Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Intel Processor" Replaces Pentium & Celeron Brands

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    Let's hope they'll use this opportunity to deprecate/stop selling CPUs having fewer than 4 cores. Even dual core CPUs nowadays are a pain to use.
    Do you mean Real 4Cores or 2Cores (4HT) but 4 Cores in Marketing Terms?

    Comment


    • #12
      Funnily this will end something really annoying that stores do in my country: they call those cpus in notebooks as "Intel Dual-Core".

      Celeron leaves a bad impression, maybe worth to change the name.

      Comment


      • #13
        They could have simply keept Celeron as it is a synonyme for the low tier CPU since decades.
        Pentium has lost its significance since core2duo lineup has taken over and later i3/i5/i7

        Comment


        • #14
          OEM's have been doing this for a while now. They don't have stickers that say "Intel Celeron" or "Intel Pentium" on complete systems. Instead they've been using lighter-blue "Intel Inside" stickers. Only the Core iX series have dedicated stickers. Chinese companies, like those on Amazon, often do this too since they try to sell budget systems on the Intel brand alone and don't want people to know that they're actually getting a piece of garbage.

          Quite frankly, I don't get why they need a "Core iX" branding. Core i3, i5, i7, and i9 don't mean anything, since it isn't a static spec from one model or generation to the next. It doesn't tell you how many cores it has, how much cache it has, etc. What matters is the generation and model. They could just call it "Intel 12-700K CPU" and it would tell you everything you need to know to reference the specs. A "12-550" tells you that it has lower specs, but a 13-550 is a higher number that's relative to the 12-550, so it's a better processor than the 12-550 but doesn't directly relate to the 12-700K - let the spec junkies and benchmarkers do that. If someone says they have an "Intel 12 CPU", that at least tells you the generation and age, so you have a limited but relative range of performance options within that family. "Pentium" and "Celeron" don't tell you anything, since there are mainstream Core iX-derived Celerons that are faster than the budget "Atom-based architecture" Pentiums and some of the newer budget models are faster than older mainstream models. With newer software making older processors obsolete because of security issues *cough, Windows 11*, it's getting more and more important to know the age of a processor for serviceability reasons. Intel started using the "nth-generation" stuff in their marketing, but they need to shorten it. Yes, they already do this in the model numbers, but they need to rely on them more. Codenames should be kept classified internally too. Simplification is key, but they also need to communicate this to system OEM's. Dropping a product name and using just the model boasts their image too. Plus it saves on marketing.

          And then they have to work on the branding around the differences between consumer and Xeon processors... the existing Xeon models don't tell you anything about age or generation and certainly don't relate to the consumer CPU's. Maybe just slap an S or W (server or workstation) on a consumer model and be done with it. At least you know that it's just a 12-700, etc., in a different package since many of the uniprocessor server and workstation models are identical silicon just with added validation.

          Comment


          • #15
            Me: "What CPU does it have?"
            Sales rep: "An Intel Processor"
            Me: "Yeah, but what model"
            Sales rep: "Intel Processor"

            Comment


            • #16
              Michael

              Typo/Grammar

              "basic CPUs, they will now be known as Intel Procesor." Should be "Processor. And if it's CPUs (plural) probably Processors, plural to match.


              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by birdie View Post
                Let's hope they'll use this opportunity to deprecate/stop selling CPUs having fewer than 4 cores. Even dual core CPUs nowadays are a pain to use.
                I think they might. 1+4 (Alder Lake-U) and 0+4 (Alder Lake-N) at the low-end. Because Alder Lake-N, the new Atom, is supposed to have up to 8 cores.

                On the other hand, AMD just launched a dual-core Ryzen 3 5125C from an 8-core die, and will have dual-core Mendocino. Can Intel resist stooping that low?

                Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post

                Do you mean Real 4Cores or 2Cores (4HT) but 4 Cores in Marketing Terms?
                See above. Intel's lowest could become 4 cores, 4 threads soon. We will see.
                Last edited by jaxa; 16 September 2022, 01:35 PM.

                Comment


                • #18
                  bug processor sounds far better.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by CochainComplex View Post

                    Do you mean Real 4Cores or 2Cores (4HT) but 4 Cores in Marketing Terms?
                    I don't think even AMD does that anymore. They've since rebranded those as "modules", but their current processors don't even have those. That was from the Bulldozer and derivative architectures, and it was called Clustered Multi-Threading and derived from UltraSPARC T1 technology, which is not a bad technology, but Bulldozer's designs had underpowered units that weren't powerful enough to make it a good implementation. Ryzen uses an evolved format with bigger integer units.‚Äč

                    Everywhere I see processors with HT or SMT now, they always say the true cores and # of threads. As far as Windows goes, they're reported as "logical processors", but Task Manager shows the real cores too. I haven't seen a Bulldozer on Windows 10 or 11 though, so I don't know how Windows reads those. Windows 8 was the version that was optimized for Bulldozer thread scheduling.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      There's no reason why they can't just implement this as "Intel 12-1x0 or 12-2x0 CPU".

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X