Intel, it's time to step away from the i's

[ReignQuake]

I just upgraded to a new laptop to replace my dead horrible detachable tablet-laptop thing. It had a Z3735F quad core Atom. I forgot to check in detail, now I have a laptop sitting here with an i5 7200u which is 2c4t.

It is my fault but still, it could've been made so much clearer in the product name or segment. Even knowledgable people make mistakes or fall in love with the wrong device.

 

[LTC8K6]

I just upgraded to a new laptop to replace my dead horrible detachable tablet-laptop thing. It had a Z3735F quad core Atom. I forgot to check in detail, now I have a laptop sitting here with an i5 7200u which is 2c4t.

It is my fault but still, it could've been made so much clearer in the product name or segment. Even knowledgable people make mistakes or fall in love with the wrong device.

The mobile i5 chips have Turbo boost, which should make them keep their distance from the mobile i3 chips.

There are currently no 4 core Kabylake mobile chips available, anyway.

The 7200u will run rings around that Atom chip, anyway.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I just upgraded to a new laptop to replace my dead horrible detachable tablet-laptop thing. It had a Z3735F quad core Atom. I forgot to check in detail, now I have a laptop sitting here with an i5 7200u which is 2c4t.

It is my fault but still, it could've been made so much clearer in the product name or segment. Even knowledgable people make mistakes or fall in love with the wrong device.

7200U is way faster than the old Atom.

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/1182721?baseline=1182295

More than 3x multi and single core performance of your old Atom. Don't worry about it being "only" a dual core.

 

[Doom2pro]

Call Donald Trump, let him do the new marketing... Intel Core Bigly 2016k, Intel Core Yuge 2020k, Intel Core Yuger 2024k. Those AMD CPUs are corrupt and crooked, even if they aren't, can you trust a shady company like AMD?

Actually no, don't do that, just forget it. Really bad idea. Forget I even mentioned it.

 

[cytg111]

Yea, i7 - dual core... what the ah heck is up with that.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yea, i7 - dual core... what the ah heck is up with that.

You say that as if it's something new. It's been the case all the way back to the i7's beginnings. There have always been mobile i7 chips with 2 cores.

 

[PingSpike]

It had a Z3735F quad core Atom.

Speaking of poor product naming. Those Atom names are so bad they make me just want to avoid the product rather than trying to decipher the mess.

 

[bystander36]

You say that as if it's something new. It's been the case all the way back to the i7's beginnings. There have always been mobile i7 chips with 2 cores.

New or not, it should never have happened. This thread wouldn't exist had they stayed consistent with what an i7 was.

 

[Arachnotronic]

New or not, it should never have happened. This thread wouldn't exist had they stayed consistent with what an i7 was.

It is consistent. Within any given market, i3 = good, i5 = better, and i7 = best. It's not about core counts.

 

[Denithor]

...except in the case of the i5 6xx series. i5 dual-core desktop chips. Go figure that mess out.

 

[LTC8K6]

New or not, it should never have happened. This thread wouldn't exist had they stayed consistent with what an i7 was.

I just told you that they have stayed consistent...

Certainly there have been exceptions, but for the most part, they have been consistent as far as I can tell.

 

[HurleyBird]

Consistent or not, good, better, best is far too relative. Differentiating by cores, hyper threading, etc. conveys actually useful information to the consumer. Ideally the naming convention would be able to effectively communicate both performance and efficiency instead of combining the two in a convoluted fashion that only serves to confuse consumers, probably by design.

 

[LTC8K6]

Consistent or not, good, better, best is far too relative. Differentiating by cores, hyper threading, etc. conveys actually useful information to the consumer. Ideally the naming convention would be able to effectively communicate both performance and efficiency instead of combining the two in a convoluted fashion that only serves to confuse consumers, probably by design.

Not sure why Intel should be held to a different standard.

 

[HurleyBird]

Where did I say they should be held to a different standard? Don't straw man me.

 

[John Carmack]

It is consistent. Within any given market, i3 = good, i5 = better, and i7 = best. It's not about core counts.

Why do you keep saying this when they just renamed Core M chips to i5 and i7?

 

[jpiniero]

Why do you keep saying this when they just renamed Core M chips to i5 and i7?

They used m3/m5/m7 for Skylake but (IIRC) OEMs asked Intel to use i5/i7 with Kaby.

 

[LTC8K6]

Where did I say they should be held to a different standard? Don't straw man me.

In my opinion, you are holding Intel to a different standard.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why do you keep saying this when they just renamed Core M chips to i5 and i7?

If you want to complain about renaming/relabeling, you should look over there at the GPU manufacturers.

 

[bystander36]

In my opinion, you are holding Intel to a different standard.

Who cares what others do. That does not change that this is confusing to a lot of people.

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right".

 

[LTC8K6]

Who cares what others do. That does not change that this is confusing to a lot of people.

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "two wrongs don't make a right".

Well, it's never been confusing to me, so I really don't even agree with the premise.

I think it's confusing to some people, and I think that doesn't matter.