A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Intel says the rebranding “better aligns to customer requests” to simplify its processor names
But it doesn't simplify the processor name!? Instead of i5, we now have to say "core 5" or "intel core 5".
Even worse ... we have to specify between "Core 5" and "Core Ultra 5"
"I'd like to order the newest chip you got. The Beyond Plus Ultra Core Ultra 5+ Supreme Deluxe. No, I will not accept the Beyond Plus Ultra Core Ultra 5 Supreme Deluxe. That is last gen garbage from last week."
Dang it. It's even worse.
I have a feeling everyone's going to end up calling them i9s anyways
Probably. The "core" name is too close to the old "Core2Duo/Quad" names anyway.
They're probably not too worried about people getting them mixed up with 15 year old CPUs
They don't seem to understand where the customer confusion comes from. A lot of people out there don't really realize that a Core i7 could mean very different things because that name has been slapped on new CPUs for...15 years. They delineate product generations as part of a model number (2600k, 6700k, etc). There is so much ambiguity when someone just says their computer has a Core i7, non tech-savvy folk aren't going to remember the string of numbers that comes after that.
AMD copied them, and that probably leads to similar confusion.
Apple seems to be the smart one in the room when it comes to CPU naming. The generation of the product is right there in the first part of it's name: M1, M2, etc. The performance class is suffixed (no suffix, Pro, Max, Ultra).
Before it was Intel Core i5 so it's simpler than the old name
Well officially yes, but I don't know anyone that consistently called it "Intel Core i5" instead of just "i5". And I don't see that happening with just "5".
"Which processor do you have?"
"5"
said nobody ever
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. "i5" as an answer would've made sense, but "5" doesn't
I get it - I was just emphasizing it :P
Was there really a problem with the naming? I don't see why they'd change it given they've spent a long time building the brand.
Ha okay. I wasn't quite sure whether you're emphasizing or did misunderstood me.
Honestly I have no idea what the issue was with the old naming scheme. Didn't they just recently introduce an i9? Why not continue with an i11 etc instead of this Ultra nonsense.
They should hire you.
“intel core 9 ultra” sounds like something apple would name
Let's just have Microsofts Xbox division name then.
You forgot
which is different from
Don’t forget
Which is their best one.
And then you’d have the following processors be called the Intel Core 360, followed by the Intel Core 1
So what's faster? A Core 7 or a Core Ultra 5?
Ryzen
Drug dealer character Stringer Bell in 'The Wire' had a good scene where he talked about the business strategy of repackaging and renaming something when you are unable to raise the quality of a product. Just rename it and customers think it's better.
Does that mean AMD is Marlo?
I think you're onto something there
Intel marketing seems to be going all in on using generic names to trick people into buying lower end parts. They changed the marketing of Celeron/Pentium to the most generic "Intel processor" line up. Now when you specify to make sure you buy an "ultra" chip it's easy for the layman to buy the lowest end chip out of ignorance.
Man, I guess I'm at least middle age now. I remember thinking my first custom build's processor was definitely gonna have to be one of these brand new badass i7s.
My first PC, custom built, was an Intel 486DX4 100Mhz. 4MB RAM and a 800MB HD. Paid in a currency that doesn't exist anymore.
Trust? That seems like a currency that doesn't exist anymore
Man, I was a teenager, reading the PC magazine ads, wishing I had the money to build a system like this!
Nice, Intensive Care Unit 5, I cannot wait.
My computer has an Intel i7 930 (pre 2010) and a 3xxx series Nvidia GPU, ask me anything.
I get about 20 FPS in Elden Ring. I can run Stable Diffusion fine though.
Wow, and also why?
I mean, why not? If you're not necessarily a gamer or need computing power for dev stuff, why buy the latest and greatest?
In the end, buying new hardware every other release is also just consumerism. The performance of a modern day mid range CPU is absolutely overkill for everyday use
I can't argue with that. It's not power efficient, but it doesn't matter much if it's not running 24/7.
I've upgraded pretty much everything on this PC since I built it in 2010. Upgrading the CPU means getting a new motherboard and rebuilding everything. Basically it's the last thing that isn't easy to upgrade.
I don't play too many super graphically demanding games, it wasn't until Elden Ring that the CPU bottlenecked the graphics. For context, I played Shadow of War and the the new GPU gave me better graphics and fps. Cyberpunk ran like shit but I got it on sale and wasn't expecting anything really. Modded Minecraft and Cities Skylines had some problems as well but that's only the CPU's fault. For whatever reason Elden Ring is the first one for the CPU to bottleneck the GPU I guess.
I have stuff in a PC parts picker list but I'm just lazy lol. I'm playing through Tears of the Kingdom on my switch right now anyways and occasionally playing Loop Hero on my PC so upgrading isn't urgent.
It's mostly that I don't want to build a new PC or pay someone to do it.
Just being able to run those games on that CPU at all is impressive. I assumed you would run into a lot of driver issues. You need to see how long it will keep going.
The biggest problem I've been running into is MBR versus GPT hard drive stuff. A botched windows update made me need to restore from an image. The windows image wasn't working but had the underlying VHD files. I tried to restore them but they're in GPT format instead of MBR. It took a lot of effort but I was able to get a crazy workaround using a tool called Macrium Reflect.
Windows 11 won't run on my system because it doesn't have secure boot capabilities. To be honest that's bullshit on Windows' part. The metaphor I like to use is that it's like a car radio manufacturer saying their radio isn't compatible with your car because your car doesn't have a car alarm and then advertise that their radio is secure because it has a car alarm. (Not that I'm dying to upgrade to 11 but I heard 10 is approaching EOL.)
I couldn't help but think of this video. Can Windows 11 run on Pentium II Old PC 1998?. He ran into the same problem IIRC.
How much did it cost originally?
I didn't really know what I was doing the first time. I basically spent money I had saved up and graduation money to build it. I was fresh out of highschool. For example, I have a Rampage 3 Extreme motherboard because I thought I might need the 4 PCIE slots lmao.
So they remove the i, but add 'Ultra' for high performance CPUs. 🤦🏻♂️
Seems strangely derivative…