminate all the build threads asking if an air cooler would be sufficient for the high end Intel chips.

 

[evdjj3j]

I'm not sure why this article is focused so much on "Intel copied AMD" when we (I?) still don't fully understand what the difference between Core and Core Ultra is. Surely that's the bigger issue here.

I also am wondering the difference between a Core 5 and an Ultra Core 5.

 

[evdjj3j]

This is such a minor change I don't think average customers will take notice at all.

Ultra is clear - If you want the latest and best get an Ultra.

I think the "Core" is a waste. Represents and says nothing. Processor at least is a accurate product category.

Celeron was always a weak name on weak products. Pentium was a good enough brand it probably could have been reused if brought back to the mid or high end.

3/5/7 - Make no sense to me and never have but maybe they prevent confusion with consumers that might assume an 8 is twice as good as a 4.

I think Intel is trying to get more attention out of this simple name change than it warrants.

I expect that SOCs, stacking, and chiplets are going to multiply SKUs in a way that makes "tiering" processors much more complicated in the future.

Clear as mud. Is a Core 5 Ultra faster than a Core 7 non Ultra? Sounds like it should be.

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

I'm not sure why this article is focused so much on "Intel copied AMD" when we (I?) still don't fully understand what the difference between Core and Core Ultra is. Surely that's the bigger issue here.

I'd agree. I've always been one to keep it simple... and no matter how you slice it AMD Ryzen 9 7950x3D sounds a whole lot better than Intel Core Ultra 14900k. What is Core Ultra?

Is there a Core non Ultra?

Incoming consumer confusion in 3... 2... 1...

 

[why_wolf]

Pointless change that adds nothing that isn't already know, especially if Ultra is just a stand in for all K class CPUs.

Though I think more likely they will abuse the "Ultra" name almost immediately. Making it a meaningless term that sounds premium but in reality has lots of non-premium CPUs under the branding.

 

[atomicWAR]

So your fear is that a random person that will do zero research beforehand will maybe end up with a weaker CPU?
If someone does zero research then they probably won't mind.

To be fair I know some fools that would do just that and then be pissed when they found out they didn't get the better (or worse/cheaper) sku. But that is kind of on the purchaser at that point. DO RESEARCH or have regrets later.

 

[InvalidError]

• Drop the last 2 filler zeros at the end, and replace it with something useful, like 2 hex characters signifying core count split

Except they aren't filler zeroes: the 2nd-to-last number was historically used to differentiate sub-trims of each model (hasn't been used much on desktop since Skylake) and the last number is currently used to differentiate IGP trims on mobile variants, which would be necessary if Intel wants to use the same numbering scheme across desktop and mobile, especially if we are headed towards tiled IGPs with small/medium/large options.

 

[danny009]

Sorry Intel, my brain is still so depressed with your famous "4 cores all you need" statements in past and scummy pricetags for decades.

It will always be i3 i5 i7 for most of the people. No change.

 

[evdjj3j]

Is that really such a big deal?? Were people confused because each CPU had an "i" in front of it??

And furthermore..."Ultra", really?? What's the next iteration..."Super Ultra"??

I swear, the IT and technology folks (hey, I am one of them,....) have the WORST imagination and creativity when it comes to names.

The one that takes the cake? Slapping a "Pro" at a new product...because, you know, the previous one was not "PROfessional" or for professionals....but this one is!!

What's next? Intel Core Super Ultra Pro 10 14900K!

Sounds like they hired the marketing team from a sanitary napkin manufacturer. Maybe they'll add wings.

 

[Deleted member 14196]

But most people are walking into their local big box store to buy their PC and don't know what's faster unless it has a bigger SKU number. So I'd say my question is absolutely relevant. This is a very clear overlap

Buyer beware

 

[Giroro]

Except they aren't filler zeroes: the 2nd-to-last number was historically used to differentiate sub-trims of each model (hasn't been used much on desktop since Skylake) and the last number is currently used to differentiate IGP trims on mobile variants, which would be necessary if Intel wants to use the same numbering scheme across desktop and mobile, especially if we are headed towards tiled IGPs with small/medium/large options.

On desktop, those trailing zeros have been useless for a long time. I would argue that if those last two digits are only used in mobile (and SFF/embedded), then that in itself means that Intel's desktop and mobile processors are not currently using the same numbering scheme. They're just using confusingly similar numbering schemes.

For example, an i9 13900HK mobile processor has 10 fewer cores than a desktop i9 13900K One letter difference between two wildly different processors.
No numbering scheme is perfect, but in the example I proposed, the model numbers are much more comparable between desktop and mobile. It would tier processors by number of cores instead of by arbitrary branding.
The other minor subvariants with clock and iGPU differences could be handled with different trailing letter. I know Intel probably wants to make way too many same-but-different SKUs for that to work well (maybe they should simplify that).

Going with what I said before, they could always do something like a mobile M188x is a mobile chip with lower clocks that can't be socketed like a desktop Intel 188x, but are otherwise comparable as the same highest-configured 'XTREME' version within it's respective class, with the same core counts.

Or they could do something completely different, that still ends up being more efficient and less arbitrary than what they are currently doing. Their 14000 series core processors aren't even the 14th gen, its more like the 16th gen. It's the 14th gen of Core i3/i5/i7 processors, which ignores 'Core' and 'Core 2' (and counts the hypothetical 5th gen). So they drop the i, and what generation of core are they even actually at? If their goal is to be less confusing, it's better to just hard cut and start a fresh series of numbers.

 

[deesider]

Incorporating the number of e-cores and number of p-cores into the processor number might have been useful

 

[Deleted member 2838871]

Incorporating the number of e-cores and number of p-cores into the processor number might have been useful

Definitely. I went AMD this build but the whole e-core/p-core thing I've have had to research because it sounds confusing.

 

[bigdragon]

Doubling the number of Core tiers is definitely going to cause some confusion. However, retiring the Celeron and Pentium lines is probably the right call. Intel still has work to do to simplify and improve their branding.

I love how most AMD systems clearly indicate the processor model number in use. I like seeing that exact model (e.g.: 7945HX or 5800U) listed on spec sheets. I hate how much digging it can take to find the exact model number of an Intel chip. Too many system listings just list the generation of Intel chip instead of the exact chip number. Intel is also starting to use 4-digit processor numbers on laptops in addition to the 5-digit ones. This further convolutes their branding strategy.

Intel u5-1435U

Looks fine to me since the mobile 'U' or 'H' is a suffix.

This is how I think most people will treat the new branding. They'll use u5 for Ultra 5 and i5 for just plain Core 5. Seems to be the most straightforward way of handling Intel's branding adjustment.

 

[doughillman]

"In fact, Intel feels that the 'Core' branding is already, well, the core of its brand equity"

In the entire lifetime of this product nomenclature, I've never heard Intel's processors referred to as "Core whatever" outside of reviews.

 

[doomtomb]

Isn't it obvious? "i" in "i7" etc is out of fashion. It's not really a bad name just out of vogue. Next, Core is to emphasize that part of the brand to compete with Ryzen. Ultra is not targetted at AMD, AMD uses X suffix and Intel used to use K suffix. Ultra is aimed at Apple again using M1, M1 Pro, M1 Ultra and so on.

 

[IamNotChatGpt]

Yeah, seems pretty hilarious when you have AMD cribbing the entire [processor brand] [3/5/7/9] lineup nomenclature, but when intel remove the letter "i" from their own branding they must be doing to to copy AMD!

How people can call it copying is insane.
It's literally the most generic effective naming scheme.

[Brand] [Class] [Model].

If AMD fanboys seriously see this as copying, I don't know if those people can receive any help...

 

[Geef]

• OLD: Intel 14th-Generation Core i9-14900K
• NEW: Intel Core Ultra 9 14900K
• NEW: Intel Core 9 14900K
• AMD: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

AMD just needs to add a line above their processor that says "1 step above Ultra!" to win the contest.

• 1 Step Above Ultra!
• AMD: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

 

[baboma]

>And furthermore..."Ultra", really?? What's the next iteration..."Super Ultra"??
>I swear, the IT and technology folks (hey, I am one of them,....) have the WORST imagination and creativity when it comes to names.

You got it backwards. This is marketing, and marketing people are responsible for these names. It's the tech geeks who came up with -K and -F designators. Which do you think is more intuitive?

>Core Ultra 7 is objectively worse than Core i7, because the naming is longer/slower to say, without adding any significant information.

There's nothing to say that people have to type "Ultra 7". We are lazy, and will shorthand everything anyway. It'll just be "U7".

If you remember your etymology, "car" came from "self-propelled carriage".

>They could go even shorter and more efficient than that.

You're thinking like a tech geek. Numbers and letter suffixes are faster to type and see, but harder to parse--unless you've been following Intel parts as a hobby (which we are). Sadly, there are more non-geeks in the world than geeks. Marketing generally doesn't cater to geeks.

>On desktop, those trailing zeros have been useless for a long time.

Brands are not just to denote a functional hierarchy. The idea is to make the products sell better. That's why AMD chose to ape the Intel 3/5/7/9 designation for Ryzen. It's why Intel chose the "Intel 7/4/3" lithography process names.

People here criticizing brand change don't get it. The name change isn't for them. There is no confusion for this group, as this is their hobby and they'll figure it out whatever the change. This is for the public who don't follow tech stuff.


>The Intel rep explicitly said that "Ultra" is not synonymous with being overclock-able.

It doesn't make sense if Ultra denotes the latest architecture, for two reasons: a) Having the latest architecture doesn't necessarily confer any additional functionality that the customer would pay for. People only pay extra if the part has extra functionality.

b) What's "latest architecture" changes over time. Meteor Lake will be standard by 2024, and "latest" will be Arrow Lake. If MTL parts get the Ultra name this year, they'll have the same names as Arrow Lake parts next year, and the only way to tell them apart is the actual chip number (Intel also removes the ##-gen designator).

In short, if Ultra isn't used to denote K (OC) parts, then it has to denote a major functionality, not an architectural change. I have no idea what that is. It's most likely not AI, since AI accel is not yet a big deal for consumer CPUs. It could be more beefy iGPUs, or perhaps dGPUs integrated into the motherboard chipsets, now that Intel has Arc and wants to make waves with it. Putting Arc onto motherboards is probably the best way to ensure driver support, and to cut into Nvidia's dominance.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

Losing the "i" isn't a problem, THIS is the problem:

• NEW: Intel Core Ultra 9 14900K
• NEW: Intel Core 9 14900K

No two models of anything should have the same model number. Designate the Ultras with a K and non Ultras without one.

 

[IamNotChatGpt]

You got it backwards. This is marketing, and marketing people are responsible for these names. It's the tech geeks who came up with -K and -F designators. Which do you think is more intuitive?

Yup and the engineers probably stopped telling them because management is stubborn as heck.