Intel says the rebranding “better aligns to customer requests” to simplify its processor names
But it doesn't simplify the processor name!? Instead of i5, we now have to say "core 5" or "intel core 5".
Even worse ... we have to specify between "Core 5" and "Core Ultra 5"
"I'd like to order the newest chip you got. The Beyond Plus Ultra Core Ultra 5+ Supreme Deluxe. No, I will not accept the Beyond Plus Ultra Core Ultra 5 Supreme Deluxe. That is last gen garbage from last week."
Dang it. It's even worse.
I have a feeling everyone's going to end up calling them i9s anyways
Probably. The "core" name is too close to the old "Core2Duo/Quad" names anyway.
They're probably not too worried about people getting them mixed up with 15 year old CPUs
They don't seem to understand where the customer confusion comes from. A lot of people out there don't really realize that a Core i7 could mean very different things because that name has been slapped on new CPUs for...15 years. They delineate product generations as part of a model number (2600k, 6700k, etc). There is so much ambiguity when someone just says their computer has a Core i7, non tech-savvy folk aren't going to remember the string of numbers that comes after that.
AMD copied them, and that probably leads to similar confusion.
Apple seems to be the smart one in the room when it comes to CPU naming. The generation of the product is right there in the first part of it's name: M1, M2, etc. The performance class is suffixed (no suffix, Pro, Max, Ultra).
They should hire you.
Before it was Intel Core i5 so it's simpler than the old name
Well officially yes, but I don't know anyone that consistently called it "Intel Core i5" instead of just "i5". And I don't see that happening with just "5".
"Which processor do you have?"
"5"
said nobody ever
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. "i5" as an answer would've made sense, but "5" doesn't
I get it - I was just emphasising it :P
Was there a problem with the naming? I don't see why they'd change it given they've spent a long time building the brand.
Ha okay. I wasn't quite sure whether you're emphasizing or did misunderstood me.
Honestly I have no idea what the issue was with the old naming scheme. Didn't they just recently introduce an i9? Why not continue with an i11 etc instead of this Ultra nonsense.
But it doesn't simplify the processor name!? Instead of i5, we now have to say "core 5" or "intel core 5".
Even worse ... we have to specify between "Core 5" and "Core Ultra 5"
"I'd like to order the newest chip you got. The Beyond Plus Ultra Core Ultra 5+ Supreme Deluxe. No, I will not accept the Beyond Plus Ultra Core Ultra 5 Supreme Deluxe. That is last gen garbage from last week."
Dang it. It's even worse.
I have a feeling everyone's going to end up calling them i9s anyways
Probably. The "core" name is too close to the old "Core2Duo/Quad" names anyway.
They're probably not too worried about people getting them mixed up with 15 year old CPUs
They don't seem to understand where the customer confusion comes from. A lot of people out there don't really realize that a Core i7 could mean very different things because that name has been slapped on new CPUs for...15 years. They delineate product generations as part of a model number (2600k, 6700k, etc). There is so much ambiguity when someone just says their computer has a Core i7, non tech-savvy folk aren't going to remember the string of numbers that comes after that.
AMD copied them, and that probably leads to similar confusion.
Apple seems to be the smart one in the room when it comes to CPU naming. The generation of the product is right there in the first part of it's name: M1, M2, etc. The performance class is suffixed (no suffix, Pro, Max, Ultra).
They should hire you.
Before it was Intel Core i5 so it's simpler than the old name
Well officially yes, but I don't know anyone that consistently called it "Intel Core i5" instead of just "i5". And I don't see that happening with just "5".
"Which processor do you have?"
"5"
said nobody ever
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. "i5" as an answer would've made sense, but "5" doesn't
I get it - I was just emphasising it :P
Was there a problem with the naming? I don't see why they'd change it given they've spent a long time building the brand.
Ha okay. I wasn't quite sure whether you're emphasizing or did misunderstood me.
Honestly I have no idea what the issue was with the old naming scheme. Didn't they just recently introduce an i9? Why not continue with an i11 etc instead of this Ultra nonsense.