Core WHY??!

[rainless]

So... while researching reparable laptops at the fascinating company https://frame.work... I stumbled upon the term "Core Ultra" for the very first time.

According to Wikipedia:

Intel Core - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"...the latest architectures are released as "premium" products, under the Core Ultra brand. This new naming system also cuts the number of model number digits down from 4-5 to 3-4, e.g. Core 1xx series instead of Core 8xxx or 14xxx series. Intel no longer refers to iterations of product series under "nth generation" anymore, instead using "Series n". Otherwise the latest series launched in December 2023 would be called 15th generation."

...I would say this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... but then Intel would have to compete with X.com.

We're all the way on the FOURTEENTH generation of Intel processors... and some drunk executive decides: "QUICK! Let's change the name!"

WHY?!?

And what exactly is "Ultra" about an i5? Am I supposed to **** myself at the sheer power of it all, or what?

 

[EarthDog]

Here you go.

Intel® Processor Names, Numbers and Generation List

Understanding Intel® processor names and numbers helps identify the best laptop, desktop, or mobile device CPU for your computing needs.

www.intel.com

The 'core' for 14th-gen was similar for several generations prior. I dont like change either. But it will be ok.

 

[mackerel]

Should a naming scheme be continued forever? Give or take, around year 2109 Intel Core i CPU gen 100. Top of the line is the 100900KS, the first billion core CPU. (yes, I actually did estimate how many cores we might have around then if we assume historic growth continues, and it was close to a billion!)

Intel is marking a change in its offerings as we move into the disaggregated era, so reset the scale with Meteor Lake (100). As there wasn't a desktop counterpart we only see it with 200 with Arrow Lake (and Lunar Lake). As before, you can largely ignore up to the 3/5/7/9 since that is all marketing. The model identifiers are after that and losing a digit doesn't change much.

Also AMD are targeting the uninformed again. Their recently released mobile CPUs are 300, cos 300 is bigger than 200. Must be better right? As far as I can tell there never was a 100 or 200 series from AMD to justify going straight to 300 other than to mess with Intel numbering, as they have intentionally done with chipsets in the past. They haven't moved desktop over to that scheme, but with Zen 5 coming in over 9000 they have to decide what comes after. They could either move to 5 digits or realign with mobile with 3. Or do something totally unrelated to this.

 

[freeagent]

They should have left Core behind after LGA775.

Frankly, their naming scheme has sucked for decades.

In my eyes, 14th gen i series had nothing in common with the original i series.. other than a long drawn out naming scheme

 

[mackerel]

In my eyes, 14th gen i series had nothing in common with the original i series.. other than a long drawn out naming scheme

How much difference warrants a name change?

Once a name sticks, it can be hard to let go. Looking it up, the last "Pentium" CPUs were Alder Lake dual cores released 2022! That's 30 years. 1993 to 2023 when it got retired. First use of Intel Core was from 2006 so it still has some way to go before it reaches Pentium level. "Core i" was 2008 to 2024 I guess as we're moving on from it now. 16 years.

 

[rainless]

Here you go.

Intel® Processor Names, Numbers and Generation List

Understanding Intel® processor names and numbers helps identify the best laptop, desktop, or mobile device CPU for your computing needs.

www.intel.com

View attachment 368913


The 'core' for 14th-gen was similar for several generations prior. I dont like change either. But it will be ok.

It's hilarious that you think I didn't know that. I posted the wiki!

Should a naming scheme be continued forever?

That's a worthy question. But their solution is just... STUPID. I mean "Core Ultra"??! Like TIDE Ultra?? "ULTRA COMBOOOOOOO!" from the first Killer Instinct back in 1994??!

What I'm saying is that this is a multi-BILLION dollar company... Where's their self-respect? (See also: X.com)

They should have left Core behind after LGA775.

Frankly, their naming scheme has sucked for decades.

In my eyes, 14th gen i series had nothing in common with the original i series.. other than a long drawn out naming scheme

Annnnnnd their naming scheme will CONTINUE to suck... obviously.

These are 50-65 year-old suits who have been corporate ***** all their lives and are trying to be cool in 2024.

They probably should've asked someone in their target demographic (the 15-25 year-old people we used to be) if ANY of them thought "Core Ultra" sounded cool.

And then the whole "Series" thing... WHY?!! Because it worked SO WELL for the X-Box Series "We Just Lost Billions of Dollars"?

 

[EarthDog]

It's hilarious that you think I didn't know that. I posted the wiki!

Lol, sorry. The pictures saved someone reading a thousand words.

Anyhoo, i feel the same as mack... how long do we need to keep it?? Things change, we learn the new nomenclature and move on... or, ***** about it on a tech forum. All valid reactions, lol!

But yeah, can't say I give a hoot ('G' version) about the change. I think when I learned about it, I may have sighed, possibly shook my head, looked at what it meant, and moved on.

Curiois...what say you about AMD's naming conventions?

 

[mackerel]

They probably should've asked someone in their target demographic (the 15-25 year-old people we used to be) if ANY of them thought "Core Ultra" sounded cool.

Do you think Intel are targeting that age range specifically? I'd argue that range has relatively poor buying power, so the optimal range would be older. Maybe 30's-40's. More income, more likelihood of being in a decision making position at work. I wonder if there is any research out there on buyer demographics.

This also made me wonder, what is the revenue split by division? 2024Q2: Client 7.4B, Data Centre and AI (DCAI) 3.0B, Foundry 4.3B. Some other smaller bits.
Then it follows, how is AMD doing for comparison? 2024Q2: Client 1.49B, DC 2.83B, Gaming 0.65B, Embedded 0.86B.

I didn't check if those are FY or CY but they're from summer this year. I don't know if Intel and AMD report on the same time frame, so there could be seasonal impacts on the results. With that caution, in client Intel are 5x AMD. What's gotta hurt for Intel, but great for AMD, is they're about equal in DC! Gaming I believe is a mix of console chips and consumer GPUs.
To complete the set, Nvidia results for Q2FY25: DC 26.3B, Gaming and AI PC: 2.9B, and some other smaller stuff. Nvidia consumer revenue is comparable to each of AMD and Intel DC revenue!

And then the whole "Series" thing... WHY?!! Because it worked SO WELL for the X-Box Series "We Just Lost Billions of Dollars"?

It might not be going that well as they hope but I didn't think they were losing money on it. It isn't a Concord! Still, I feel series is a generic term, in the same way we talk about generations.

 

[dumpa]

So... while researching reparable laptops at the fascinating company https://frame.work... I stumbled upon the term "Core Ultra" for the very first time.

According to Wikipedia:

Intel Core - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...I would say this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard... but then Intel would have to compete with X.com.

We're all the way on the FOURTEENTH generation of Intel processors... and some drunk executive decides: "QUICK! Let's change the name!"

WHY?!?

And what exactly is "Ultra" about an i5? Am I supposed to **** myself at the sheer power of it all, or what?

Not too worried about the naming. I hope this generation won't be suicidal like the 13th and 14th gen.

 

[freeagent]

How much difference warrants a name change?

Fair enough..

What does a 14th gen Core part have in common with anything from LGA775, or even LGA1366/1155/1156/etc other than name?

 

[mackerel]

What does a 14th gen Core part have in common with anything from LGA775, or even LGA1366/1155/1156/etc other than name?

They're from Intel and, to a casual user, look like the same kinda thing physically. If we're poking around the logic inside, I'm not deep enough to give an answer. If the same people worked on parts of it, or based on known working designs, there may be an element of reuse of ideas, even if refined and improved over time. I think AMD have said Zen 5 was a "ground up" design, but from a distance it looks pretty similar to Zen 4. Maybe we have a ship of Theseus thing going on here.

 

[freeagent]

They're from Intel and, to a casual user

Are we casual users? Cant pretend we haven't been around to see this all go down..

If we're poking around the logic inside, I'm not deep enough to give an answer.

Me neither, but I am willing to bet they are different products.

I think AMD have said Zen 5 was a "ground up" design, but from a distance it looks pretty similar to Zen 4. Maybe we have a ship of Theseus thing going on here.

I cant really speak for AMD.. they do AMD things like Intel does Intel things

 

[EarthDog]

Are we casual users?

That's who the naming conventions are geared towards, Id imagine. The intent is to show all potential buyers, generally, where it lands in the product stack. IMO, these do a pretty good job. At least it's not like AMD was back in the day where their naming convention was based on Intel's performance, LOL. AMD's today can also be confusing..... but again, if you look at the 'wiki' or Intel's resources, to me, it's self explanatory, especially if you understood the past gen's naming.

That said, we are enthusiasts, indeed. I expect that group to have a better understanding, but, what are you gonna do? I can't say I expected to see a rant thread come up over this, LOL!

 

[freeagent]

I am sorry guys, the way Intel has named their CPU's since LGA775 has passed has always annoyed me

 

[mackerel]

I really don't get the hate. Not to say I like it, but it is what it is and I'm ok with it. The number still has a gen, a position within that gen, and add some more letters like KF whatever. To me it is no different. The stuff at the front I can ignore as it isn't important to me.

I'm just happy it isn't like the ram manufacturers where the part number looks like a cat sat on the keyboard.

 

[EarthDog]

I'm just happy it isn't like the ram manufacturers where the part number looks like a cat sat on the keyboard.

There's a method to that madness........from each vendor, LOL. But if you squint at those numbers long enough, you can see what it is (speed, capacity, and often enough CL and IC)... but I hear ya, that's way worse than CPUs.....and perhaps something worth ranting about, lol.

 

[freeagent]

I really don't get the hate.

I dunno, must be something with me then.

14 generations of a CPU that are share almost no relation from start to finish other than name.

What does a 14th gen i7 have in common with a first gen i7? Nothing. That is my point.. not really much of a point though, just messes with my logic, or lack thereof.

 

[infinitevalence]

AMD's names for their new mobile processors are every bit as dumb. https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/consumer/ryzen-ai.html#specs

AMD Ryzen™ AI 9 HX 375	AMD Radeon™ 890M	12	24	Up to 5.1 GHz		16	Available	28W
AMD Ryzen™ AI 9 HX 370	AMD Radeon™ 890M	12	24	Up to 5.1 GHz		16	Available	28W
AMD Ryzen™ AI 9 365	AMD Radeon™ 880M	10	20	Up to 5 GHz	2 GHz	12	Available	28W

What drives me nuts is the insistence that everything is a premium product, there is NOTHING wrong with having a mid range and entry level product, not everything needs to be premium.

Calling all their **** AI 9 is already biting them in the bum but they had to be one number higher than anything Intel had out.

I just want part numbers to go back to something simple, Brand + Class + Performance or Feature. That was working, and its fine if they want to redefine them for marketing reasons as long as everyone follows that format.

Ryzen R5 3600
Core i5 13600F

It was nice when people kinda agreed on what the letter at the end ment. T/H/X/F/ect.... that info was useful. Even if these names dont always translate to equal comparisons they were generally at least internally consistent so I knew that in most cases an R9 was more performance than an R5, or an i3 was entry level next to an i7.

 

[mackerel]

There's a method to that madness........from each vendor, LOL. But if you squint at those numbers long enough, you can see what it is (speed, capacity, and often enough CL and IC)... but I hear ya, that's way worse than CPUs.....and perhaps something worth ranting about, lol.

I get that, and some people actually call for CPU manufacturers to do that. Do you want to shop for a TTTTAAAABBBBPPEETCTDPMTP/k/F/T?
BBBB=base clock
AAAA=all core turbo clock
TTTT=max turbo clock
PP=P core count
EE=E core count
TC=thread count
TDP=TDP
MTP=MTP

Even now if I shop for ram with the same marketing description, but it is at two different prices from different vendors with different part numbers, I'm asking, what is the difference?

What does a 14th gen i7 have in common with a first gen i7? Nothing. That is my point.. not really much of a point though, just messes with my logic, or lack thereof.

It's an Intel CPU that does stuff, in a similar way. There is a clear difference from the Core (non-i) era before it.

I'm still wondering what level of similarity you'd consider acceptable. For instance, during the tick-tock era, Ivy Bridge was essentially a shrunk Sandy Bridge. Functionally very similar, but different manufacturing. Haswell/Broadwell got a bit more difference between them but similar applied. Then everything broke down after Skylake, where we have Skylake, Alder Lake, Coffee Lake, Coffee Lake Refresh, Comet Lake essentially using the same microarchitecture. There's at least 3 fab nodes involved there that we know of (14, 14+, 14++).

Do you feel the same way about cars? When they release totally different models under the same name as an older one. This does not count minor refreshes within one model's life.

Calling all their **** AI 9 is already biting them in the bum but they had to be one number higher than anything Intel had out.

Maybe we could do...
CPU 9 - entry level
CPU 99 - mid range
CPU 999 - high end
CPU 9999 - because we can

Or maybe reverse the digit count, since in other areas like camera models, higher end product get the shorter number.

 

[EarthDog]

What drives me nuts is the insistence that everything is a premium product, there is NOTHING wrong with having a mid range and entry level product, not everything needs to be premium.

Can't say I get the vibe that these companies are saying that, but, OK. Also, this is an enthusiast website so , the demographic here certainly disagrees...or at least wants premium, regardless if they can get away with something less. But, that's a people thing, to me.

I get that, and some people actually call for CPU manufacturers to do that. Do you want to shop for a

Lol, no.

There's more information to glean from a processor name than RAM. I mean, GSkill Trident Z XxXXGB DDR5-xxxx CL-xx-xx-xx-xx, tells 99% of what users want to know (and should care about - 99.9% of PC users couldn't care less what the IC is, for example), and so do the processor naming conventions.

Do you feel the same way about cars? When they release totally different models under the same name as an older one. This does not count minor refreshes within one model's life.

Hilarious... I typed out and deleted that same thing about cars replying to FA. ha!