Just like they mean with #Equality in politics, everyone will be equally poor. You will own nothing and be happy and the ones pushing this will live life in ultra luxury. It'll be an Utopia, just like in Game of Thrones.
Yeah we already know how to differentiate Intel CPUs, they want to confuse us. ...so now I have to learn the new Intel scheme. I'm in the enthusiast category, so I know what is what... but changing the naming will make the things more confusing not less...
This right here, this is the comment I've been looking for. The Shirley has the opposite effect of creating more market disruption and tricking people into buying lower tier CPUs.
If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen this. User: I have a Core i7 processor. Which Graphics card should I get? Pro: Which i7 processor do you have? There are a lot of i7 processors. User: uhhh, I think it's the i7 four-forty-seven Pro: is it an i7-4770? like every damn time
@@m8x425 A friend of mine: "I don't understand, the game on my pc lagged so hard, I have an i7 goddammit!" Me, "what's kind of i7?" Him, "it says i7 - 920" Me, "-__-'"
The ones who did't understood the old reference system won't be able to understand the new system either, they never cared anyways. The ones who undestood it will find it pointless.
@@D2firetech I USED to understand USB until they kept mucking with the name system convention and obfuscating what is what with absurdly convoluted and longer names that don't ALWAYS mean what they should depending on variable factors.
The goal is not simplicity, it is obfuscation so they can confused people into buying older gen products. Everyone does it and pretends like they don't.
Exactly. They are calling us stupid, right after trying to diss AMD. Intel is truly lowering themselves to ultra low levels...where we forget about them.
I assume someone in marketing ran out of productive things to do and decided to make their naming scheme worse so it secures their job for the next 10 years fixing it.
There was a time where 3 was workspace, 5 was middle ground, 7 was gaming. Now there are going to be gaming comparisons between core 7 and ultra 5, ect ect.
Oh my goodness.. I can already see the extravagant contents of video games comparison between each Core 3,5,7 vs Core ultra 5,7,9 in upcoming years, brace yourself🤣
@ceciliacole5098 Not true. Since they renamed some of the standards USB 3.2 and USB 3.0 was the exact same standard. At least officially. Even worse, you could have an older USB 3.1 that was better than newer USB 3.2 (since that one could be just renamed 3.0).
Having worked at Intel, this cements my opinion of their marketing group. They had a system that at least i3, then i5, then i7, was good better best. But then they started selling multiple generations at the same time, resulting in sometimes an i5 being as good or better than previous gen i7. So they added gen numbers and i9, because more versions make the whole, Sears good better best model clearer? So now they'll drop the gen numbers, and the i's... now giving us 6 categories, with the line between where core and core ultra begin to overlap, totally unclear to users, as yes, marketing is really doing great now!? Perhaps if marketing actually started pushing features customers cared about, rather than worrying about tartan plaid's, little i's, and core vs core ultra... they might do better, but alas, like so many groups at Intel, the company would be best served by dropping 70% of marketing! Then they could reduce the price of their chips a bit, and be more competitive! Perhaps they could publish some performance metrics... Oh God... they couldn't do that. They wouldn't want to promise any specific performance, everything must be totally fluid so customers can never know what they might get! Oh, I understand the reason, they had to make this as clear as they have the USB spec versions! Yes, in that they have succeeded... if you can call that success.
I hated that they started with the "Pentium" nonsense. They should have changed the convention from 386 to express the 32-bit instruction set, but then they should have continued with straightforward naming. More cores? Add the number of cores to the chip name. 27-64-8-3200 - cool, so it's a 27th gen chip overall, 64bit, 8 cores, 3.2Ghz and I'll read the fine print if I want to know the turbo frequency. Pentium was the start of the insanity, then we got Celeron, Atom, Core, Core Solo, Core 2 Duo... it's all meaningless to anyone unless they read the spec sheets for the specific model. AMD didn't help by then jumping to the Athlon and Geode naming, but at least with the Ryzen series we get a better idea of comparative performance just from the names.#
I was thinking about that, it happens a lot with "gaming" PCs here, they sell an 2 or 3 gen i5 and i7 saying that is a very capable processor for modern gaming. The hybrid architecture helps too, no one will buy a 2 core cpu, but an 2 P cores and 4 E cores will be seen as 6 cores. It looks very much as a scam
Those people are always just going to look for the lowest price and not care about how many cores or clock speed or anything else. All they care about is "Can it do the internet?"
@@mercuryvirusYou're correct that they're effectively misellling old products, but what lends them false credibility is that their claims where actually true ~10 years ago, when 4th, 5th & 6th gen Intel processors released, as these were optimized for power consumption, as laptops were the target market, so if you had a 2nd or 3rd gen Intel CPU then you wouldn't see a performance improvement when upgrading, which is why many PC users, especially gamers, waited until 7th, 8th or 9th gen arrived before doing so. It might also partly explain why there are PCs with these old 2nd & 3rd gen chips still available for sale.
Yep. The less inclined are going to stick to the part of the obscurity that they understand, and that's the word ULTRA. So rather than getting a Core 5 they'll go with Core ULTRA 5.
the amount of times when I ask what CPU someone has I get "an i7" or "ryzen 7" as an answer is insane. When telling them their CPU is 10 years old and they should upgrade they still go ".. but it's an i7 though isn't that good??"
fun thought experiment for you: How much faster is a 13th gen i7 running 16M of DDR5 than a 10th gen i7 running 16M of DDR4? Now monetize that and compare the prices. I'll give you a hint: in most cases you're looking at less than a 10% speed increase for significantly more than a 10% increase in price. The reason people buy the new CPU is for graphics card compatibility... a 10 year old i7 and a modern i7 are identical in almost every way except the bus and RAM interfaces and some instruction set improvements.
@@TurboLoveTrain I know. They have a 3rd gen though. even a ninth gen of any tier is fine for 99% of use cases. But when a person that is playing whenever they have time and take it somewhat seriously complains about bad game optimisation (valid point of itself) while they have a i7 3700k or 3800k (i dont know for sure BUT 3RD GEN) is a little annoying
@@vellocx Try adjusting the ram clock using MSI afterburner... try going both faster and slower with the timings. RAM isn't as much about speed as it is about resonance. If you don't have good "alignment" between the bus clock and the speed the ram "wants" you''ll have hiccups and slight lags. It's more of an art and trial and error because of manufacturing variance in RAM. Look at his power supply as well--shit power supplies (or even bad power from your utilities provider) can also cause system instability... It's good odds that if he bought a generic Intel the power supply probably needs to be replaced after a decade. If he lives in a place like Florida or Chicago he defiantly needs a UPS.
the existing system is fine, if anything, intel doesnt know how their own products work the generation name tells you more than just purely the 3579 name schema does then the higher number means better what they are trying to do is make things actually harder to understand
I feel like the reason their naming scheme is confusing is because there are so many variants of CPUs available. If they want to simplify things they could just reduce the variants to something like: entry, everyday, enthusiast, absolute maxed out. With this, they could have Core 3, 5, 7 and 9 or maybe words like Core, Core Plus, Core Pro, Core Ultra. The latter is a bit less confusing if combined with generational number: this is a Core 3 Pro which is newer and better than Core 2 Pro.
It appears that they're making this change to confuse the customers into buying archaic deprecated CPUs, kind of like how 14th gen is basically binned 13th gen.
Yeah their 14th gen is like for example if Nvidia would name 4080 Super as 5080.... Intel 14th gen is not a new gen, but slightly boosted old gen. It seems Intel just wants to confuse gullible people and sell more CPUs to them.
If simplicity is their goal, why are they not completely rebranding to reflect the number of cores in a CPU? Core Duo and Core Quad used to mean dual core and quad core respectively, so why not go back to just numbers of physical cores? It'd make things a heck of a lot easier.
Intel should just over with something new. That way anything with the i357 lineup we all know is old. Or all new higher numbers Like start with i10 as lowest and i15 mid, and i20 as the best. And any 3 5 7 or 9 we all know are out of date
On multiple occasions I advertised Samsung Phones for their simple naming pattern. I don't understand why other companies wouldn't include the release year in their lineups.
9 หลายเดือนก่อน +29
To be fair, that only applies to Samsungs flagship S series.
Maybe the flagship models, because the other ones are still a bit nonsensical - would you have guessed that the A54 released last year? I'm also surprised that their tablet series hasn't been matched to the phones, so that the new tablets were called "tab s24 ultra" or whatever. They could even call it T24, as T stands for tablet. And I also don't see the point of i3, i5, etc. when you already have the performance tier stated in the latter numbers. A 14900K will be faster than a 14700K regardless of whether the former is an i9 or i7. I suppose it's just for bragging rights. I would also have loved if intel could include the core count in the processor name, though it's a bit more difficult with all of the different cores nowadays.
@@OV3RDRIVE24Now that Apple always goes up a number each new year, all you need to do is take the year (23) and subtract 8 (=15) to get the current model number.
Pray for all products have year in their name in future. Life is already too complicate to decrypt every single product in the world. Just add year (full year is must), and life will be much easier for all people. Whether you buy or tracking something in past, present or future... Software Hardware Smartphones ... ... every product should have suffix with year.
@@Milos-Stankovic Apple got ahead of you and don't even name their products anything. It's always "the iPad" or "the Macbook", "the iMac", etc. People just use the release year to refer to them because otherwise they'd be all called the same.
You have no idea how difficult it is to explain to the average person what do they mean and what they should expect from each one, I can't count how many times I've had to explain that just because it is i7 (still the 7700) it isn't what they think it is
... because it's not. What's better, an I5 14th Gen, or an i7 13th Gen, or an i9 12th Gen. This change solves ............... exactly none of that confusion. But that's the point. The old system was appalling for comparing processors across different series'. And when (literally) every model ended in 00, that made those extra digits completely worthless. And I can certainly see why they would want to move away from the 'i' designation. This is definitely the right move, except that it doesn't resolve the core issue (no pun intended) of comparing processors across different series, and in fact, now makes it even worse with two 'tiers' per class.
The goal is confusing marketing. Sad part is that the new system will make it even easier for SI's, OEM's and reman's to confuse buyers. The old system was fairly simple. If you did not get it, you had not interest in the first place. That will not change. Now they try to confuse us all.
@@beardsntools I know. My point is more that I think Intel is full of it when they say they are simplifying things. For me it will probably not change anything. I have had a grasp on CPU’s since the early 90’s. I just think adding a category will add to the layman’s confusion. They basically remove an “I” which meant nothing and add a category with ultra.
- Intel Server - Intel Desktop (Gamer / Office) - Intel Mobile - Intel Basic (ex Celeron) And the numbers you want of each edition. (ex: Intel Desktop Gamer 1, 2, 3... Higher the number, more power, and then may be letters for different characteristics). There, I fixed it.
@@Sotanaht01From what I've understood, the "ultra" models contain the NPU that's meant for machine learning tasks. Otherwise, a "core 5" is about the same as a "core ultra 5".
@@leonro Interesting. If they perform more or less identical to the Core n of the same number outside of AI related tasks specifically, that would justify the naming split they are using. Something a little clearer like "Core AI" might be nice though.
@@Sotanaht01 I agree, the naming is quite vague, and it also doesn't help that Intel just uses garbage corporate speak when talking about the "ultra" processors in marketing materials. They give the usual Spiel about having class-leading performance, unrivaled power and so on. You need to reference the spec sheet to figure out the real difference.
Ooooh you scared me with that beep sound at 3:43. Working on a server that's having a strange power issue right now, with more WORKING ones running behind me. I hear that beep and nearly have a heart attack, thinking another one has died.
And added in the ability to re-use certain elements (the sku# can be reused in different stacks INSIDE the same generation) of it so you can wind up with two nearly identical names for wildly different products with vastly different performance. Compare the Core Ultra 7 165H vs Core Ultra 7 165U, for example. H has 2x GPU cores, 3x the performance cores, 2x the cache... the ONLY notable difference in naming is the H/U. Yeah THIS won't confuse people... *smh*
Regular core i7 already are wacky. A desktop variant and a mobile variant i7 could have the desktop variant a 4 core threaded while the mobile version, was a 2 core threaded. so should be an i5 but is labeled as a i7. it is similar levels of confusion. If i was intel however, i would have probably gone with a rebrand of m/m3/m5/m7/m9 for mobile followed by the numbers and u/u3/u5/u7/u9 followed by numbers. m for mobile, u for everything else like they have done now. put a solid seperation between mobile and regular chips used by consumer desktop or enterprise but enterprise are generally xeon chips. @@NeverlandSystemZor
And added a complete extra line to be even more confusing. Because the last thing I want to explain is how a Core 7 is possible worse than a Core Ultra 5.
The overlap of ultra and non ultra 5 & 7 is the biggest problem in my eyes. Are average customers going to know if the core 7 is a better chip than the ultra 5? If I was someone who only paid attention to tech every 3-5 years when building a new PC, I could definitely find myself confused, wondering if the ultea 5 was just the new i3 or if ultra 9 wasn't just bestest, but more like besterest. I think the improvements to the suffix have been traded for confusion in the branding.
I think that depends on if CPU:s become more purpose built. Its been the case for a while that the highest core Ryzen benchmark slightly worse than the next highest in many games. If you now also take in to account P and E cores and the amount of each and future processors needing purpose built AI capabilities you will need to prioritize one improvement at the expense of another. Leading to different skews within the same generation becoming something that could become a reasonable solution to different use cases.
Honestly having the 7 in the Core line just seems to confuse more. Although "Intel Processor" takes the cake for "name nobody put thought into". Killing the Pentium brand is fine, most consumers to this day hear Pentium and think of the Pentium I, II, III and 4. But they should have kept Celeron, that name is certainly better than "Intel Processor". As for the core line, they should have split it at 5. The 7 should have only been in the Ultra class. This is how it should Look: Intel Celeron Intel Core Intel Core 3 Intel Core 5 Intel Core 5 Ultra Intel Core 7 Ultra Intel Core 9 Ultra
Its definitely more complicated. Yes, I've been in the game since the C64, but even my wife can understand the i is a gimmick, 7 is better than 3 and "14th gen" is probably better than 10th gen
rossharper1983 old people never understand marketing, they think it's a real thing ! Core 7, we know this name already since 2023, why linus need a video now, and why you need linus doing this ? understand it ?
What I would like is this information in the naming convention. Core # both types, cache size, base clock speed, Locked or unlocked, perhaps binning rank, and GPU spec.
If they make it more complicated for consumers then it becomes harder to know which CPU should be compared against when seeing if they are getting a sizable upgrade for the price, like how the i9 14th gen is hardly any better than the i9 13th gen
14th gen should be called 13th gen Super.... even Nvidia has more sensible naming than Intel. The new 14th gen is so weak it doesn't deserve to be called a "new gen".
I think after many years it’s become simple and as the average person could start to understand, they are changing it again. I remember when i7 first came out followed by i5 and i3. Until I started looking into it and at the time multicores were still decently new, I thought those were the amount of cores in each. Eventually it made sense and the starting number was the generation so you know how new your product was. I think truly companies change it up every so often so that the average customer doesn’t know what they are buying so that they spend more. If you know you only need a certain product, you are going to spend just as much as you set out to. Kind of the way ikea makes you go through everything in the store when you only go to buy one thing.
The fact 5 digit+suffix could tell what model it was, I think it was very simple. And the new naming scheme will introduce its own new problems and more confusion. I mean what is ultra about i5 and i7? shouldn't be that Xtreme i9 equivalent? And there will be more of those it has i7! (But 4700k) Type of situation. For average consumer it will be a nightmare to even get through a video explaining something like that.
I sell computers for a living and I can tell you that 95% or greater of customers know the names i3, i5, and i7. They have had either home computers or a work laptop where they stared at the badge every day. It's really easy to explain the tiers and they understand immediately. Intel is just stupid to try to mess with such well established branding. I foresee this lasting 2 years at most and then they will return to the "Core i" branding with a new numbering scheme.
Different chips made for different things dont line up in a straight path. Like a Core 7 might have more threads in total that the Core 5 Ultra, but the Core 5 Ultra has more AI processing units despite the lower total.¹
Or just call the AI chips "Intel AI" and add the release year of the chip at the end, so people get some idea how old it is. "Intel AI 2024, Intel Gaming 2024, Intel Workstation 2024" or whatever. That way anyone can understand what the chip is for and how old it is. Car manufacturers brand their cars by the release year, so why do PC component manufacturers insist on some arbitrary numbering scheme?
That's because Core 5 Ultra is the same as a Core 5, but with an NPU attached to it - which will mostly be used in optimising machine learning tasks. A core 7 will still have better traditional performance than a core 5 ultra. And even then, the branding names are pretty much useless. It's best to glance at the CPU spec sheet and see how many performance/efficiency/ultra efficiency cores they have. Clock speed isn't that important for most laptops since the cooling will be the limiting factor, not the factory speed cap. For example, a 7th gen i7 U series processor only had 2 cores with hyperthreading, which is lower than even my old i5 2450M laptop.
Goal is simplicity, so they drop the i, drop 1 digit in series and one in sku, but also add a whole new word to the brand. In total, drop 3 digits, add a 5-letter word
@@nadca2 And then, the next generation, they could release new "1st generation Core" processors, because what does "1st generation" even really mean, anyway?
As a hard engineering user of Intel processors, I think the core vs ultra designations may help for me. I don't game with my desktop or laptop but doing 3D chemical and power plant modeling, I need the horsepower to grind through some of my flow modeling work. Not uncommon for the model to grind through 10,000 to 15,000 trial and error cycles to home in on the solutions. I need modest video graphics, but usually more than the integrated graphics, but LOTS of horsepower and good clock speed to grind through to the answer. I will keep an eye out to this change.
Ryzen naming scheme is just copied from Intel so they can compete on the same terms. They just replaced "i" with "Ryzen". They even made it weirder with X3D lately.
AMD's is equally, if not more horrible than Intel's. They have repackaged older CPUs as new on the laptop side (example: 7520U is a Zen 2 part, 7540U is a Zen 4 part), then the CPUs with integrated graphics are actually laptop parts with less cache than the desktop parts of the same name (see 8700G, 5700G, etc.), and now they are selling those same CPUs without graphics with nearly the same name as the superior versions (see 5700 vs. 5700X). While Intel's naming is silly and confusing, they aren't trying to fool you.
I wonder why the I7 without ultra couldn't be intended for gaming. This is so confusing.. I understood the previous system perfectly and ordinary consumers were satisfied with the information - the newer the generation, the better.
The fact the Celeron line had a longer lifespan than a CPU that actually has a use case is more surprising than those Intel CPUs with the AMD VEGA iGPUs.
Interesting shift in branding by Intel. I was definitely one of those confused by their old codes. Still seems a bit complicated though. Looking forward to more clear intel on this.
This is adding to the complication. I see where they are going but they go off road on their own path immediately. For example, why do we need a separate "processor" segment, would these not fit in the Core 3 designation? Also what makes a chip good for gamers and creators? What is the difference between an Core and Core Ultra other than maybe a tax for the Ultra name.
Ah yes The old "competition gets too good, so we change our naming scheme to make it more conplicated for the average customer to compare equal products" move
I stopped track AMD Laptop CPUs after they started the "letter wheel" they created, all the 7520U \ 7540U \ 7730U etc, IDK what the difference between them without checking a spec table. Now Intel doing the same. it's so confusing.
The 3rd letter (architecture) is the most important one. 7520U sucks (it's basically a 5300U with a newer but weaker iGPU, and only single-channel DDR or dual-channel LPDDR RAM).
@@nathangamble125the fact that what you wrote inside the parenthesis is longer than your actual comment proves OP right. I tried to figure out AMD's branding for a PC I was building for the first time in years and I simply gave up and went with what I understood: Intel. Guess Intel is trying to return AMD the favor with this rebranding.
@@ShaferHartI'm gonna be real, that's an intelligence problem not an AMD problem. Or some mad Intel copium. The first number is the generation (like Intel), the second number is the series number (like Intel), and the third number is the sub-series (like Intel). So, you literally have the same style of naming convention between the two companies, you even said you understand Intel, yet you explicitly admit to not being able to figure it out. Ooof.
I don't know at all AMD naming schemes... and I'm in the enthusiast segment, but I don't know at the moment how their naming scheme is working... I haven't been with AMD for a very long time. Now Intel also wants to confuse us. Thankfully I don't upgrade CPUs very often, so by the time I have to upgrade I'll learn the new Intel scheme. But for me there is nothing confusing at the moment. I go for the non K CPUs (because I don't overclock) . I also don't buy their F series, because I prefer to have iGPU for a few bucks it's always helpful, because initial testing of my system is easier without discrete GPU. Also I usually use my old PCs for other purposes and just sell the old discrete GPUs, but not the whole system.
The only confusing thing is when you change branding. There were Pentium. Then, they wanted to sell a cheaper variant they called Celeron. Then some guru thought that Core would be a good name.
@@LupusYonderboy What manufacturing process does the Intel Processor processor use? I can't wait to hear "the new Intel Processor, Core 3, Core 5, and Core 7 processors with up to 24 cores made on our latest Intel 3 process".
With Pentium branding they confused people who haven't upgrade for a long time, into thinking Pentium is actually good... today's Pentiums are not even Celerons of the old days. Maybe Core i3 might be considered "a Celeron" , but not these lower ones.... today's Pentiums and Celerons are just waste of money.
Before that there was 286, then 386, then 486, but rather than 586 we get Pentium (still indicating 5, though, so ok), then Pentium 2 rather than going with a 6....
Total BS! What they want to be able to do is to let HP (and others) continue selling 12th generation Intel CPUs in the computers (like they are doing today) - and not have the customer find out that they are buying two year old technology.
@@LittleMopeHeadthis, I think we're coming up on the theoretical limit on how small we can make transistors and they're trying to side step the issue of diminishing performance on newer processors
That way they are probably pack old generation CPUs and sell them as new... but if Intel does that... if there is no way to know what generation is their CPU... I'll say Goodbye to Intel. My current CPU is i5 10600 and there is nothing confusing about it's naming.... but I can't imagine a box with the name Intel 5, without stating the generation...
If they wanted to make it simple they would put in name of the series, number of cores and performance in teraflops (or whatever) per core or for whole processor. This way it would be actually EASY for everyone to compare 2 processors. But no, the goal is to make it as hard as possible for casuals and mildly inconvenience others. You will still need to look at benchmarks to compare "CORE 9 420X to ULTRA 5 6969" to find out best performance per dollar spent
How will consumers know which processor is the "newest one on the market"? With no generational information, it sounds like a way to scam consumers into buying older chipsets.
I like that you realized "hey this two seconds of old timey film effect that is not important at all to the story might give people seizures" and the solution was to put a warning instead of just removing the effect 😂
I just find it interesting that the "Pentium" branding was used for so long. When I hear that name, I think of the "Pentium 1" from the early 90's. Going with "Intel Processor" is a bad name ... if it is going to represent the "entry" level CPU from Intel, then why not "Intel Baseline CPU" or "Intel Entry-Level". Overall, I am happy to read that Intel is keeping the "generation" number in ther part number.
I'm not sure if "Core Processor" would be a good brand name since in practice it would either mean literally a processor or the brand name Processor. The old naming scheme wasn't all that much better with how many special suffixes they had and all the different tiers, but at least it was somewhat consistent. It doesn't help that they also have a lot of SKUs. Now it's hard for the average buyer to tell if they're getting a noticeable upgrade from their existing hardware.
Not a word aboul the "Lake" nomenclature? Why assume more information? The scheme seems to be made up to obfuscate (the generation). Parallel "Core" and "Ultra Core" seems worse than just i3, i5 for productivity and general use and i7, i9 for more demanding applications.
The packaging of either the CPU or of pre-built systems don't use the Lake nomenclature. The actual generation information is pretty clear (though the number of digits after the generation isn't always constant, probably unlikely to confuse a 1st generation core chip with an 11th or 12th.
Straight from Intel’s Specifications pages: Intel® Core™ i9-13900H Processor 24M Cache, up to 5.40 GHz vs Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 processor 185H 24M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz **NOW idk about you guys, but substituting the letter ‘i’ for the word ‘ultra’, and going from an established 5 digits to 3 digits where intel themselves don’t know what the third number stands for seems like straight f#&kery to confuse the best of us boys.
just explaining ultra vs non ultra, and telling someone intel “processor” -THEY ARE ALL PROCESSORS! same mentality as retroactively renaming standards in USB or HDMIs scam-encouraging system
When sellers confuse me I don't buy what they're selling. I put off upgrading my pc for years because I mistakenly thought I would have to reinstall windows and all my software. They need to make it clear that we can just uninstall the motherboard drivers, swap the board and CPU for the new upgraded board and CPU, install the drivers and carry on as before. I would for sure have spent more money with Intel had I known this, because I would have upgraded more often. Intel, make it clear we can upgrade without losing all our software.
Intel, will there be a simple performance line with each of the CPUs having their own stripe along the main long line? For example i3 might be from 25 to 50, it from 40 to 65, i7 from 50 to 75, i9 from 70 to 100. Then Ultra could be on a parallel line, or the original line but maybe on the other side of it, and have more powerful colour, some overlap to the next CPU SKU. What do you think?
Their naming was always complicated. 486 had turbo button, and PENTium arrived with 90 Mhz, not 50 or 5 GHz at once. But core changed it all with Duo. it would be funny if they decide to it just because AMD made their CPU naming quite similar just recently.
The best way to compare the cpus is simple , stick in part number followed by" passmark " into search engine , check single thread and multicore thread performance , bigger is almost defo better :)
Seriously … why not a simple branding ? YYQBB YY is the process release year. Q is the processor class (9,7,5,3,1) and BB the feature… (Yeah the 1 are for pentium / celeron)
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
"We realized our branding was only clear to techies, so we've decided to change it so now it's confusing to everyone! #Equality"
this.
Pretty much. Goddamn this new naming scheme is confusing.
Goes hand in hand with "Bug: Crashes randomly - Fixed, now crashes all the time"
Just like they mean with #Equality in politics, everyone will be equally poor. You will own nothing and be happy and the ones pushing this will live life in ultra luxury. It'll be an Utopia, just like in Game of Thrones.
all the points are still clear now compared to before. The only extra is Ultra and that makes it confusing
The 13th generation is older than the 14th generation. Sounds pretty clear to me.... 3
Yeah we already know how to differentiate Intel CPUs, they want to confuse us. ...so now I have to learn the new Intel scheme. I'm in the enthusiast category, so I know what is what... but changing the naming will make the things more confusing not less...
This right here, this is the comment I've been looking for. The Shirley has the opposite effect of creating more market disruption and tricking people into buying lower tier CPUs.
If I had a nickel for everytime I've seen this.
User: I have a Core i7 processor. Which Graphics card should I get?
Pro: Which i7 processor do you have? There are a lot of i7 processors.
User: uhhh, I think it's the i7 four-forty-seven
Pro: is it an i7-4770?
like every damn time
@@m8x425 A friend of mine: "I don't understand, the game on my pc lagged so hard, I have an i7 goddammit!"
Me, "what's kind of i7?"
Him, "it says i7 - 920"
Me, "-__-'"
🎯
The ones who did't understood the old reference system won't be able to understand the new system either, they never cared anyways. The ones who undestood it will find it pointless.
Not only that they're not going to care!
Its even worse...the i7 gen system made sense, the new system is just overlapping gibberish.
I've always understood the naming of USB, CPUs, gpus, and etc I think I watch too many tech video, but sometimes it's a little confusing
@@D2firetech I USED to understand USB until they kept mucking with the name system convention and obfuscating what is what with absurdly convoluted and longer names that don't ALWAYS mean what they should depending on variable factors.
Bro liturally tried soo hard "explaining" a terrible marketing strategy
The new naming scheme is more confusing, we all got used to "Higher number means more performance" metric xD
Not confusing but clear and sounds better
@@computerscience1101Sounds better? Till now you can just say "i9 14900k", everything else is already included.
The goal is not simplicity, it is obfuscation so they can confused people into buying older gen products. Everyone does it and pretends like they don't.
Why isn't this pinned?
This is the one.
Correct
Its not only intel
Amd did it with 7000 series and even Qualcomm with their mobile chips
Exactly. They are calling us stupid, right after trying to diss AMD. Intel is truly lowering themselves to ultra low levels...where we forget about them.
Hiding the generation in the 'small print' will make selling prev-gen chips easier.
I assume someone in marketing ran out of productive things to do and decided to make their naming scheme worse so it secures their job for the next 10 years fixing it.
😂
Sounds like day 1 in a marketing job, tbh.
THIS.
EXACTLY!!!
I'm that someone. You shouldn't make this comment I'm sending the core ultra assassins now.
There was a time where 3 was workspace, 5 was middle ground, 7 was gaming. Now there are going to be gaming comparisons between core 7 and ultra 5, ect ect.
Oh my goodness.. I can already see the extravagant contents of video games comparison between each Core 3,5,7 vs Core ultra 5,7,9 in upcoming years, brace yourself🤣
This is as confusing as the rebranding of usb speeds standard
Let's not kid ourselves. USB naming conventions are in a whole different field of fuckery
yeah thats the goal
@ceciliacole5098 Not true. Since they renamed some of the standards USB 3.2 and USB 3.0 was the exact same standard. At least officially.
Even worse, you could have an older USB 3.1 that was better than newer USB 3.2 (since that one could be just renamed 3.0).
Except USB naming is no hassle (except renaming 3.1 to USB 3)
Agreed
Having worked at Intel, this cements my opinion of their marketing group. They had a system that at least i3, then i5, then i7, was good better best. But then they started selling multiple generations at the same time, resulting in sometimes an i5 being as good or better than previous gen i7. So they added gen numbers and i9, because more versions make the whole, Sears good better best model clearer? So now they'll drop the gen numbers, and the i's... now giving us 6 categories, with the line between where core and core ultra begin to overlap, totally unclear to users, as yes, marketing is really doing great now!? Perhaps if marketing actually started pushing features customers cared about, rather than worrying about tartan plaid's, little i's, and core vs core ultra... they might do better, but alas, like so many groups at Intel, the company would be best served by dropping 70% of marketing! Then they could reduce the price of their chips a bit, and be more competitive! Perhaps they could publish some performance metrics... Oh God... they couldn't do that. They wouldn't want to promise any specific performance, everything must be totally fluid so customers can never know what they might get! Oh, I understand the reason, they had to make this as clear as they have the USB spec versions! Yes, in that they have succeeded... if you can call that success.
They must have hired someone from the USB naming department…
Or the HDMi one 😂
or Sony
@@BBKMotoLove221*Sony Xperia.
Now I need a 15 minute unhinged Markiplier rant trying to explain the naming scheme
LOLOLOLOL...
This is a hell of a lot more confusing. I’ve been building computers since 486 days.
I hated that they started with the "Pentium" nonsense. They should have changed the convention from 386 to express the 32-bit instruction set, but then they should have continued with straightforward naming. More cores? Add the number of cores to the chip name. 27-64-8-3200 - cool, so it's a 27th gen chip overall, 64bit, 8 cores, 3.2Ghz and I'll read the fine print if I want to know the turbo frequency. Pentium was the start of the insanity, then we got Celeron, Atom, Core, Core Solo, Core 2 Duo... it's all meaningless to anyone unless they read the spec sheets for the specific model. AMD didn't help by then jumping to the Athlon and Geode naming, but at least with the Ryzen series we get a better idea of comparative performance just from the names.#
The obscurity helps retailers sell computers to the less inclined.
I was thinking about that, it happens a lot with "gaming" PCs here, they sell an 2 or 3 gen i5 and i7 saying that is a very capable processor for modern gaming. The hybrid architecture helps too, no one will buy a 2 core cpu, but an 2 P cores and 4 E cores will be seen as 6 cores. It looks very much as a scam
I thought the same tbh
Those people are always just going to look for the lowest price and not care about how many cores or clock speed or anything else. All they care about is "Can it do the internet?"
@@mercuryvirusYou're correct that they're effectively misellling old products, but what lends them false credibility is that their claims where actually true ~10 years ago, when 4th, 5th & 6th gen Intel processors released, as these were optimized for power consumption, as laptops were the target market, so if you had a 2nd or 3rd gen Intel CPU then you wouldn't see a performance improvement when upgrading, which is why many PC users, especially gamers, waited until 7th, 8th or 9th gen arrived before doing so.
It might also partly explain why there are PCs with these old 2nd & 3rd gen chips still available for sale.
Yep. The less inclined are going to stick to the part of the obscurity that they understand, and that's the word ULTRA. So rather than getting a Core 5 they'll go with Core ULTRA 5.
the amount of times when I ask what CPU someone has I get "an i7" or "ryzen 7" as an answer is insane. When telling them their CPU is 10 years old and they should upgrade they still go ".. but it's an i7 though isn't that good??"
fun thought experiment for you:
How much faster is a 13th gen i7 running 16M of DDR5 than a 10th gen i7 running 16M of DDR4?
Now monetize that and compare the prices. I'll give you a hint: in most cases you're looking at less than a 10% speed increase for significantly more than a 10% increase in price. The reason people buy the new CPU is for graphics card compatibility... a 10 year old i7 and a modern i7 are identical in almost every way except the bus and RAM interfaces and some instruction set improvements.
@@TurboLoveTrain I know. They have a 3rd gen though. even a ninth gen of any tier is fine for 99% of use cases. But when a person that is playing whenever they have time and take it somewhat seriously complains about bad game optimisation (valid point of itself) while they have a i7 3700k or 3800k (i dont know for sure BUT 3RD GEN) is a little annoying
@@vellocx Try adjusting the ram clock using MSI afterburner... try going both faster and slower with the timings.
RAM isn't as much about speed as it is about resonance. If you don't have good "alignment" between the bus clock and the speed the ram "wants" you''ll have hiccups and slight lags. It's more of an art and trial and error because of manufacturing variance in RAM. Look at his power supply as well--shit power supplies (or even bad power from your utilities provider) can also cause system instability... It's good odds that if he bought a generic Intel the power supply probably needs to be replaced after a decade.
If he lives in a place like Florida or Chicago he defiantly needs a UPS.
@@TurboLoveTrain i know all this, but how is it even related
@@vellocx I consider it rather obvious but you don't seem to see the connection. Sorry for bothering you--good luck.
the existing system is fine, if anything, intel doesnt know how their own products work
the generation name tells you more than just purely the 3579 name schema does
then the higher number means better
what they are trying to do is make things actually harder to understand
for real, if anything this makes it confusing for techies AND it makes it even more confusing for the average person
I feel like the reason their naming scheme is confusing is because there are so many variants of CPUs available. If they want to simplify things they could just reduce the variants to something like: entry, everyday, enthusiast, absolute maxed out. With this, they could have Core 3, 5, 7 and 9 or maybe words like Core, Core Plus, Core Pro, Core Ultra. The latter is a bit less confusing if combined with generational number: this is a Core 3 Pro which is newer and better than Core 2 Pro.
Sounds more confusing tbh
Intel decided to get help with their naming structure from the USB guys.
It's definitely more complicated... Normal user will be lost no matter what, but we advanced users will have to learn this new stupid naming...
It appears that they're making this change to confuse the customers into buying archaic deprecated CPUs, kind of like how 14th gen is basically binned 13th gen.
Yeah their 14th gen is like for example if Nvidia would name 4080 Super as 5080.... Intel 14th gen is not a new gen, but slightly boosted old gen. It seems Intel just wants to confuse gullible people and sell more CPUs to them.
And 13th gen was largely just 12th gen with the power limits increased
If simplicity is their goal, why are they not completely rebranding to reflect the number of cores in a CPU? Core Duo and Core Quad used to mean dual core and quad core respectively, so why not go back to just numbers of physical cores? It'd make things a heck of a lot easier.
Because exactly that. They have said they want to get away from using cores as a performance metric.
I feel like I'm even more confused since watching the video.
I feel like I need to take an engineering course to understand Intel's naming convention.
I forgot my own name
Yeah true.. I'm getting more confused and will going to move to AMD processor after this..
Intel should just over with something new. That way anything with the i357 lineup we all know is old. Or all new higher numbers
Like start with i10 as lowest and i15 mid, and i20 as the best. And any 3 5 7 or 9 we all know are out of date
@@FirestoneX It's too short-sighted. In that case they sould reserve more decimal places for future like i00000x
We've replaced the number at the end to stop to generation being confusing by replacing it with a number to tell you the generation
On multiple occasions I advertised Samsung Phones for their simple naming pattern. I don't understand why other companies wouldn't include the release year in their lineups.
To be fair, that only applies to Samsungs flagship S series.
Maybe the flagship models, because the other ones are still a bit nonsensical - would you have guessed that the A54 released last year? I'm also surprised that their tablet series hasn't been matched to the phones, so that the new tablets were called "tab s24 ultra" or whatever. They could even call it T24, as T stands for tablet.
And I also don't see the point of i3, i5, etc. when you already have the performance tier stated in the latter numbers. A 14900K will be faster than a 14700K regardless of whether the former is an i9 or i7. I suppose it's just for bragging rights. I would also have loved if intel could include the core count in the processor name, though it's a bit more difficult with all of the different cores nowadays.
@@OV3RDRIVE24Now that Apple always goes up a number each new year, all you need to do is take the year (23) and subtract 8 (=15) to get the current model number.
Pray for all products have year in their name in future.
Life is already too complicate to decrypt every single product in the world.
Just add year (full year is must), and life will be much easier for all people.
Whether you buy or tracking something in past, present or future...
Software
Hardware
Smartphones
...
... every product should have suffix with year.
@@Milos-Stankovic Apple got ahead of you and don't even name their products anything. It's always "the iPad" or "the Macbook", "the iMac", etc. People just use the release year to refer to them because otherwise they'd be all called the same.
3:42 as a bit of feedback please dont use that beep in future videos, nails on chalkboard type sound. Informative video if otherwise.
It was such a great and understandable naming, why would they kill it?
You have no idea how difficult it is to explain to the average person what do they mean and what they should expect from each one, I can't count how many times I've had to explain that just because it is i7 (still the 7700) it isn't what they think it is
... because it's not. What's better, an I5 14th Gen, or an i7 13th Gen, or an i9 12th Gen. This change solves ............... exactly none of that confusion. But that's the point. The old system was appalling for comparing processors across different series'. And when (literally) every model ended in 00, that made those extra digits completely worthless. And I can certainly see why they would want to move away from the 'i' designation. This is definitely the right move, except that it doesn't resolve the core issue (no pun intended) of comparing processors across different series, and in fact, now makes it even worse with two 'tiers' per class.
Does the new scheme sounds less confusing for you? I don't think so)@@davidgarcia2016
It's a stupid "solution" that fixes nothing.
"great and understandable " okay, 3 what? 5 what? i???
i3 = intel peasant
i5 = intel noble
i7 = intel king
i9 = intel emperor
Xeon = intel farmer
"If the goal is simplicity..."
Gonna have to stop you there. The goal is the opposite of simplicity.
honestly yeah.. if they wanted to do simplicity they would just call them intel 1 to intel 9 with intel 1 being the celery cpu
The goal is confusing marketing. Sad part is that the new system will make it even easier for SI's, OEM's and reman's to confuse buyers.
The old system was fairly simple. If you did not get it, you had not interest in the first place. That will not change. Now they try to confuse us all.
@@AB-80X It's not a big deal. a 5 minute research will let you know which one you want, even if you aren't familiar with intel
@@beardsntools
I know. My point is more that I think Intel is full of it when they say they are simplifying things. For me it will probably not change anything. I have had a grasp on CPU’s since the early 90’s. I just think adding a category will add to the layman’s confusion.
They basically remove an “I” which meant nothing and add a category with ultra.
@@AB-80X I said that here earlier. If they would really want to simply, they would just name them intel 1 to intel 9 with celery being intel 1
- Intel Server
- Intel Desktop (Gamer / Office)
- Intel Mobile
- Intel Basic (ex Celeron)
And the numbers you want of each edition.
(ex: Intel Desktop Gamer 1, 2, 3... Higher the number, more power, and then may be letters for different characteristics).
There, I fixed it.
The old branding was so much easier to understand than this
Yeah, bring back the 486-like numbering, and call the current chips the 1486, or whatever they're up to now.
Please Intel, don’t outright kill the Intel Core i9, i7, i5 and i3 brand.
Shoutout for the Epilepsy warning including an audio cue! Great for accessibility
Imagine using numbers inbetween 3, 5 and 7 instead of this CORE SUPER FUKKEN HYPER ULTRA for skue numbers.
At the moment, I don't think we know where a Core Ultra sits relative to a Core. It could be Core 5
@@Sotanaht01From what I've understood, the "ultra" models contain the NPU that's meant for machine learning tasks. Otherwise, a "core 5" is about the same as a "core ultra 5".
@@leonro Interesting. If they perform more or less identical to the Core n of the same number outside of AI related tasks specifically, that would justify the naming split they are using. Something a little clearer like "Core AI" might be nice though.
And knuckles*
@@Sotanaht01 I agree, the naming is quite vague, and it also doesn't help that Intel just uses garbage corporate speak when talking about the "ultra" processors in marketing materials. They give the usual Spiel about having class-leading performance, unrivaled power and so on. You need to reference the spec sheet to figure out the real difference.
Ooooh you scared me with that beep sound at 3:43. Working on a server that's having a strange power issue right now, with more WORKING ones running behind me. I hear that beep and nearly have a heart attack, thinking another one has died.
So essentially they removed/replaced the i modifier, shortend the SKU# from 3 to 2 and then reset the generation counter.
And added in the ability to re-use certain elements (the sku# can be reused in different stacks INSIDE the same generation) of it so you can wind up with two nearly identical names for wildly different products with vastly different performance.
Compare the Core Ultra 7 165H vs Core Ultra 7 165U, for example.
H has 2x GPU cores, 3x the performance cores, 2x the cache... the ONLY notable difference in naming is the H/U. Yeah THIS won't confuse people... *smh*
Regular core i7 already are wacky. A desktop variant and a mobile variant i7 could have the desktop variant a 4 core threaded while the mobile version, was a 2 core threaded. so should be an i5 but is labeled as a i7. it is similar levels of confusion.
If i was intel however, i would have probably gone with a rebrand of m/m3/m5/m7/m9 for mobile followed by the numbers and u/u3/u5/u7/u9 followed by numbers. m for mobile, u for everything else like they have done now. put a solid seperation between mobile and regular chips used by consumer desktop or enterprise but enterprise are generally xeon chips.
@@NeverlandSystemZor
And added a complete extra line to be even more confusing. Because the last thing I want to explain is how a Core 7 is possible worse than a Core Ultra 5.
*They should've replaced it with something more self explanatory.*
Like:
i3: Basic
i5: Standard _(or something in the middle)_
i7: Premium
i9: Ultra
The overlap of ultra and non ultra 5 & 7 is the biggest problem in my eyes. Are average customers going to know if the core 7 is a better chip than the ultra 5?
If I was someone who only paid attention to tech every 3-5 years when building a new PC, I could definitely find myself confused, wondering if the ultea 5 was just the new i3 or if ultra 9 wasn't just bestest, but more like besterest.
I think the improvements to the suffix have been traded for confusion in the branding.
Exactly this
It's already confusing. I'd take a same-gen desktop i3 over a U series i7, for example.
I think that depends on if CPU:s become more purpose built. Its been the case for a while that the highest core Ryzen benchmark slightly worse than the next highest in many games. If you now also take in to account P and E cores and the amount of each and future processors needing purpose built AI capabilities you will need to prioritize one improvement at the expense of another. Leading to different skews within the same generation becoming something that could become a reasonable solution to different use cases.
Honestly having the 7 in the Core line just seems to confuse more. Although "Intel Processor" takes the cake for "name nobody put thought into".
Killing the Pentium brand is fine, most consumers to this day hear Pentium and think of the Pentium I, II, III and 4. But they should have kept Celeron, that name is certainly better than "Intel Processor".
As for the core line, they should have split it at 5. The 7 should have only been in the Ultra class.
This is how it should Look:
Intel Celeron
Intel Core
Intel Core 3
Intel Core 5
Intel Core 5 Ultra
Intel Core 7 Ultra
Intel Core 9 Ultra
@@protoretro1290 Or better use Core 2 or something to completly remove the overlap
This new branding is actually more confusing than the previous version.
Its definitely more complicated. Yes, I've been in the game since the C64, but even my wife can understand the i is a gimmick, 7 is better than 3 and "14th gen" is probably better than 10th gen
rossharper1983
old people never understand marketing, they think it's a real thing !
Core 7, we know this name already since 2023, why linus need a video now, and why you need linus doing this ?
understand it ?
1:49 DO NOT BUY THE PAPER LIKE it destroyed my apple pencil
I'm going to miss that branding. It just felt nostalgic and was a standard.
Nuh uh
Yuh Huh @@CanadianBakin42O
Yuh uh
i have to agree
Yuh Huh
What I would like is this information in the naming convention. Core # both types, cache size, base clock speed, Locked or unlocked, perhaps binning rank, and GPU spec.
If they make it more complicated for consumers then it becomes harder to know which CPU should be compared against when seeing if they are getting a sizable upgrade for the price, like how the i9 14th gen is hardly any better than the i9 13th gen
I lowkey suspect that might be the whole point.
14th gen should be called 13th gen Super.... even Nvidia has more sensible naming than Intel. The new 14th gen is so weak it doesn't deserve to be called a "new gen".
I think after many years it’s become simple and as the average person could start to understand, they are changing it again. I remember when i7 first came out followed by i5 and i3. Until I started looking into it and at the time multicores were still decently new, I thought those were the amount of cores in each. Eventually it made sense and the starting number was the generation so you know how new your product was. I think truly companies change it up every so often so that the average customer doesn’t know what they are buying so that they spend more. If you know you only need a certain product, you are going to spend just as much as you set out to. Kind of the way ikea makes you go through everything in the store when you only go to buy one thing.
The fact 5 digit+suffix could tell what model it was, I think it was very simple.
And the new naming scheme will introduce its own new problems and more confusion.
I mean what is ultra about i5 and i7?
shouldn't be that Xtreme i9 equivalent?
And there will be more of those it has i7! (But 4700k) Type of situation.
For average consumer it will be a nightmare to even get through a video explaining something like that.
I sell computers for a living and I can tell you that 95% or greater of customers know the names i3, i5, and i7. They have had either home computers or a work laptop where they stared at the badge every day. It's really easy to explain the tiers and they understand immediately. Intel is just stupid to try to mess with such well established branding. I foresee this lasting 2 years at most and then they will return to the "Core i" branding with a new numbering scheme.
Core 5 and 7 is confusing with Core Ultra 5 and 7.
Why not just do, Core, Core 3, Core 5, Core 7, Core 9 and Core 11?
Different chips made for different things dont line up in a straight path. Like a Core 7 might have more threads in total that the Core 5 Ultra, but the Core 5 Ultra has more AI processing units despite the lower total.¹
Or just call the AI chips "Intel AI" and add the release year of the chip at the end, so people get some idea how old it is. "Intel AI 2024, Intel Gaming 2024, Intel Workstation 2024" or whatever. That way anyone can understand what the chip is for and how old it is. Car manufacturers brand their cars by the release year, so why do PC component manufacturers insist on some arbitrary numbering scheme?
Core 42
@@MidWitPride I think the removing of generations is partially to help OEMs shift old stock without people realising its a year or more out of date.
That's because Core 5 Ultra is the same as a Core 5, but with an NPU attached to it - which will mostly be used in optimising machine learning tasks. A core 7 will still have better traditional performance than a core 5 ultra.
And even then, the branding names are pretty much useless. It's best to glance at the CPU spec sheet and see how many performance/efficiency/ultra efficiency cores they have. Clock speed isn't that important for most laptops since the cooling will be the limiting factor, not the factory speed cap. For example, a 7th gen i7 U series processor only had 2 cores with hyperthreading, which is lower than even my old i5 2450M laptop.
Goal is simplicity, so they drop the i, drop 1 digit in series and one in sku, but also add a whole new word to the brand. In total, drop 3 digits, add a 5-letter word
Intel should have used a 'Core 1' naming too. Then they could have split the 2 classes with the 'Core 5'
or even Core 2. They could call the four-core a 'Core 2 Quad'
@@nadca2 And then, the next generation, they could release new "1st generation Core" processors, because what does "1st generation" even really mean, anyway?
Nobody knows what it means, that's why it's provocative @@nathangamble125
As a hard engineering user of Intel processors, I think the core vs ultra designations may help for me. I don't game with my desktop or laptop but doing 3D chemical and power plant modeling, I need the horsepower to grind through some of my flow modeling work. Not uncommon for the model to grind through 10,000 to 15,000 trial and error cycles to home in on the solutions. I need modest video graphics, but usually more than the integrated graphics, but LOTS of horsepower and good clock speed to grind through to the answer. I will keep an eye out to this change.
AMD doesn't exactly have the naming scheme figured out... But it certainly makes more sense than whatever word salad intel is trying to push.
Ryzen 5 3600X vs intel pro plus ultra Maximus ultima underworld Yota total World unlimited core processor (is a pentium)
Ryzen naming scheme is just copied from Intel so they can compete on the same terms. They just replaced "i" with "Ryzen". They even made it weirder with X3D lately.
@@codyrap95X3D is just an indicator for the cache
@@codyrap95x3d makes sense. So basically ultras are intel version of x3ds since they are more critically acclaimed 🤯
AMD's is equally, if not more horrible than Intel's. They have repackaged older CPUs as new on the laptop side (example: 7520U is a Zen 2 part, 7540U is a Zen 4 part), then the CPUs with integrated graphics are actually laptop parts with less cache than the desktop parts of the same name (see 8700G, 5700G, etc.), and now they are selling those same CPUs without graphics with nearly the same name as the superior versions (see 5700 vs. 5700X). While Intel's naming is silly and confusing, they aren't trying to fool you.
they could have just told stores to put a poster explaining the naming scheme instead of doing this
The suffix of h vs u is super scummy. Those models are sooooo different between eachother and the only difference is the last freaking letter
I wonder why the I7 without ultra couldn't be intended for gaming. This is so confusing.. I understood the previous system perfectly and ordinary consumers were satisfied with the information - the newer the generation, the better.
It would be nice if the there was a comparison chart for those people who understood the old naming and don't get the new.
the solution to tech literates is always passmark/cpubenchmark with hard core counts and performance
The fact the Celeron line had a longer lifespan than a CPU that actually has a use case is more surprising than those Intel CPUs with the AMD VEGA iGPUs.
Even more confusing plus it seems like it’s almost impossible to tell when the chip was made now
It is still confusing. In fact, it is even more confusing now.
Interesting shift in branding by Intel. I was definitely one of those confused by their old codes. Still seems a bit complicated though. Looking forward to more clear intel on this.
This is adding to the complication. I see where they are going but they go off road on their own path immediately. For example, why do we need a separate "processor" segment, would these not fit in the Core 3 designation? Also what makes a chip good for gamers and creators? What is the difference between an Core and Core Ultra other than maybe a tax for the Ultra name.
Ah yes
The old "competition gets too good, so we change our naming scheme to make it more conplicated for the average customer to compare equal products" move
I stopped track AMD Laptop CPUs after they started the "letter wheel" they created, all the 7520U \ 7540U \ 7730U etc, IDK what the difference between them without checking a spec table.
Now Intel doing the same. it's so confusing.
The 3rd letter (architecture) is the most important one.
7520U sucks (it's basically a 5300U with a newer but weaker iGPU, and only single-channel DDR or dual-channel LPDDR RAM).
@@nathangamble125the fact that what you wrote inside the parenthesis is longer than your actual comment proves OP right. I tried to figure out AMD's branding for a PC I was building for the first time in years and I simply gave up and went with what I understood: Intel. Guess Intel is trying to return AMD the favor with this rebranding.
@@ShaferHartamds branding for desktop cpus are literally the same as intel rn what are you talking about
@@ShaferHartI'm gonna be real, that's an intelligence problem not an AMD problem. Or some mad Intel copium.
The first number is the generation (like Intel), the second number is the series number (like Intel), and the third number is the sub-series (like Intel).
So, you literally have the same style of naming convention between the two companies, you even said you understand Intel, yet you explicitly admit to not being able to figure it out. Ooof.
I don't know at all AMD naming schemes... and I'm in the enthusiast segment, but I don't know at the moment how their naming scheme is working... I haven't been with AMD for a very long time. Now Intel also wants to confuse us. Thankfully I don't upgrade CPUs very often, so by the time I have to upgrade I'll learn the new Intel scheme. But for me there is nothing confusing at the moment. I go for the non K CPUs (because I don't overclock) . I also don't buy their F series, because I prefer to have iGPU for a few bucks it's always helpful, because initial testing of my system is easier without discrete GPU. Also I usually use my old PCs for other purposes and just sell the old discrete GPUs, but not the whole system.
Much more confusing than the old scheme. Feels like a way to try and sneak in bad SKUs
I don't think I've ever seen a tech quickie video this early!
I easily understood the system for example, i5 12000k, now what gen is it? It was easy to tell what performance your getting with the old system
The only confusing thing is when you change branding. There were Pentium. Then, they wanted to sell a cheaper variant they called Celeron. Then some guru thought that Core would be a good name.
Don't forget the Intel Processor processor.
😀@@LupusYonderboy
@@LupusYonderboy What manufacturing process does the Intel Processor processor use?
I can't wait to hear "the new Intel Processor, Core 3, Core 5, and Core 7 processors with up to 24 cores made on our latest Intel 3 process".
With Pentium branding they confused people who haven't upgrade for a long time, into thinking Pentium is actually good... today's Pentiums are not even Celerons of the old days. Maybe Core i3 might be considered "a Celeron" , but not these lower ones.... today's Pentiums and Celerons are just waste of money.
Before that there was 286, then 386, then 486, but rather than 586 we get Pentium (still indicating 5, though, so ok), then Pentium 2 rather than going with a 6....
Total BS! What they want to be able to do is to let HP (and others) continue selling 12th generation Intel CPUs in the computers (like they are doing today) - and not have the customer find out that they are buying two year old technology.
Just think about how much more flexibility they will have by causing a division of naming schemes
I work retail, the only thing customer cares about is - is this laptop fast enough to do my stuff - while paying peanuts.
I have never seen 1930s movie filters cause seizures, but...
here we are.
So far, it's better than USB-IF naming conventions. Then again, anything can be better named than what USB-IF names.
Generation is probably the most important part of the cpu. Idk why they’re saying it’s not important.
It definitely is, but you know it's also more complicated than just year and an i9 is good for a bit.
Probably because "the i9 14th gen is hardly any better than the i9 13th gen"
@@LittleMopeHeadthis, I think we're coming up on the theoretical limit on how small we can make transistors and they're trying to side step the issue of diminishing performance on newer processors
That way they are probably pack old generation CPUs and sell them as new... but if Intel does that... if there is no way to know what generation is their CPU... I'll say Goodbye to Intel. My current CPU is i5 10600 and there is nothing confusing about it's naming.... but I can't imagine a box with the name Intel 5, without stating the generation...
If they wanted to make it simple they would put in name of the series, number of cores and performance in teraflops (or whatever) per core or for whole processor. This way it would be actually EASY for everyone to compare 2 processors.
But no, the goal is to make it as hard as possible for casuals and mildly inconvenience others. You will still need to look at benchmarks to compare "CORE 9 420X to ULTRA 5 6969" to find out best performance per dollar spent
seems to be overcomplicated now
How will consumers know which processor is the "newest one on the market"? With no generational information, it sounds like a way to scam consumers into buying older chipsets.
If only Intel made decently priced processor's that didnt run as hot as lava instead of renaming their processors to something more confusing
It would be a lot cleaner if they ditched the "Core". Intel Core Ultra 9 185H is just way to long. Intel Ultra 9 185H is a lot more readable.
I like that you realized "hey this two seconds of old timey film effect that is not important at all to the story might give people seizures" and the solution was to put a warning instead of just removing the effect 😂
They are making it more complicated...
I just find it interesting that the "Pentium" branding was used for so long. When I hear that name, I think of the "Pentium 1" from the early 90's. Going with "Intel Processor" is a bad name ... if it is going to represent the "entry" level CPU from Intel, then why not "Intel Baseline CPU" or "Intel Entry-Level".
Overall, I am happy to read that Intel is keeping the "generation" number in ther part number.
Nothing's stopping from calling it the Intel Core i7 15700k
This is even harder than the last one
I'm not sure if "Core Processor" would be a good brand name since in practice it would either mean literally a processor or the brand name Processor. The old naming scheme wasn't all that much better with how many special suffixes they had and all the different tiers, but at least it was somewhat consistent. It doesn't help that they also have a lot of SKUs. Now it's hard for the average buyer to tell if they're getting a noticeable upgrade from their existing hardware.
Not a word aboul the "Lake" nomenclature? Why assume more information? The scheme seems to be made up to obfuscate (the generation). Parallel "Core" and "Ultra Core" seems worse than just i3, i5 for productivity and general use and i7, i9 for more demanding applications.
The packaging of either the CPU or of pre-built systems don't use the Lake nomenclature. The actual generation information is pretty clear (though the number of digits after the generation isn't always constant, probably unlikely to confuse a 1st generation core chip with an 11th or 12th.
Apple’s Ms series chips so much better. M3, M3 Pro, M3 Max, M3 Ultra. No need to add the binned or clock speed to the naming.
What does m stand for?
It's been dead for awhile now the model numbers have been basically meanless for "generations"
Suggestion: WiMax vs. 4G & 5G internet. And how Sprint killed off WiMax.
Is this paid content ?!
Thanks for Clarifiying the issue..... :-)
I want to know things that other people don't know
No they did it with the sole intention of obfuscating which products are older generation
Straight from Intel’s Specifications pages:
Intel® Core™ i9-13900H Processor 24M Cache, up to 5.40 GHz
vs
Intel® Core™ Ultra 9 processor 185H 24M Cache, up to 5.10 GHz
**NOW idk about you guys, but substituting the letter ‘i’ for the word ‘ultra’, and going from an established 5 digits to 3 digits where intel themselves don’t know what the third number stands for seems like straight f#&kery to confuse the best of us boys.
If it is not broken don't fix it! Why intel doesn't stick to this very basic principle
One more reason to stick to the Red Brand
I understood the old system
I do not understand the new system, they found a way to make it 3 times as complex
just explaining ultra vs non ultra, and telling someone intel “processor” -THEY ARE ALL PROCESSORS!
same mentality as retroactively renaming standards in USB or HDMIs scam-encouraging system
5:04 Ultra 5 has more cores than Ultra 7?
So now a 5 is better than a 7?
What?
How's is that easier to understand?
When sellers confuse me I don't buy what they're selling.
I put off upgrading my pc for years because I mistakenly thought I would have to reinstall windows and all my software. They need to make it clear that we can just uninstall the motherboard drivers, swap the board and CPU for the new upgraded board and CPU, install the drivers and carry on as before.
I would for sure have spent more money with Intel had I known this, because I would have upgraded more often.
Intel, make it clear we can upgrade without losing all our software.
Intel, will there be a simple performance line with each of the CPUs having their own stripe along the main long line?
For example i3 might be from 25 to 50, it from 40 to 65, i7 from 50 to 75, i9 from 70 to 100. Then Ultra could be on a parallel line, or the original line but maybe on the other side of it, and have more powerful colour, some overlap to the next CPU SKU.
What do you think?
Their naming was always complicated. 486 had turbo button, and PENTium arrived with 90 Mhz, not 50 or 5 GHz at once. But core changed it all with Duo. it would be funny if they decide to it just because AMD made their CPU naming quite similar just recently.
They listening to Oem not the consumers 😢
The best way to compare the cpus is simple , stick in part number followed by" passmark " into search engine , check single thread and multicore thread performance , bigger is almost defo better :)
I don't get. How you could recognize the problem. Then come up with a solution that does✨ nothing✨
Seriously … why not a simple branding ?
YYQBB
YY is the process release year.
Q is the processor class (9,7,5,3,1) and BB the feature…
(Yeah the 1 are for pentium / celeron)