Compact description for intel processors

[HeavyBlurrySoul]

I was thinking about the Intel naming scheme and told myself that there should be a better way to get a more informative name for every Intel CPU.
I opened the notes app on my phone (memo) to write down some ideas and concepts.

After 15 to 30 minutes of brainstorming, I came up with the following idea:

 

[generation]-[Number of cores][Hyperthreading][unlocked][platform][basefrequency][maxturbofrequency]

e.g. i7-7700k = 7/4HUD4.2-4.5

 

The Generation and Number of cores are separated to keep it sustainable after 82 generations. (I know that it's ridiculous.)

After looking at this for 5 minutes I decided to make an application that does it for you.

 

prompt.get(['generation', 'corecount', 'hyperthreading', 'unlocked', 'platform', 'basefrequency', 'maxturbofrequency'], function (err, result) {
    var generation = result.generation;
    var corecount = result.corecount;
    if (result.hyperthreading.toLowerCase() == 'y') {
        var hyperthreading = 'H';
    } else if (result.hyperthreading.toLowerCase() == 'n') {
        var hyperthreading = '';
    } else {
        var hyperthreading = '*';
    };

    if (result.unlocked.toLowerCase() == 'y') {
        var unlocked = 'U';
    } else if (result.unlocked.toLowerCase() == 'n') {
        var unlocked = '';
    } else {
        var unlocked = '*';
    };

    if (result.platform.toLowerCase() == 'desktop') {
        var platform = 'D';
    } else if (result.platform.toLowerCase() == 'mobile') {
        var platform = 'M';
    } else if (result.platform.toLowerCase() == 'embedded') {
        var platform ='E'
    } else {
        var platform = '*';
    };

    var basefrequency = result.basefrequency;
    var maxturbofrequency = result.maxturbofrequency;
    console.log(`${generation}/${corecount}${hyperthreading}${unlocked}${platform}${basefrequency}-${maxturbofrequency}`);
    console.log(`If you see any * then double check your inputs.`);

    while (1 == 1) {

    }

});

The executables are attached to the post.

 

Though it's not perfect, it's a better way to name a Cpu if you want to know more about it by just looking at the name.

I'm planning on adding more features to differentiate the different classes etc. 

 

Cheers,

Dylan

 

 

app-macos.rar

app-win.rar

Edited April 15, 2018 by HeavyBlurrySoul

[Himommies]

18 minutes ago, HeavyBlurrySoul said:

i7-7700k = 7-4HUD4.2

       i3-4130   = 4-HD3.4

I doubt my 70 year old granpap can understand that

It's a lot harder then telling hime to buy the one with the bigger numbers

[Tabs]

The naming scheme atm needs to be able to tell layman buyers - such as most people - the rough performance of their potential purchase. i3, i5 and i7 have become synonymous with "cheap/office", "performance", and "high end", with i9 being so new as to not really have ingrained in the mindset of most people yet, but it's a logical step "above" the level of an i7.

 

Something like CPU-Z which gives incredible detail on basically every aspect of cpu specification would likely be a better fit for people who need to know a lot more about their purchase. A system like the one your program outputs would give marginally more information than the current codenames for people who need it (though not a lot in the grand scheme of things), but would confuse the hell out of most people who just need to now a basic "Product A vs Product B" comparison. 

 

On a tangential sidenote, a naming scheme where you need to look up the definition for each part of the scheme to be able to compare them is probably worse than just being able to read the specs individually, especially if you have to go and look it up anyway.

 

Still, stick with it. Some other features that may need to be factored include memory support (capacity/speed), version/specs of iGPU, and total QPI/PCIE links supported.

[tikker]

Rocking a 7-4HUD4.2 doesn't roll as good of the tongue as having a 7700k though  marketability is important as well. Besides, the core counts are relatively simple already where i3, i5 and i7 were(are) dual (quad) core, quad (hexa) core no HT, quad (hexa) core with HT. The mobile section is also split into T and U, for example, for "low" and "ultra low" power. So you'd need to add that as well.

For more information you'd check the product page or Ark.

[VVoltor]

99 Percent of people really only care about i3, i5 or i7. (if that)

 

Anyone who's really into tech, like people here on the forum have no problem understanding which CPU is which I think. 

Intel's naming scheme isn't amazing, but more elegant than gibberish like 7-4HUD4.2. Props for writing an app though!

 

(and to be honest, the chipset naming scheme is far more confusing to me)

[DildorTheDecent]

I wouldn't use the term baseclock. "default/factory clock" would be much, much better.

 

Baseclock is something else entirely.

[porina]

7 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

I wouldn't use the term baseclock. "default/factory clock" would be much, much better.

 

Baseclock is something else entirely.

Intel call it "Processor Base Frequency" so it isn't far off.

[HeavyBlurrySoul]

The point of this is to tell more about the cpu and not as a replacement to the intel names, and yes i7-7700k sounds way better than 7-4HUD4.2.
It's more of a summary then a convential name, but what does i7-7700k tell you, that you can overclock it.

 

@DildorTheDecent

 

[porina]

2 minutes ago, HeavyBlurrySoul said:

The point of this is to tell more about the cpu and not as a replacement to the intel names, and yes i7-7700k sounds way better than 7-4HUD4.2.
It's more of a summary then a convential name, but what does i7-7700k tell you, that you can overclock it.

i7 = high end consumer CPU

7 = 7th gen

700 = marketing where big number is good

k = unlocked

 

So your idea is basically to have a compact descriptor? Why not turbo clock too? I think it should be included, if not the full turbo table.

[DildorTheDecent]

8 minutes ago, porina said:

 

 

3 minutes ago, HeavyBlurrySoul said:

 

Base frequency and baseclock are not the same.

 

Baseclock is bus speed (100MHz, stock). Base frequency is the operating speed of the processor. In the case of the 8700K: 100 * 37 = 3700MHz. That's the BCLK * core ratio = base frequency.

 

Too many noobs are going to end up entering the wrong thing because "the BIOS says different"

[HeavyBlurrySoul]

4 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

 

Base frequency and baseclock are not the same.

 

Baseclock is bus speed (100MHz, stock). Base frequency is the operating speed of the processor. In the case of the 8700K: 100 * 37 = 3700MHz. That's the BCLK * core ratio = base frequency.

 

Too many noobs are going to end up entering the wrong thing because "the BIOS says different"

I realized that and I already changed it, thanks for the remark.

[porina]

3 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

Base frequency and baseclock are not the same.

You are correct, the best kind of correct - is what you might hear if you lived in Futurama's world.

 

In common usage, if I were to say the base clock of a random CPU was say 3.6 GHz, you'd know what I mean. More importantly, it isn't BCLK. Outside of some overclockers, does anyone even care about BCLK?

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, porina said:

You are correct, the best kind of correct - is what you might hear if you lived in Futurama's world.

 

In common usage, if I were to say the base clock of a random CPU was say 3.6 GHz, you'd know what I mean. More importantly, it isn't BCLK. Outside of some overclockers, does anyone even care about BCLK?

What if BCLK doesn't mean "base clock" but "bus clock"? Since historically the CPU frequency was based on the FSB speed times a multiplier.

 

Or is there documentation that actually says it's called "base clock"?

[2FA]

I really have to disagree here. Adding technical jargon to the SKU without context isn't going to help anyone except enthusiasts, and enthusiasts are already smart enough to look up specs.

 

EDIT: Your scheme also gives exactly zero information for compatible platforms, like for example the socket. 5960X is Haswell-E, technically part of 4th gen but is grouped with 5th gen due to release dates. That and it's an entirely different socket from the mainstream part of both generations.