They could go even shorter and more efficient than that.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.
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.
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.
700= better than 600 better than 500 better than 400 and so on
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.
I also am wondering the difference between a Core 5 and an Ultra Core 5.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.
Clear as mud. Is a Core 5 Ultra faster than a Core 7 non Ultra? Sounds like it should be.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
- Drop the last 2 filler zeros at the end, and replace it with something useful, like 2 hex characters signifying core count split
Sounds like they hired the marketing team from a sanitary napkin manufacturer. Maybe they'll add wings.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!
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.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.
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.Intel u5-1435U
Looks fine to me since the mobile 'U' or 'H' is a suffix.
How people can call it copying is insane.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!
Yup and the engineers probably stopped telling them because management is stubborn as heck.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?