Cheeky Intel naming scheme incoming

[mr_yogi]

Don't most motherboards (ASUS, Gigabyte, etc.) just bump up all four cores to the max anyway these days by default? I'm sure I read an article/ review on TechReport about it.

 

[valkynaz]

It's not anywhere near as bad as trying to figure out the performance and naming scheme of the mobile chips. I gave up trying to figure out the netbook market.

It isn't that hard to understand really, it has a suffix system just like desktop processors:

SandyBridge:
M - Mobile processors
XM - Unlocked
QM - Quad-core
E - Embedded mobile processors
QE - Quad-core
LE - Performance-optimized
UE - Power-optimized

IvyBride:
M - Mobile processor
Q - Quad-core
U - Ultra-low power
X - 'Extreme'

 

[gurusan]

It isn't that hard to understand really, it has a suffix system just like desktop processors:

SandyBridge:
M - Mobile processors
XM - Unlocked
QM - Quad-core
E - Embedded mobile processors
QE - Quad-core
LE - Performance-optimized
UE - Power-optimized

IvyBride:
M - Mobile processor
Q - Quad-core
U - Ultra-low power
X - 'Extreme'

The number of suffixes is huge though, on desktop chips there is either no suffix, a T, a K or extreme.

 

[MichaelM]

It isn't that hard to understand really, it has a suffix system just like desktop processors:

SandyBridge:
M - Mobile processors
XM - Unlocked
QM - Quad-core
E - Embedded mobile processors
QE - Quad-core
LE - Performance-optimized
UE - Power-optimized

IvyBride:
M - Mobile processor
Q - Quad-core
U - Ultra-low power
X - 'Extreme'

So if you are looking at a list like this:
I7-2.6GHz
I7-3250M
I7-3517U
I7-3615QM
I7-3667U

The 3615QM is the clear performance leader even though the 3667U's turbo is only 100MHz less? Also why does the 3667U have a higher number and cost more if it's slower with 2mb less cache?

 

[Meaker]

Because it is a binned low power consuming part.

 

[Reality|Bites]

What about the DDR naming conventions? That's been ripping off and confusing the average consumer for years lol

 

[BrianB]

Or the fictitious specs on monitors like the contrast ratios or response time

Yeah I think my monitor has 20million:1 contrast ratio, not bad eh?!

I really don't see the problem with this naming system. Normal users don't care and people with insight know that the CPU can run much faster than turbo setting. I prefer up to 3.9GHz than 3.5Ghz stock but****up to 3.9GHz****.

 

[nightmare99]

They can pretty much do what they want really, if they quote it as upto then I do not see the problem.

 

[mranderson]

Absolutely fine with me. I want to know what speed my CPU runs under load and not at default. This is not the same with broadband where 99% of users will never see the advertised speeds.

 

[kitch9]

Not too confusing really. How many people in reality buy processors now solely on MHz.

Pure MHz went out the window with IPC hence the AMD 1700+ etc running at 1466MHz and Intel using numbers and descriptions not relating to speed core2duo, E8300 and Q6600.

Anyone who is interested looks it up on the internet. Most people won't be as they buy their box fully assembled. For the thicko's it may be more difficult unless they can read.

Spend 15 minutes in PC world..... You'll find most of them do.

 

[ColEx]

I don't see it as being miss leading, Intel are just advertising the cpu's turbo speed to sale the chip instead of the static 3.5ghz?

Quite a pointless article.

 

[Helios1234]

What's the problem here? Anyone with these CPUs will know that it hardly ever operates at its stock speed. It will either spend its time idling at 1.2GHz through speed step or at its turbo speed under load i.e. 3.9GHz in this case. So Intel isn't advertising anything wrongly, their CPU will operate at anything up to 3.9GHz...

It seems like one of those sensationalist articles that tries to make a big deal about nothing to get hits.

 

[Trusty]

Makes sense from their point of view, everybody else quotes figures that are misleading. Look at car manufacturers, 60mpg, yet in the real world you only get 40mpg.