AT News Update: Socket 775 Processor Names

33 Comments

View All Comments

• stephenbrooks - Friday, April 16, 2004 - link

  1. Ah! The missing 2.93GHz part I complained about in a previous post has appeared as a lovely "2.93Gz", errr...
  
  2. ---Sorry, the rest of this post includes opinion, paranoia, speculation and a rant---
  
  3. I hate to say this, but this looks a lot like a 'confusion tactic' just for Intel to protect their sales until they have a chance to catch up with AMD in performance again. Yes, the numbers are vaguely in line with increasing performance, but notice most of the families are near the top of their ranges (of 100) already. An optimist would say they've got something new in the labs which will displace the current generation of stuff, and they're just giving the old stuff these numbers to shift it.
  
  4. Regardless, can anyone tell my why this isn't stupid?:
  
  Celeron M 1.3GHz 90nm 400MHz 1MB = 350
  Celeron 3.2GHz 90nm 533MHz 256KB = 350
  
  What ARE they playing at? Surely one of them could at least be labelled '351' or '350A' to stop people having to figure out why two identically-named parts have totally different performance characteristics?!

• AtaStrumf - Friday, April 9, 2004 - link

  I've always liked BMW's naming system and I think Intel could have done worse than this.
  
  It clearly separates the different classes, which is the part that I like, but inside those classes is a preety big mess.
  
  I'd have to agree that Intel needs to drop a few products if it really wants to dumb things down, because this is gonna get preety hard to decipher, even for us. Almost as bad as it is now with sSpec numbers.
  
  I guess the price will be the last part of the puzzle that will help people decide what PCU to take home.

• fezzik1620 - Friday, April 9, 2004 - link

  Thank you for your gentle reproof, DoubleParadoxx. Yes, I mispoke.

• DoubleParadoxx - Friday, April 9, 2004 - link

  "The people who don't know what a Gigahert is and quite frankly don't care."
  
  Clearly you dont know. Hertz is the unit for 1 cycle/second, there is no such thing as a hert.

• fezzik1620 - Friday, April 9, 2004 - link

  Enough whining already. No, really, stop it. It seems like almost all of the comments on this move by Intel have been a bunch of babys crying because somebody took away their empty bottle and gave them a different one. This is not odd, nonsensical, crap, etc. It makes perfect sense. Intel has ridden the more MHz (or GHz) equals a faster processor myth for far too long now. I work for a major computer retailer and trust me this makes perfect sense.
  
  Put yourself in my shoes for a moment. Say your grandmother walks into the store (assuming she's not already dead and knows about as much about computers as my grandmother), how are going to quickly and easily explain to her that a P4 2.6 GHz is 10-25% faster than a Celeron 2.6 GHz processor. Now imagine that instead of someone like your grandmother who will take you at your word when it comes to anything computer related it is instead a complete stranger. This has not hurt Intel too much in the past since the prevailing thought among the general public is that there is something seriously wrong with Celeron processors, but now they have thrown the Pentium M into the mix. Try telling someone you've never met who knows nothing about computers, except that more MHz/GHz = a faster machine, that a 1.6 GHz Pentium M is as fast or faster than a 50% higher clocked 2.4 GHz P4 and that you think it is worth their money to pay top dollar for the thing too. Good luck.
  
  So, quit your whining. This is not a bad/dumb move on Intel's part. Your not seeing it for what it is. It is an intentional dumbing down. It is not for you, the enthusiast. Intel knows good and well that when you, the enthusiast, go to buy a P4, PM, or recommend a Celeron for a friend that you are going to still be looking at clock speed, bus speed, and cache. This move is for the 90% of people who are the "everybody else." Where the real money is. The people who don't know what a Gigahert is and quite frankly don't care.

• bhtooefr - Thursday, April 8, 2004 - link

  This is just fscking odd... BTW, if the Pentium Ms are being labelled this way, it could mean desktop P-M (it, and the AMD K8 will kill NetBurst, IMNSHO (not so humble)). BTW, where are Celeron-M numbers?
  
  This makes me want to find some CPU where they don't give you this crap, though. Intel CPUs (except for XScales, which aren't x86) are now all screwed up, AMD uses performance ratings (why not logos saying THIS AMD PROCESSOR BEAT THIS INTEL PROCESSOR IN THIS MAGAZINE/SITE'S REVIEW?), Transmeta boards are almost non-existant, and VIA C3s aren't very good performers (1GHz is it for clock, and the only good part is performance per watt).

• Praeludium - Thursday, April 8, 2004 - link

  I'm confused.
  
  Understatement is a trillion times more effective than exaggeration, too. :P
  
  I went to their site on the naming conventions, and that only served to heighten the confusion. It seems as if it'd be easier if Intel just went ahead and discontinued all their 533 MHz bus speeds, phased out anything under 1 MB of cache, and just stuck with their GHz markings.

• Jeff7181 - Thursday, April 8, 2004 - link

  This is the most retarded naming system I could imagine... hell, I couldn't have even imagined this... it's so off the wall... there's no order to any of it.
  Intel may start using the model numbers... but you can bet enthusiasts will call a 3.6 Ghz Pentium 4 800 Mhz bus just that... not a Pentium 4 560.

• Icewind - Thursday, April 8, 2004 - link

  I have a SERIOUS problem of Intel not indicating the difference between the 533hmhz and 800 speed FSB models, when it has been PROVEN that their is a performance difference.
  
  Im so ashamed to be running a p4 now, the sooner AMD brings out the 939pin Athlons, the happier me and many other tech heads will be.

• KristopherKubicki - Thursday, April 8, 2004 - link

  
  Virge, I dont think 8=ULV and 3=LV . Look at the pentium Ms.