Intel rebrands

Topic

New Reply

INTEL NEWS By Will Fastie To coincide with the upcoming release of new processors based on the Meteor Lake microarchitecture, Intel will institute a n
[See the full post at: Intel rebrands]

4 users thanked author for this post.

WSGeo, Norio, lmacri, DLivesInTexas

Reply | Quote

Replies

I’m not confused…  But that’s only because it’s not out yet. I had to go check Microcenter to see what their idea of the latest was and came up with a Raptor Lake with 24 cores. (Can software really productively manage 24 cores?)  Still called “i”. I’m not at all surprised to see the “Ultra” label as laundry detergents, etc,  have been adding that, periodically, for decades – a bit surprised that Intel stooped that low, also surprised to see that they dropped the “i”. Costs of printer’s ink? Or maybe they feel that “i” has run its course – everything in small electronics that wants to pretend it’s “cool” has an “i” in front of its name. And now Intel will take that away from them…  But alas, Apple will continue… else we wouldn’t know what something with an “i” in front of its name, meant…

Ignore the name and sort by price is my answer. Good point, though…

Reply | Quote

a wrote:

also surprised to see that they dropped the “i”.

I think it got in the way. I think there will be more tiering names going forward, and those will effectively take the place of “i.” For example, there will be Intel Core 5 and Intel Core Ultra 5.

a wrote:

a bit surprised that Intel stooped that low

Keeping up with the Joneses. Apple has Pro, Max, and Ultra.

Reply | Quote

I guess you could say that Intel is keeping an “i” out for us.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

Norio wrote:

I guess you could say that Intel is keeping an “i” out for us.

That’s Intel retaliation against Apple for drooping Intel CPUs from Mac PCs.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Norio

Reply | Quote

If I understand, there’s going to be an Intel Core (regular) level, say at 3, 5, 7.

And an Intel Core “Ultra” presumably higher performance level, and price? With similar numbers tacked on.

I know, you said, it’s not very clear yet. But these fine points will be important when trying to evaluate the value of a given machine. Thanks Will, as always.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

WSGeo wrote:

But these fine points will be important when trying to evaluate the value of a given machine.

You are absolutely right about that. We just haven’t been given much information so far.

This lack of clarity from Intel has happened several times in the past. The most jolting one was when the 80×86 designations were dropped and we ended up with Pentium. Then the company needed a way to distinguish multi-core processors for the general market, eventually resulting in the “Core” designation. Next was the arrival of the “i” designations.

In each case, we were told about the changes but couldn’t actually understand what they meant. Once a generation or two were out, we started to get it.

I’ve always been annoyed about these changes, which made it difficult to know the differences from one processor to another. However, I also appreciate Intel’s problem, which is that it can only predict the future to a certain extent, so trying to come up with nomenclature that works forever is, effectively, impossible. Even Henry Ford couldn’t market the Model T forever.

We poor consumers must simply pedal harder to keep up.

1 user thanked author for this post.

WSGeo

Reply | Quote

Will Fastie wrote:

The most jolting one was when the 80×86 designations were dropped and we ended up with Pentium.

The 80×86 line of processor names couldn’t be trademarked so the 80586 became the Pentium.

Reply | Quote

…we ended up with Pentium.

Anyone remember the flaw in one of the first mass produced versions?  I had a desktop with the flawed chip in 1994.  While the flaw did not affect the accuracy of my usage, when the mass media picked up the news, Intel stock collapsed.  I nibbled on a little and sold way too soon.  That part of the “flaw rodeo” got me.

Desktop Asus TUF X299 Mark 1, CPU: Intel Core i7-7820X Skylake-X 8-Core 3.6 GHz, RAM: 32GB, GPU: Nvidia GTX 1050 Ti 4GB. Display: Four 27" 1080p screens 2 over 2 quad.

Reply | Quote

TechTango wrote:

Anyone remember the flaw

Sure do, and I was vocal about Intel’s stupidity at the time. I was working for a little startup then; I demanded (and got) replacement chips for every PC in the company.

But there’s a silver lining, a lesson Microsoft should learn today. Intel’s testing of new chips became much better, allowing the company to catch flaws before putting a chip on the market.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Just another Forum Poster, TechTango

Reply | Quote