Why is Intel's new naming scheme so bad?

[PerpetualToddler]

Linus and other youtubers keep giving intel flac for naming their new processors 10900K or whatever. Why is this so bad? Everyone keeps saying "Oh it's so bad" but never even mention a better alternative.

 

10 comes after 9. It only makes sense. I feel like if intel went with any other naming scheme, they'd get flac for that too! If it's so bad, then what should their new products be called?

[amdorintel]

because those are the people that love to complain about meaningless things

another aspect is without the yt'ers complaining they wouldnt have a video to put out

[dizmo]

I personally think it's too many numbers, but I'm also not sure what else they could have gone with.

[Eigenvektor]

5 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I personally think it's too many numbers, but I'm also not sure what else they could have gone with.

10900K -> X900K

[amdorintel]

2 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

10900K -> X900K

i was thinking intel could make it more like Intel X3700 lololololol

[PlayStation 2]

It's a little weird to have 5 digits instead of 4, but it's also logical enough. Just seems like complaining just to complain, at least on the desktop side.

[amdorintel]

4 minutes ago, handymanshandle said:

Just seems like complaining just to complain,

well you have to see who it is that is complaining then make a judgement call on why they are complaining. i mean its totally logical to go in order, but when you start pulling moves like what microsoft did with skipping windows 9 for no reason at all, well theres got to be a reason and it would boil down to marketing and profit, but intels naming scheme is logical, i dont see what else they could have done. i guess people just like to complain for the sake of complaining, but also they like things messed up, having a messed up naming scheme suits their messed up lives.

[The1Dickens]

The complaints (likely) come from the way it's said. Ten-nine-hundred doesn't sound right, nor does one-oh-nine-hundred, or one-hundred-nine-hundred, when ninety-nine-hundred sounds perfectly fine (because ninety-nine-hundred is a normal number, the 10s equivalent is ten-thousand-nine-hundred, but that doesn't roll off the tongue smoothly). You wouldn't say, for example, tenty-nine-hundred. It may seem logical from a counting perspective, but speech-wise, it's a mess and a half. It's one of those things that you just feel is off even if you can't explain why (like when you are looking at a symmetrical face, for example) right away.

 

As only about every product manufacturer in the history of ever has known, you want your product name to be easy and fun to say so it sticks in the consumer's brain. As for an alternative, some options are dropping off the last 0, using letters before or after (after would probably conflict with the K, X, G, U, etc, though), rolling over to 1000, etc.

 

This is my 2 cents, anyways...

[dizmo]

35 minutes ago, Eigenvektor said:

10900K -> X900K

Haha, that only solves one year though, the next year they're still fucked by Roman numerals
 

[KaitouX]

I mean, they probably should have just changed the numbering like Nvidia/AMD did after their 9000 GPUs, AMD did the X000 thing once for example, the other time they went to 200 after 8000, while Nvidia went from 9000 to 200.

[amdorintel]

2 hours ago, The1Dickens said:

You wouldn't say, for example, tenty-nine-hundred.

who exactly are you talking about because in the UK they pronounce numbers differently.

[The1Dickens]

7 minutes ago, amdorintel said:

who exactly are you talking about because in the UK they pronounce numbers differently.

Do they say 'tenty' in the UK? Or are you taking the piss?

[JoostinOnline]

3 hours ago, PerpetualToddler said:

Linus and other youtubers keep giving intel flac for naming their new processors 10900K or whatever. Why is this so bad? Everyone keeps saying "Oh it's so bad" but never even mention a better alternative.

 

10 comes after 9. It only makes sense. I feel like if intel went with any other naming scheme, they'd get flac for that too! If it's so bad, then what should their new products be called?

This is hardly the first time a naming scheme has gone over 9000 (insert meme here). However, companies usually don't exceed four digits because it's clunky to say. If Intel had done what just about every tech company has ever done, they would have started a new lineup starting in the hundreds.  That's exactly how the i3/i5/i7 lineup was created. The generation after Core 2 Q9### models were called i#-###.

[Eigenvektor]

5 hours ago, amdorintel said:

what microsoft did with skipping windows 9 for no reason at all

From what I've heard, they do have a valid reason actually. There's apparently a lot of old business code out there that checks for "Windows 9*" to test whether it is running on Windows 95/98/98 SE. They did it to avoid such code from detecting the wrong version.

[hsdjfh]

The thing I find annoying about these names is that for intel, AMD and nvidia, they only use 2 digits out of at least 4 in a name. There is a digit for the release time and a digit for the market segment, but everything else is just 0s or something even more stupid.

[mr moose]

Their naming scheme has to include quite a few variants of each model,  e.g the 8th gen i7 had something like 22 variants.   Without having a specific 3 digit code followed by a designation for features (i.e K, F, U) it would get a lot more complicated much quicker.  they could probably replace the first number (the generation number) with a character to designate the year of manufacture like cars do, but that's about the simplest you could make it. 

 

 

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, hsdjfh said:

The thing I find annoying about these names is that for intel, AMD and nvidia, they only use 2 digits out of at least 4 in a name. There is a digit for the release time and a digit for the market segment, but everything else is just 0s or something even more stupid.

As I tried to say above, the 00's you see are only in the most relevant CPUs,  Here is a list of i7 from the 8th gen:

 

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/122593/8th-generation-intel-core-i7-processors.html

 

As you can see there are lots ending with 569, 560, 565 etc.  so the ones they sell the most of that need to be identified the quickest all have 00K 00F or just 00.

 

[RejZoR]

Sure 10 comes after 9, but the amount of numbers used in total is silly. Using 5 digits and also a digit in the range is just bad by design (i7 10990 is just a handful of unnecessary numbers imo). Which is why companies usually change the branding name/model scheme before they hit the number 10 in series. They didn't here and neither has NVIDIA with the 1080 series. Which would kinda be fine if they stick with it, but they again made a total mess of it by including totally out of place GTX 1600 series that fit nowhere. And they could just simply keep two lines and differentiate them with GTX and RTX prefix.

[PerpetualToddler]

6 hours ago, Eigenvektor said:

From what I've heard, they do have a valid reason actually. There's apparently a lot of old business code out there that checks for "Windows 9*" to test whether it is running on Windows 95/98/98 SE. They did it to avoid such code from detecting the wrong version.

Somehow I don't think this is relevant. I've also heard it's not true. I don't know what the reality actually is, but I always take this claim with a grain of salt

[Eigenvektor]

5 minutes ago, PerpetualToddler said:

Somehow I don't think this is relevant. I've also heard it's not true. I don't know what the reality actually is, but I always take this claim with a grain of salt

Yeah, who knows. I'm not really hung up on the name.

 

I'm not too bothered by Intels new naming scheme. It is more consistent then some other naming schemes, the only problem is that the number is harder to read and pronounce. But I've essentially run into the same issue when attempting to talk about the 5700 XT with a friend.

[Mister Woof]

Too many numbers.

 

At a certain point it's better to stop the scheme and try some of new.

 

Personally, I'd have gone with x.

 

Example:

 

Intel Core x3-310

Intel Core x3-330k

Intel Core x5-540

Intel Core x5-560k

Intel Core x7-770

Intel Core x7-790k

 

Or something similar. Gives enough room to have other oem skus in between.

 

Catchier, less of a mouthful, distinguishable from the other series, but still sounds like Intel.

 

Core instead of xeon, to distinguish between those.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

I was kind of thinking the new Xeon naming system might have been a preview of a future mainstream CPU naming system, but I guess not?

 

For example,

 

Core i3 -> Core Bronze

Core i5 -> Core Silver

Core i7 -> Core Gold

LGA 11xx Core i9 -> Core Platinum

LGA 20xx Core i9 -> Core Titanium

 

As well as restarting the numbering system.

 

 

Or....

 

Intel has been using the Core name for quite a while now.  Before that, they had Pentium (which is still used on some budget CPUs), and #86 numbers.

 

Am I the only one who thinks it's probably getting to be about time to reset the branding, and use an entirely new name?  I'm thinking, kind of like how AMD rebranded their CPUs to Ryzen a few years ago.

 

Maybe they're waiting until they come out with whatever architecture Jim Keller is conjuring up?