Ultra 7 155H with six P-cores, eight E-cores, and eight graphics cores; or an Ultra 7 165H with the same number of cores but marginally higher clock speeds.
WTF is Intel smoking with these naming schemes I can't even understand what this means. Thank fuck AMD is an option.
Yeah because AMD has such great naming schemes...
The number behind Ultra is pretty much the same as with the i$x scheme. 3 is entry, 5 is mid range, 7 is high end, 9 is bad decision making.
The number after that kind of works like before. So higher number means more better. Probably with an extension for coming generation. Remember, the first i5s had 4 digit names as well, the fourth digit was prepended to indicate generations.
Thing is, there's no really good naming scheme, because there are so many possible variants/dimensions. Base clock, turbo clock, TDP, P core count, E core count, PCIe lanes, socket, generation ,..... How would you encode that in a readable name?
just concat: intel i7 11g4p8e128l420c520b
11 gen 4 pcore 8 ecore 128 lane 4.20ghz clock base 5.20ghz clock boost
letter between for readable. maybe not add lane if not change for same number of pcore and ecore
gskill do similar thing: F5-5200J3636C16GX2-FX5
5200 mhz unbuffered dimm 36-36-36 timing 1.20v 16g per module dual channel 2 module in kit
edit: also can put architecture with letter to indicate refresh, add suffix for apu and maybe tdp
can maybe use some letter for number: not that many different core number, make a=1pcore, b=2pcore, c=3pcore, … more than 26 pcore unlikely ever in consumer cpu. same for ecore maybe
You really think, that is more readable?
Yes, can see what different between cpu without go to intel page and read spec. Not only that cpu are different.
What mean readable to you?
For example being able to get a grasp of the rough performance from the have.
i5 10500 is faster than i5 10400. But is 6p4e better than 4p8e?
It's illusionary to fit everything about a CPU into its name. What you're proposing is essentially the entire value column of the spec sheet concatenated.
if 10500 mean 6p4e and 10400 mean 4p8e, which is faster depend on workload. so compare by that not good and that how currently is.
also if then 10900 is 12p0e, maybe not faster for gaming if game is single thread, so compare broken again. and also not good for mobile device that care about battery life. who tell you that?
and yes, basically that just most important or most compared spec concatenated. which describe the cpu, i think a name is supposed do that.
And how many people do you think could accurately, or even ballpark, estimate their workload? I couldn't tell you, whether my workload would benefit from more e or p cores and by how much.
What you're implying here is an illusion of accuracy. You want accurate numbers for something that you can't really judge anyway. These numbers don't mean anything to you, they just give you the illusion of knowing what's going on. It's the "close door" button in an elevator.
You think intel could? look at current and past name, they cannot
also you ask to encode difference of cpu into name, which i did. not to get good name that everyone can get from what they need know. people too different, would need to have different name for different people.
Readable is able to read quickly and easily. That name has too much information.
name supposed to describe thing. too much information not the problem. if you think too long, can shorten to just enough information that different cpu have different name. which what i did.
edit: also question was how to encode different cpu variant into name, so result require to include that information
That doesn't make it readable. That makes it efficient.
Performance cores versus efficiency cores?
They have high power and low power cores. Borrowed the idea from "BIG.little" design from ARM.
I can’t even understand what this means
I think that's the intent, and they fucking nailed it.
And AMD is following along with the stupid naming scheme in the next generation.
It's the intent, like "high-end" car models, so you can't distinguish them by features or age.
WTF is Intel smoking with these naming schemes I can't even understand what this means. Thank fuck AMD is an option.
Yeah because AMD has such great naming schemes...
The number behind Ultra is pretty much the same as with the i$x scheme. 3 is entry, 5 is mid range, 7 is high end, 9 is bad decision making.
The number after that kind of works like before. So higher number means more better. Probably with an extension for coming generation. Remember, the first i5s had 4 digit names as well, the fourth digit was prepended to indicate generations.
Thing is, there's no really good naming scheme, because there are so many possible variants/dimensions. Base clock, turbo clock, TDP, P core count, E core count, PCIe lanes, socket, generation ,..... How would you encode that in a readable name?
just concat: intel i7 11g4p8e128l420c520b
11 gen 4 pcore 8 ecore 128 lane 4.20ghz clock base 5.20ghz clock boost
letter between for readable. maybe not add lane if not change for same number of pcore and ecore
gskill do similar thing: F5-5200J3636C16GX2-FX5
5200 mhz unbuffered dimm 36-36-36 timing 1.20v 16g per module dual channel 2 module in kit
see here: https://www.gskill.com/faq/1502180912/DRAM-Memory
edit: also can put architecture with letter to indicate refresh, add suffix for apu and maybe tdp
can maybe use some letter for number: not that many different core number, make a=1pcore, b=2pcore, c=3pcore, … more than 26 pcore unlikely ever in consumer cpu. same for ecore maybe
You really think, that is more readable?
Yes, can see what different between cpu without go to intel page and read spec. Not only that cpu are different.
What mean readable to you?
For example being able to get a grasp of the rough performance from the have.
i5 10500 is faster than i5 10400. But is 6p4e better than 4p8e?
It's illusionary to fit everything about a CPU into its name. What you're proposing is essentially the entire value column of the spec sheet concatenated.
if 10500 mean 6p4e and 10400 mean 4p8e, which is faster depend on workload. so compare by that not good and that how currently is.
also if then 10900 is 12p0e, maybe not faster for gaming if game is single thread, so compare broken again. and also not good for mobile device that care about battery life. who tell you that?
and yes, basically that just most important or most compared spec concatenated. which describe the cpu, i think a name is supposed do that.
And how many people do you think could accurately, or even ballpark, estimate their workload? I couldn't tell you, whether my workload would benefit from more e or p cores and by how much.
What you're implying here is an illusion of accuracy. You want accurate numbers for something that you can't really judge anyway. These numbers don't mean anything to you, they just give you the illusion of knowing what's going on. It's the "close door" button in an elevator.
You think intel could? look at current and past name, they cannot
also you ask to encode difference of cpu into name, which i did. not to get good name that everyone can get from what they need know. people too different, would need to have different name for different people.
Readable is able to read quickly and easily. That name has too much information.
name supposed to describe thing. too much information not the problem. if you think too long, can shorten to just enough information that different cpu have different name. which what i did.
edit: also question was how to encode different cpu variant into name, so result require to include that information
That doesn't make it readable. That makes it efficient.
Performance cores versus efficiency cores?
They have high power and low power cores. Borrowed the idea from "BIG.little" design from ARM.
I think that's the intent, and they fucking nailed it.
And AMD is following along with the stupid naming scheme in the next generation.
It's the intent, like "high-end" car models, so you can't distinguish them by features or age.