Is Intel just better at naming things?

[Avocado Diaboli]

I'd argue no PC hardware company is good at naming things (insert mandatory reference to Phil Karlton). If your product name is barely distinguishable from a part number and you need a glossary or a flowchart to understand what it means, you're doing it wrong, at least if you want to sell it to customers. You'd think companies worth billions could hire marketing people who could come up with something decent. For a start, maybe they could just copy what a lot of software companies have been doing and just version their products with the year of release. That is completely unambiguous, instead of relying on generational indicators that most people ignore or don't know how to interpret.

[starsmine]

14 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I'd argue no PC hardware company is good at naming things (insert mandatory reference to Phil Karlton). If your product name is barely distinguishable from a part number and you need a glossary or a flowchart to understand what it means, you're doing it wrong, at least if you want to sell it to customers. You'd think companies worth billions could hire marketing people who could come up with something decent. For a start, maybe they could just copy what a lot of software companies have been doing and just version their products with the year of release. That is completely unambiguous, instead of relying on generational indicators that most people ignore or don't know how to interpret.

Id argue that is a good way to name things. There is no getting around making a dozen skus per generation for different customers. 
Those numbers communicate a lot of information in a dense package. 

naming a line up the way you would a car or a bike  or anything like that is far more confusing. and there is no way to distill these parts into a single number such as version or year of release. 

Different customers want priorities on cores, others want frequency, they all have price baulk points, as well as thermal baulk points. so you have create different skus for every customer that has deferent priorities in each of those metrics, and you have to do that every time you refresh your line up or release a new arch which are NEVER 100% better then the old in ALL aspects, just most. What happens when a chip comes off the fab that is great other then a defect on the igpu, scrap it? nah make a sku for people who dont care about the igpu and will take a 15 dollar price cut.

[Avocado Diaboli]

4 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Id argue that is a good way to name things. There is no getting around making a dozen skus per generation for different customers. 
Those numbers communicate a lot of information in a dense package. 

naming a line up the way you would a car or a bike  or anything like that is far more confusing. and there is no way to distill these parts into a single number such as version or year of release. 

Different customers want priorities on cores, others want frequency, they all have price baulk points, as well as thermal baulk points. so you have create different skus for every customer that has deferent priorities in each of those metrics, and you have to do that every time you refresh your line up or release a new arch which are NEVER 100% better then the old in ALL aspects, just most. 

Let's assume I agree with everything you just said (I don't, but let's pretend): You can still do all that and not end up with a number and letter soup that could serve as an example of a secure password. Heck, even if you dislike the model year idea, take Apple as an example. It's clinical numbering for the version and an appropriate appendix for their relevant SKUs. Imagine if the iPhone product stack was named like this (corresponding real names in parentheses):

 

iPhone 9 15900K (iPhone 15 Pro Max)

iPhone 9 15900 (iPhone 15 Pro)

iPhone 7 15700K (iPhone 15 Plus)

iPhone 7 15700 (iPhone 15)

iPhone 5 15500 (iPhone SE, because let's not ignore the fact that these companies aren't above making lazy refreshes and just slapping a new product name on them)

 

Would you argue that this naming scheme improves over the current one? I'd say no. And I wouldn't consider Apple's take on naming their products perfect either, this is just meant to illustrate that you can use words that carry inherent meaning, rather than encode this stuff into numbers which you need to substitute in order to understand what each represents.

[Kisai]

All Intel/Nvidia/AMD need to do to make their naming schemes stop being stupid is put a dash between the generation of the product and the product tier.

Intel i7 15-900 > Intel i5 15-400

Nvidia 30-90, 40-90

etc

because that's how we pronounce them, but that's not how it reads. "Intel eye-seven fourteen 900 kay", "Nvidia thirty ninety"