By: James (no.delete@this.thanks.invalid), July 29, 2021 2:52 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Blue (Blue.delete@this.blue.com) on July 27, 2021 9:15 am wrote:
> Just wish Intel has gone right to “xxA” naming.
I can't help thinking that "Intel 7", "Intel 4" and "Intel 3" are unambiguous (or are ambiguous in a good way for Intel). But "20" was always going to be confused with 20 nm, so they did the old Intel trick of adding an "A" to the end, like with the Celeron 300 and 300A¹. Then someone asked what the "A" in "20A" meant, and someone else was rather too creative with their explanations...
> Or done naming off of some density formula to avoid inevitably
> changing naming convention as we approach zero.
Intel marketing has rarely managed to stick to a naming convention for more than ten years: why start now? We're due for a change to the Core in branding: anyone care to guess how they're going to brand their hybrid chips?
¹ The Celeron 300 had no L2 cache; the 300A had 128K of on-die L2 cache.
> Just wish Intel has gone right to “xxA” naming.
I can't help thinking that "Intel 7", "Intel 4" and "Intel 3" are unambiguous (or are ambiguous in a good way for Intel). But "20" was always going to be confused with 20 nm, so they did the old Intel trick of adding an "A" to the end, like with the Celeron 300 and 300A¹. Then someone asked what the "A" in "20A" meant, and someone else was rather too creative with their explanations...
> Or done naming off of some density formula to avoid inevitably
> changing naming convention as we approach zero.
Intel marketing has rarely managed to stick to a naming convention for more than ten years: why start now? We're due for a change to the Core in branding: anyone care to guess how they're going to brand their hybrid chips?
¹ The Celeron 300 had no L2 cache; the 300A had 128K of on-die L2 cache.
