Comments on: Intel spells out Core i3, i5, i7 branding

The branding gets simplified into entry-level, midlevel, and high-level segments. Plus, how that fits in with the Lynnfield, Clarksfield, Arrandale, and Clarkdale processors.

[EricJM001]

I think that Intel hired away the Vista marketing people. i3 = Home Basic, i5 = Home Premium / Business, i7 = Ultimate. Within each brand modifier they will no doubt offer different speed processors. Consumers will be lulled into thinking they are getting more, when actually they get less. If you can't convince them, confuse them!

[BigGuns149]

You are pretty ignorant. Clock "speed" has NEVER been a great way to compare processor unless they are from the same processor family. Going back over a decade Intel has had processors that often had overlapping clock speeds. If you think this is new, then you really don't follow this industry in even a vague manner.

Furthermore, Intel has had similar naming schemes in the past. For example, they did E2x00 series, E4x00 series and the E6x00 series as a similar good, better, best scheme.

Honestly, I think Intel is wise to stop marketing processors by clock speed because change in architecture make such comparisons confusing. Since there is no one size fits all benchmark I don't see how Intel realistically eliminates all consumer confusion. That being said I think that their naming convention seems more decent to me. Provided that there is no overlap between the three categories in typical performance I think most customers will be able to correctly figure out the pecking order.

[EricJM001]

I'm not ignorant, you misunderstood me. In the Core 2 Duo brand they sell many different processors with different speeds and different L2 cache sizes. From a real-world perspective there is almost no difference between a 3.0GHz and a 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo. But they sell both chips, and a 3.33GHz one too. There are too many variations, and consumers think that the differences are substantial, even though they are not. The Core i3, i5, and i7 will add a new layer to the confusion. First you must pick a Core level (3, 5 or 7) then pick a clock frequency.

[Aaron Kempf]

I agree-- these jerks should go back to a single number which relates to processor speed. Everything else is hogwash.

[basshawg]

Consumers are stupid. Spend 5 minuites on the web and do the appropiate research before you make a purchase.

[Mr. Dee]

It makes sense, but I still feel like it can confuse you.

[warpsix]

No matter how you polish a Turd it is still a Turd same with a Celeron it is still crap, maybe a new name will make it better? don't think so.

[ddesy]

The current Celerons actually aren't half bad. You should try using one for something that doesn't require massive amounts of computing power!

[georgetang]

I just don't understand what's wrong with Intel... Ever since they hired that Samsung guy, the logo changed, and then the naming rule changed...

What the heck?

Why making it so complicated?

Keep it simple STUPID!

They should have:
- platform branding, such as Centrino for Laptop
- processor branding with frequency and that's it, such as Core 2 Duo 2.53, Core 2 Quad 3.06
- lastly a consistent rule...

[pithenumber]

Clock Speed doesn't tell you the speed of a processor

[ddesy]

Calder thinks the current Core lineup is "mind boggling?" Sheesh!

It seems pretty simple to me. Core 2 Duo = dual core, Core 2 Quad = quad core! How does it get any simpler?

[ikramerica--2008]

Because of the 2.

It's not clear to many that "Core 2" is a brand.

Not that i3, i5 and i7 are that much clearer, but these kind of naming techniques work for Mercedes, Lexus, IBM and Infinity (and didn't work for the former Pontiac), so why not for Intel?

Of course, calling one chip an i5 and another and i7 even though they are the same other than speed, well that is stupid.

Though I guess it helps people like Apple and Dell, when you do a configure to order system, because you can easily explain "upgrade to the Core i7 for increased performance". Since Core i7 will include mobile chips, it also allows companies to differentiate their product lines that way. For example, Apple "Pro" macbooks could have i5s standard with a CTO option for the i7s, while the base macbook has an i3s.

[bwahblah]

now, people will think that core i3 will have 3 cores, i5 with 5 cores and i7 with 7. It's just getting more and more messed up

[ikramerica--2008]

I really don't think people will think that.

If anything, Core i3 might be single core, Core i5 will be dual core, and Core i7 will be quad core, but they might screw that up, too.

[rrod182]

iNoCare

[puterhead]

I am not sure about the rest of you, but the new simple naming scheme seems more confusing than the old one. So if I am reading this right the same processor architecture will be available as an i3, i5 and i7. Then the next architecture will be available as an i3, i5 and i7. Then to make things easy for everyone the third architecture will be branded as i3, i5 and i7. So what exactly separates an i3 from an i5 or an i7? So are they single core , dual core and quad core designations? They do not seem to be tied to any one architecture so does it go by cores, cache size, clock speed, or power/watt ratings?

I am asking from the view-point of what I consider to be an average consumer going into Best-Buy, Wal-Mart or the like and seeing that pretty HP box this coming Holiday season and Intel i7 on the box. Is it really enough for the average shopper to know what they are getting? When Crysis 5 comes out in the next couple of years and the box says recommended minimum specification Core i7, does it in fact really mean the i7 based on one of the architectures that is really the high performance chip?

[dennisl59]

Leave it to the marketing morons and their less than smart internal "focus" groups to come up with stuff like this that THEY think are Brilliant so they can justify their jobs. Why not, Fast, Real Fast, and F-ing Amazin' Fast? (Cue jingle...)

[vincentyu2007]

The 3 digit model # behind is prune to confusion:
How will Core i7 575 compare with Core i3 970?
How about Core i5 760 vs Core i7 550?

Maybe they should be named the Core i 700 series, Core i 500 series, etc or even Core i 7000, Core i 5000, Core i 3000 series.

[albertsoler]

Too many choices is *not* a good thing.

Consumers have long known that. One day, an OEM will figure that out and blow the other OEMs out of the water. Then and only then will Intel follow suit.

(I can't tell you when that day will be. But, it will be many years before Microsoft figures that out! Lets see -- is it 5 or 6 versions of Windows 7 due out this fall?)

[albertsoler]

One more thing:

Brand naming issues started with viiv.

OMG! What a disaster that was! I still recall the Intel rep explicitly having to note (at a Channel Conference) that it is pronounced "Vive" (rhymes with "five") not "veeve" (rhymes with "peeve"). To this day, I still don't know what viiv was supposed to be. You don't see that anymore.

As someone commented above -- ever since that guy was hired from Samsung (was it?) to head marketing, Intel has not been able to come up with successful branding scheme.

What ever his name is, he absolutely sucks at his job!!!

[baggage1]

Wow, my core solo/celeron=i3 now?? It's in an Intel core 2 duo box on the shelf. So will my T-7200 core 2 duo 2.0 GHZ be like an i5? It all boils down to that electronics law. The one that changes everything in 2 years. Now all I have to do is figure out how to get a converter to slap this processor in a new form factor. Not gonna happen guys, planed obsolescence rules. Names and dates change to confuse John Q public period. The rate this machine keeps going I'll wait until the next generation post i7 comes out.

[troop85]

Looks simple to me.
i3 = 2 cores with 1 thread per core.

i5 = 4 cores with 1 thread per core.

i7 = 4 cores with 2 threads per core. (OS sees it as 8 cores)

i9 = 6 cores with 2 threads per core. (OS sees it as 12 cores) *will not be out till first half of 2010.*

[nevets1970-1]

I've been doing a lot of research trying to decide how to spend my money when I upgrade to the new i-series.

troop85 nailed it: although intel will not admitt to having the i9 yet.

My only problem with intel's new line is this. How many cores do you really need? They haven't had a major increase in core speed in years. Running multiple programs at one time is awesome, but how about getting them done faster? Find a way to run antivirus programs in 5 minutes instead of half an hour.

Just a thought.

[Fuzzy_Logician]

Wishful thinking " Find a way to run antivirus programs in 5 minutes instead of half an hour. "
Yes it would be nice but truth is we are addressing CPUs and not storage technology ( however dated it is )
Heck I still see RLL technology and floppy drives in tin cans being made. Erronious-machines is still alive and hasn't died a rightful death as comcrps and packardells have. No until they address the bus speeds and mechenical limitations of hard disks we won't see much of a speed increase. Sure there are some SATA Lvl 3 out now but until they can match PCIe bandwidth things will still be slow. We won't see a mechanical storage solutions touch PCIe / X range but we do hve SSD that that have 2.5GB sustain bandwidth that sistain 1.2GB/sec transber rates around 100 ~ <50µS but typical rates are ar 65-250MB/Sec. It's the controllers killing us here. I'm surprised they havent come up with the idea of Parallel Serial processors with the stack and expand to increas bandwidth and processing power. Blade servers are the closest anyone has attempted to come to that idea or course Sony and IBM Cell processors are pointing that direction but still haven't arrived for mainstream usage and they cluster servers PS3 Cells are emplyed in are proprietary and not meant for the general user running their canned iso of Uber Office MS+XL.. Even with multi-core solutions who the heck on the lover levels of software has even taken advantage of multicore / thread AV scannign munchless the full potiential of SATA serial address. I would point the finger at mobo mfg sharing the I/O controller command set between the SATA channels before I would fault the main stream CPU. Why haven't we seen AV scanne using all CPU and all Hard drives purring at Max ? Ever thought of that ? So Point well made.. hoe many cores you need ? Question is ike how well are the coders gonna use what you have ? Intel and SW companies told consumers several time that HT is meant for SW that can use it otherwise it can slow you down.So the answer looks around that the general market isn't ready for a new planet earth munchless more cores :).

[Fuzzy_Logician]

Wow look at all the gramatical and typos lol.. We the reat topic not Storage but CPU.. I think it all started back when Intel and AMD decided to change the market and go their own ways on motherboards.. that is when the real foo-bar hit users. Though I agree it takes somre reading on Intel and AMD to determine what you are looking at exactly.. I.E. Intel's HT (Hyper Thread) and (AMD's Hyper Transport)
they both have something special to offer but they don't have anythign to do with eachother at all. same with the CPU naming and some fancy toe work with RAM ( Remember the jacked up days of the RAMBUS hype ? ) BOTH sides need to sit down with IEEE and agree on standard for hardware not performance ratings for products to simplify thigns. I think the both companies have exploded and now noone really knows how to benchmark them excepts Geeks, OC and Legit reviewers, all with a universal standard measuring stick, meanwhile the poor gamers I wanna people don't know which way or what. not to mention open-ended questions by "geeks" asking will this square thing fit and work.. For one I am a little ticked that I have to keep my sys PhD up every month with new releases just to stay on top of the hype and jargon they place on these things by the MFGs. Misleading or not these names of are annoying.