https://community.intel.com/t5/Mobile-and-Desktop-Processors/Confusing-Intel-Chip-naming-scheme/m-p/214968#M1410 <P>Why does Intel insist on such a convoluted naming scheme. I like the core idea but why have four levels of cores with overlapping capabilities. I mean will older core i7 s be on par with newer core i5's or is it going to be completely different? Why not call the core by its application like CORE u for Micro, CORE M for mobile, CORE D for desktop, and CORE S for server then put a number after for the number of cores and then another number for speed of the processor and then just sell the older chips as the low end instead of re-engineering for a non premium market. So it would look like this CORE M2.345 The higher the number the more premium the chip, the lower numbers would then sell at a discount. Just seems to make more sense to me.</P> Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:34:52 GMT idata 2009-08-24T01:34:52Z https://community.intel.com/t5/Mobile-and-Desktop-Processors/Confusing-Intel-Chip-naming-scheme/m-p/214968#M1410 <P>Why does Intel insist on such a convoluted naming scheme. I like the core idea but why have four levels of cores with overlapping capabilities. I mean will older core i7 s be on par with newer core i5's or is it going to be completely different? Why not call the core by its application like CORE u for Micro, CORE M for mobile, CORE D for desktop, and CORE S for server then put a number after for the number of cores and then another number for speed of the processor and then just sell the older chips as the low end instead of re-engineering for a non premium market. So it would look like this CORE M2.345 The higher the number the more premium the chip, the lower numbers would then sell at a discount. Just seems to make more sense to me.</P> Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:34:52 GMT https://community.intel.com/t5/Mobile-and-Desktop-Processors/Confusing-Intel-Chip-naming-scheme/m-p/214968#M1410 idata 2009-08-24T01:34:52Z