Intel Marketing Tries to Bash AMD Marketing

Lmfao, yes, and they both suck fat ass. Both are an inexcusable, incomprensible mess, even for tech nerds. it becomes even worse when they try to give it “normal” names like raptor lake and whatever AMD calls their stuff.

The best is Apple silicon:
M1. And that’s it. lol. M stands for Mac, and the number is the generation of chip. Pro Max etc etc for qualifiers, and no mention of what features they have or nm process they are built on or whatever. No dumb ass marketing names that aren’t cool to begin with and only make it worse. Intel is a stupid hypocrite, clearly. AMD sucks as well. considering their own damn products are the chips themselves, you’d think they’d do a better job of communicating which chip is what and not having so many of them, and thus can make actual generational improvements that are worth mentioning. I can’t even tell what‘s a laptop chip vs what isn’t, what has a specific feature and what doesn’t. I am lucky if I find it out by wasting an exorbitant amount of time Googling for it.
 
Last edited:
My god the thick and luxurious hair representation photo for that video... As an extremely receding hairline person and holding onto my hair as long as possible, I am extremely jealous. I am now singing songs from Hair the musical... Regretfully showing my age.
 
somerandomusername said:
Lmfao, yes, and they both suck fat ass. Both are an inexcusable, incomprensible mess, even for tech nerds. it becomes even worse when they try to give it “normal” names like raptor lake and whatever AMD calls their stuff.
Click to expand...

True story. After Athlon, when we were working on what we, internally, called K8, my boss put out word to the design team that he was looking for suggested codenames for the first iterations. For a little while, the leading candidate was from a guy who suggested we name the K8 variations after famous Kates. (Get it? K8. Kate.)

His suggestion was “Mulgrew.”

And that’s how AMD decides what to call their stuff :-)
 
KingOfPain said:
Intel's marketing team tries to bash AMDs marketing and they don't even get that "the latest isn't the latest" could very well apply to their 14th generation.

arstechnica.com

Intel, of all companies, knocks AMD’s CPU numbering in now-deleted presentation

When it comes to recycling and rebranding old chips, no one’s hands are clean.
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com

Click to expand...

Liked the article. Good video, but, contrary to one of Steve’s final points, this has been Intel’s composure for awhile. Over the last decade, being caught and the surpassed by AMD and Apple in CPU design (never mind even before that missing the mobile market almost completely thanks to Apple, ARM, Qualcomm, and reportedly their own laziness), caught and surpassed by Nvidia in AI and scientific workloads (with their own GPU efforts floundering so far), and caught and surpassed by TSMC in fabrication has not been kind to their psyche.
 
Last edited:
Cmaier said:
True story. After Athlon, when we were working on what we, internally, called K8, my boss put out word to the design team that he was looking for suggested codenames for the first iterations. For a little while, the leading candidate was from a guy who suggested we name the K8 variations after famous Kates. (Get it? K8. Kate.)
His suggestion was “Mulgrew.”
Click to expand...

I guess Star Trek Voyager must have been on TV at that time.
 
somerandomusername said:
The best is Apple silicon:
M1. And that’s it.
Click to expand...

If I have one beef with the Apple CPU naming scheme, then it's that the "basic" CPU is just Mx.
I especially noticed that when I made a chart comparing all the CPUs and trying to talk about it...
There has been some changes in the Pro and Max chips, but the "basic ones" kept the 4+4 configuration.
 
Some of the industry's confusing naming is just really badly-designed nomenclature. But some is deliberate, meant to mislead consumers into thinking they're getting something they're not.

A clear is example of the latter is NVIDIA's decision to drop the distinguishing "M" they used to include in the names of their mobile GPU's. Thus, for instance, both the desktop and laptop 4080's are RTX 4080, instead of RTX 4080 & RTX 4080M. They do this because they want uninformed laptop buyers to think they're getting the same GPU power offered by their famous desktop devices.
 
Last edited:
theorist9 said:
Some of the industry's confusing naming is just really badly-designed nomenclature. But some is deliberate, meant to mislead consumers into thinking they're getting something they're not.

A clear is example of the latter is NVIDIA's decision to drop the distinguishing "M" they used to include in the names of their mobile GPU's. Thus, for instance, both the desktop and laptop 4080's are RTX 4080, instead of RTX 4080 & RTX 4080M. They do this because they want uninformed laptop buyers to think they're getting the same GPU power offered by their famous desktop devices.
Click to expand...
Long history of this. Remember when all the Intel clones would use model numbers intended to look like MHz numbers that the processors didn’t actually reach.
 
Cmaier said:
Long history of this. Remember when all the Intel clones would use model numbers intended to look like MHz numbers that the processors didn’t actually reach.
Click to expand...
I've noticed that large companies like Intel tend to have multiple personalities when it comes to this stuff--there are areas where they are particularly sleazy, and areas in which they are more honest than everyone else (we see that with Apple as well). I suppose that's simply because there are some areas the marketers didn't manange to get their greasy hands on.

An interesting example of the latter for Intel are the bandwidth specs for their TB standards. Most others—including USB-IF, SATA-IO, VESA (Display Port), and the HDMI Forum—quote the inflated pre-encoding bandwidths (i.e., they include the dummy bits used to offset DC bias), while Intel's specs don't include the encoding overhead. [Yes, Intel is part of some of those organizations as well.]

OTOH, Intel is quite sleazy in other ways. It flagrantly practices age discrimination in its hiring, by limiting nearly all technical postions to those having gotten their PhD within the last three years. It's a blatant way to get around the law.
 
KingOfPain said:
If I have one beef with the Apple CPU naming scheme, then it's that the "basic" CPU is just Mx.
I especially noticed that when I made a chart comparing all the CPUs and trying to talk about it...
There has been some changes in the Pro and Max chips, but the "basic ones" kept the 4+4 configuration.
Click to expand...
Part of that is based on The Gospel According to Steve. In the mid '90s, you could buy a 7200, a 7250, a 7300, a 7500, all nearly the exact same model with subtle differences. St. Steve railed against the sin of dilution, reined in the vast herd of Machorns and culled the stragglers down to a milk cow, a bull and three calves. Anyone who tries to run afoul of this part of scripture is consigned to the dark cellar of the nerdestary to code NSObjects by hand with nothing but a quill and a razor for drawing their own blood in which to scribe the code.
 
Back
Top