Not unique to CPU's obviously but does anyone else get maybe slightly irrationally annoyed at the tech companies whipping through their numbered naming schemes so quickly?
For example circa 7 years ago we had the '1000' AMD set of CPU's.... fine a whole new architecture so a complete break from the past naming schemes was in order.
Then the 2000 and 3000 series came along and they mostly justified their numbering schemes AMD didn't even try to have us over with the 'XT' CPU's which stayed in the 3000 series .
But then there was the 4000 series and now the 8000 series that are just rehashes of existing CPU's with slightly more capable integrated GPU's on them.
AMD completely missed out launching a 6000 desktop set of CPU's and so now the next release of desktop CPU's will be the '9000' series, maybe only half way through AM5's life cycle of CPU's.
Obviously Intel are no better having enagaged multiple times in offering for sale to the public almost the exact same CPU's, architecture wise, based on the same processing node in successive 'generations' of chips.
For example circa 7 years ago we had the '1000' AMD set of CPU's.... fine a whole new architecture so a complete break from the past naming schemes was in order.
Then the 2000 and 3000 series came along and they mostly justified their numbering schemes AMD didn't even try to have us over with the 'XT' CPU's which stayed in the 3000 series .
But then there was the 4000 series and now the 8000 series that are just rehashes of existing CPU's with slightly more capable integrated GPU's on them.
AMD completely missed out launching a 6000 desktop set of CPU's and so now the next release of desktop CPU's will be the '9000' series, maybe only half way through AM5's life cycle of CPU's.
Obviously Intel are no better having enagaged multiple times in offering for sale to the public almost the exact same CPU's, architecture wise, based on the same processing node in successive 'generations' of chips.
Last edited:
