Are the NEW Intel Name a good thing?

[fudtone]

I just had a caller requesting a Intel 530. This does nothing for me I had to go convert this to the old system before I could even get an idea of what he wanted.

If we need to refer to a chart to get even an idea of the actual chip the user wants what good is it?

Are they trying to make users stupid by giving them 1 simple number?

How is this good for anyone?

I'm voting no.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/

http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/info.htm

[deadman.inc]

i have heard of these newe names from intel, but havn't seen any. wht names are they talkin about? centrino, etc.

[Redfallon]

I personally don't like them, but like all things it's a sign of change. Maybe the speed barrier w/ current technology is looming in the distance. I've seen the new numbers in store flyers (Intel 530, 550, etc.) recently. It's supposed to simplify things for consumers and resellers alike, although it will take a little getting used to. Only time will tell, I suppose.

[WhatsThisBoxFor?]

I can understand why AMD use numbers (clock speed isn't linear with performance), but if Intel kept making chips going in even steps I think they are pointless. But then I didn't like it when AMD changed, I guess I just don't change. Maybe I should go to PCWorld and try to order a P4 10000

[Hi Ho]

They should stay with the old scheme. What is wrong with 2.8c, 3.4E, etc?

[RJ]

I voted undecided. Sure, the old scheme was good, and when I first saw the new name I didn't like it either. But actually I don't really like change if it's not necessary, so I guess that's the reason why I don't like it right now.
As with everything new, we have to get used to it. In a couple of months I'm probably used to it. . . or I still don't like it. Until then, I'm undecided.

RJ

[hobey19]

a friend was telling me that intel modeled their new naming scheme after BMW's naming scheme for their cars. i thought this was kind of interesting. while i don't like the fact that they changed it, as long as they stick with that type (3, 5 , 7) i should be ok because i like bimmers as well

craig

[JTH]

Seems needlessly confusing. As HiHo said, there's no need to change the straightforward system as it is now. Can someone link me to the poll so I can vote no (I can't find it on the Intel site)?

[ComputerNut]

Yeah, i really dont fancy intel changing around the names like that. Its just too confusing. Especially when we already have enough things to convert as it is!

[fudtone]

Originally Posted by JTH Can someone link me to the poll so I can vote no (I can't find it on the Intel site)?

This is a PCMech poll, you must be logged in to vote or even see the options I believe. I just wanted to see what others here at PCMech thought.

[JTH]

Okay cool, didn't see that at first! Anyways, I voted for "I hate them". 13 votes for that, 2 dor undecided and 0 for "love them". Pity Intel don't take a look at customer feedback!

[Jaggannath]

Although I'm undecided, I voted I hate it because I dislike change purely for the sake of it. Also, the old numbers actually gave an idea of chip specs

Who knows, though, maybe with time we'll find these easy to understand

[glc]

Intel is simply playing AMD's game now that they have different processor types with widely varying performance levels. Just goes to prove that actual clock speed is getting more and more meaningless. In a way I don't blame them because the 1.5 GHz Pentium-M (Centrino) performs on a par with a standard 2.4 GHz Pentium 4. Just because I don't blame them doesn't mean I like it. They should have done it earlier so that the P4 Celeron would have been more fairly represented. At least the Celeron-D will get a fair shake now.

[yellohut]

Originally Posted by Hi Ho They should stay with the old scheme. What is wrong with 2.8c, 3.4E, etc?

have you ever tried to explain the difference between a 2.6b, 2.6C w/HT, and 2.6E to someone who is computer illiterate?
I was trying to explain to someone how the 2.8C w/HT would be a better choice than a 3.06GHZ P4, but he wouldn't beleive me because the 3.06 was faster. he didn't want to know anything about FSB speed, or how HT works.. all he knew was 3.06>2.8

that's why they're changing the naming system... but I still don't like it.

[TwoRails]

Intel sez it is, "Enhancing the PC Decision-Making Process". AMD got (and still recieves) a lot of bashing for their very logical numbering schema. I wonder if all those who hate AMD's performance rating will have the same feelings for Intel's numbering?

[Mesaeus]

Originally Posted by TwoRails Intel sez it is, "Enhancing the PC Decision-Making Process". AMD got (and still recieves) a lot of bashing for their very logical numbering schema. I wonder if all those who hate AMD's performance rating will have the same feelings for Intel's numbering?

Exactly. At least AMD's scheme was quite consistent usually (except the new Sempron ratings) and you could easily compare it to Intel's clockspeeds. I don't really understand Intel. Instead of giving a virtual processor rating they now give a complicated number that no customer will ever truly understand (it makes my head spin already). I think this is far, far worse than AMD's scheme ever was. First they insist on using clockspeeds as the only indicator, and now they suddenly switch to such a complicated numbering scheme ? This will last exactly until they get tired of having to answer questions of irate customers who accidentally bought the wrong thing. Maybe this new scheme is in anticipation of when they are going the multicore route...

[kram 2.0]

To a normal person, 2.8Ghz is easy to remember - I like the older scheme far better. What I think Intel should do with its Intel Pentium-M processors is make THOSE the AMD naming scheme - make those the "Intel P-M 2400++" or such.

kram

[thorlo6]

There you go! Tell'em Kram! My thoughts exactly. This new numbering system is for the birds. I just hope Intel comes to their collective senses and does away with it before they find out that they have the same problem as Coke did in the early '90's with New Coke.thorlo6

[Xtasy]

I don't get it...

[Yuanji]

intel should name their processors after people who work at the plants making the processor. imagine, walking up to a guy named joe at the intel plant and saying hey man guess what? ur the new pentium processor

[mb26]

'have you ever tried to explain the difference between a 2.6b, 2.6C w/HT, and 2.6E to someone who is computer illiterate?'
just say 'X is faster than Y'!

i agree with kram, the AMD numbering system made sence, it compared to the current rival CPU, in an easy to understand way.
Athlon XP XXXX+= P4 willamette/ northwood 400/533 XXXXmhz.
Athlon 64 XXXX+= P4 northwood 800/presscott XXXXmhz.
Sempron XXXX=Celeron D XXXXmhz.
their is no inconsistency, just misunderstanding, the athlon XPs dont compare with P4s anymore because intel improved the cahce, FSB etc, which AMD take in to consideration so that *their own* CPUs are in line with eachother. at time of release the AMD ratings are pretty conservative. can anyone think of a better way??

anyway, this intel system makes *no* sence to me. i dont understand it atall. it might make nice model numbers but doesn't seem to have any direct relationship with speed. 520? whats that. how do i know how fast '520' is? where did they pluck that from? i know from the 5 that its a P4 i think? is a 530 1/52'th faster than a 520? or 1/2 faster? i think *everyone* will just look at the mhz/ghz speed as they always have done. its not like they all compare either as far as i can tell... each CPU has a different first number so its not like u can say 'oh a 1.5ghz P-M is as fast as a 2.4ghz P4' or 'a 720 is as fast as a 530' what the hell? if they gave CPUs with the same performance equal ratings, eg 2.4c, 1.5ghz P-M, 2.6b, all called them 530 it might make some sence. but then why not call them 2400+s like amd?.

i think *all* cpus should have a standard test to compare them to a reference CPU, eg a 1ghz P3, and then compare them to that base. eg a 2.6ghz p4C might be 3000. then all manufactuers could stick to that. this would be for the non-pc minded people. but then CPUs are complex and perform variably at different tasks.. you would get optimization for any test set. it all leads back to what most PC entusiasts are using now, a variety of different benchmarks. not perfect but again it begs the question, can u think of any better way??

[rant] i think PSUs should be regulated in a similar way also, as they make even less sense and are less comparable. and no benchmarks (IIRC THG once tried one), very few in depth reviews.. basically no way to compare X to Y other than word of mouth (which only works with well known PSUs). [/rant]

i want me a Pentium Joe

[colecifer]

This new way is just to confusing, I liked the old way so much better just like everyone else that has posted so far.

[Antistupid]

They are not that different from the previous P4s. I think these CPUs cost way too much when you try to build a system with it. These CPUs support the new PC 4200 memory (DDR2) which are more than double or the PC 3200 memory.

Quote from Digit-Life

In general, despite new processors and chipsets, we have nothing extraordinary. Yes, there's a new socket. Yes, there are new chipsets along with new memory...

Read the full article here. (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...-platform.html)

[mb26]

[rant]the new processors (3.6ghz in particular....) are so unready for the mainstream its not believeable.. they are rediculously hot (150w!), extremely hard to get hold of, drastically expensive.. you could get 2 opterons for the price.. and having pins on the motherboard rather than the CPU isn't better for anyone except intel. dont they make enough money. and then DDR2.. hmm not quite there yet[/rant]

sorry for going marginally off topic, antistupid made me by mentioning it

what is the 'other' option for in the poll?
surely u either like it, or u dont, or your not sure. what else is there??

[thorlo6]

What else is there? How about a big pile of... Aww, never mind! ...and they wonder why my eyes are brown!thorlo6