Intel has confirmed to ZDNet UK the truth of rumours that it is dropping speeds from future processor names. Instead, new chips will be christened with a model number, in a similar scheme long adopted by car makers. "Rather than have people concentrate on the gigahertz, we want people to look at the features that make up a particular processor," an Intel spokesman told ZDNet UK.
The new naming scheme will replace the speed with a three-digit number, starting with 3 for low-end chips, 5 for standard performance and 7 for the top of the range models. As now, mobile and desktop processors will be run as two separate brands, and existing brand names will be retained.
Celeron will now be known as Celeron D (for Desktop) or Celeron M (for Mobile), and the Pentium 4, M and 4M will also survive. Thus, the next desktop Celeron will be called something like Celeron D 300 while Dothan, the next upgrade to the Pentium M, will be the Pentium M 700, for example. Different combinations of speed, cache, front side bus and other technologies will be indicated by different numbers in the series.
"The intention is to increase the numbers with the feature count of a processor, not necessarily the performance," said Intel's spokesperson. "You won't be able to compare numbers directly. It will be easier to differentiate products within a family."
Dothan will be the first product to wear the new scheme when it is launched in May 2004, followed by the next revision of the Pentium 4 later in the second quarter. There'll be no 7 model Pentium 4 -- the Extreme Edition end of the market -- until Q4 of this year. Existing chips will retain their existing names, and the full product name will continue to include "Hyper-Threading Technology".
Although Intel is upfront about the similarities between the model naming convention and that long used in the automotive industry, it is keen to discourage people from using the word 'series' after the number.
Talkback
Intel wants to discourage or make it harder for consumers to compare based on clock speed, or 'equivalant' clock speed, because their chips' perfomance (aside from the very expensive Extreme Edition) can no longer compete with AMD's Athlon series. Check out the bechmarks at HarcOCP.com and you'll see that the Pentium 4 loses to the Athlon 64 hands down, especially when you factor in price. They want consumers to focus on "features" instead of speed now to take their attention away from this shortcomming. Can the average end user still benefit from ever faster processors? This is an old question you may want to revisit in another article.
I think Intel changing the way they name their chips is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. There was nothing wrong with the old way; Intel shouldn't change a thing.
Whoa!
While I heartily agree that Intel's new naming convention is all about obfuscation, let's not fall prey to the same temptation there anonymous!
Your comparison of an Intel P4 to a 64-bit Athlon applies as much misrepresentation as Intel's new naming system: the P4 is NOT a 64-bit processor, so why are you comparing it to a 64-bit Athlon?
Let's also not promulgate the standard Athlon vs. Intel debate: it helps no one. They both serve a different market segment: Athlons seem to appeal to the builder/gamer while Pentiums abound in the off-the-shelf and business box.
Personally, I prefer the Pentiums, even when building my own game boxes-they consistently out-perform equivalent AMD's, even when compared at the dollar rather than MHz. Value is the key element, since MHz is only ONE characteristic of a system.
This is all my own experience, of course. (You're mileage may vary) I had been a staunch non-Intel user since the days of the old Cyrix 486 chips. Great dollar value there!
So where before you could at least gleen some information from the processor name, now you're left with a meaningless string of characters meant to confuse consumers.
OK wow, who ever posted that intel is better even at price, is way off AMD has a product that is the equivelent to intel (with 64 bit power as well) and the amd price is still lower 50 dollars. AMD also has more technology with their chips and just as icing on the cake, AMD's proc's run cooler, not prducing as much heat, no where near as much heat as intel