this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2023
140 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37708 readers
246 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] madmaurice@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 1 year ago (14 children)

Intel says the rebranding “better aligns to customer requests” to simplify its processor names

But it doesn't simplify the processor name!? Instead of i5, we now have to say "core 5" or "intel core 5".

[–] 20dogs@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Before it was Intel Core i5 so it's simpler than the old name

[–] madmaurice@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well officially yes, but I don't know anyone that consistently called it "Intel Core i5" instead of just "i5". And I don't see that happening with just "5".

[–] dan@upvote.au 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"Which processor do you have?" "5"

said nobody ever

[–] madmaurice@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. "i5" as an answer would've made sense, but "5" doesn't

[–] dan@upvote.au 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I get it - I was just emphasizing it :P

Was there really a problem with the naming? I don't see why they'd change it given they've spent a long time building the brand.

[–] madmaurice@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 year ago

Ha okay. I wasn't quite sure whether you're emphasizing or did misunderstood me.

Honestly I have no idea what the issue was with the old naming scheme. Didn't they just recently introduce an i9? Why not continue with an i11 etc instead of this Ultra nonsense.

load more comments (12 replies)