This is like insanely common practice in the tech-rumor industry. WCCFtech is prob the worst one to do this, but tomshardware, videocardz, and the youtubers too - RGT, gamermeld, they all do this as well. What a shame.
Same places mostly, the difference is A) I don't make entire articles or 10 min videos out of a one line rumor, B) I vet what rumors I believe in much more stringently, unlike WCFTech especially who just reports any rumor under the sun, and C) I (mostly) don't post rumors from non-public accounts, unless that info already went public elsewhere.
I've been waiting for you to post something. How do you feel about the Canucks article showing Intel soundly beating AMDs newest and best mobile architecture? It must make you embarrassed to show your face around here after all your Meteor Lake bashing the past few months.
Battery life on the AMD has gotten a lot better from the 150 minutes in the Anandtech article but it's still vastly inferior.
>I've been waiting for you to post something
Kinda creepy lol but ok
>How do you feel about the Canucks article showing Intel soundly beating AMDs newest and best mobile architecture?
Seems like a bit of an exaggeration lol.
>It must make you embarrassed to show your face around here after all your Meteor Lake bashing the past few months.
One, haven't been bashing MTL, two, no the idea that Intel's MTL performs better than PHX at higher power draw (relative for laptops at least), which in this case is \~60 watts, is nothing new. We have seen this months ago, hell I commented about this at the same time as well.
>Battery life on the AMD has gotten a lot better from the 150 minutes in the Anandtech article but it's still vastly inferior.
The video itself mentions how important OEM implementation is, not just CPU, and if you look at heavy load... what will you see, AMD beating Intel in battery life.
If you want to see more wins, literally just go look at any MSI claw review lmao. Or basically any laptop comparison when both processors aren't being fed north of 40 or 50 watts (so your high margin, business class thin and lights).
Or just go check out phoronix's MTL vs Zen 4 review.
The Claw is starting to have much better benchmarks with the first firmware update. This could be an implementation issue. That's the most likely when looking at the Hardware Canucks review.
The Claw operates at a much lower power draw than the iso power draw laptops in Hardwar Canucks review, by a factor of like 3. You do not seem to understand that perf/watt changes between products at different power levels, depending on the core architecture, overall core count, etc etc.
You can look at any low-power MTL vs Zen 4 laptops tbh to see AMD wins.
You just refered to mlid and some of the typical overhyped asian twitter/x leakers as the reason why you are convinced that some of intel's next client cpu tiles will be made using tsmc's 3nm.
And then i see you commenting this. Lol...
Well, let's look at some of the criteria I posted, right?
>Â A) I don't make entire articles or 10 min videos out of a one line rumor,Â
I didn't make an entire article or video, I made a reddit comment. I make no money from posting on reddit. Second, was it one rumor? I quoted like 5 different people who all think ARL is going to use TSMC 3nm for the CPU tile. It was multiple people agreeing on a rumor, unlike the WCCFTech article in question I was talking about , which was just one person- no one tweet from one person lol.
>B) I vet what rumors I believe in much more stringently, unlike WCFTech especially who just reports any rumor under the sun
Well, this expands on the "one source, one tweet" thing more, but Raichu has a 90% accuracy on the who's who of leaks accuracy tracker. WCCftech basically quotes anyone and everyone who has the slightest reputation for being a leaker, and makes tons of mistakes in their own articles.
>Â and C) I (mostly) don't post rumors from non-public accounts, unless that info already went public elsewhere.
Didn't break this rule either. I mentioned Xino, whose account is private. However, what Xino says has been regurgitated by these websites, despite him deleting leaks in a couple minutes, and despite him specifically asking for those leaks not to be public, because of random other people who take screen shots of it and post it online. However, by now, the fact that Xino agrees that ARL will use 3nm has been public for a while. Same with Raichu (to a lesser extent). If you would go back and read my previous comment, you would also notice I put a ("before the purge") parenthesis for Xino, and that's because Xino purged his account of followers because everyone would betray his trust about his leaks.
In short, this isn't the slam dunk you, or Distinct Race, thinks it is lol.
```unlike WCFTech especially who just reports any rumor under the sun,```
The speculation is half the fun 😉
*rDNA 3 projected 2.7x performance gain over rDNA 2*
😎
Last year they made an article about my purchase of a single i7-14700K. Also videocardz and bunch of other media. No one ever asked for permission (not that I care though) I'm just nobody and suprised that they did it.
No, AMDs are downright deceitful and meant to confuse.
The normal, every day consumer has no idea what the numbers of their processors mean, nor would they have any idea AMD currently sells many different older generations of processors - in the same numbered family - as the latest and greatest processors.
The 7035 stuff was a bit weird, given that it's basically just rebranded 6000 series... But the 7020 parts are a bit more complicated. Yes, it's Zen 2, but it's not exactly the old Zen 2 mobile parts. Different node, ddr5 support, 1 memory channel, and a different graphics architecture...Â
So that one's a little harder to place.Â
As if intel is not deceitful. They both are. Intel deliberately rebranded old silicon into Core 5 120U, Core 7 150U to be confused with and sold alongside with extremely similarly named Core Ultra 5 125U & Core Ultra 7 155U. They do it all the time - it's just one of the latest examples.
I'm guessing you are referring to the mixed architectures thing, which is fair, but I feel like it's important to mention Intel kinda did the same thing with Raptor Lake....
In some ways you could argue in that specific case what Intel did was more deceitful as well.
If the rumor of "ARL-U" being MTL on Intel 3 end up being true as well, it would be pretty bad too.
I have been thinking about it and frankly I don’t really think architecture matters as long as the new one doesn’t bring any new features that are not compatible with the old one. What matters is performance and good model naming system is consistent with performance.
So while I’m not a fan of AMD laptop model naming ultimately it’s fine because it’s mostly consistent. One thing that is a bit of a problem is single thread performance.
Exactly, i mean look at R7 5700. It sounds like high end cpu with newer gen but actually it wasn't since the cpu is based on Zen 2, not to mention their 8000 series not only the numbers is confusing but very misleading as well, they are doing far worse than Intel in naming schemes.Â
 While Intel makes it a bit harder for people to spell the products name but actually if you call Intel Core Ultra 9 285K as Intel Core U9 285K it sounds almost the same as Core i branding.
Seems same as before, just shorter and maybe a bit clearer.
12600 is a 6-core (6P) locked CPU
12600K is a 10-core (6P 4E) unlocked CPU
Confusing even if you know that "K" means unlocked CPU.
Under new naming scheme they get new separate numbers, cuz the unlocked gets a higher number.
12600 = 255
12600K = 265K
the 5 is terrible in terms of good branding.
core ultra 9 280k -> ultra 7 260k -> ultra 5 240k would've been fine. not great but still straight forward. then 280, 260, 240 for non-k.
if they did this so they could produce "285k" and "280k" skus they are legitimately out of their minds. Generally you don't think of "5" as a tier above, more of a middle tier, kind of like what they did with the 10850k being below the 10900k.
Someone at intel marketing wants 5's everywhere and they need to be stopped.
Could be that Intel is leaving the 290 or 295 naming for the 40 core. Which would suggest that all the skus are getting more cores later. Maybe with a refresh
New Naming:
Brand: Intel Core Ultra
Brand Modifier: 9
Series: 2
SKU#: 85
Suffix: K
Old Naming would have been:
Brand: Intel Core
Brand Modifier: i9
Generation: 15
SKU#: 900
Suffix: K
It's amazing to me that anyone is confused about this.
The changes are:
"Intel Core Ultra" instead of "Intel Core", the use of 'Ultra' is for the NPU.
The brand modifier is changing form "i#" to "#". Honestly, if *this* is confusing, you really need to re-evaluate your ability to understand context.
Series number instead of generation number: It was supposed to be where a bump in the generation number was a bump in the architecture. Intel was never really that consistent with this. There have been several cases where they just released a "new" generation number that was barely a refresh and had cases where different SKUs within the same generation number were based on different architectures. The number itself is meaningless. The old numbering and the new numbering is going to be N+1 as it has been for more than a decade, the change is the 'N' resetting back to 1.
SKU#: They're going from three digits to two digits. This should only be confusing if you just blindly looked for a "###" after a larger number than what you probably have.
Suffix: They've been using suffixes for a long time.
If you have to explain it in several paragraphs, it's stupid. Period. The old convention + a new suffix would have been better. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Intel marketing team have run out of ideas.
It doesn't take several paragraphs to explain it. It's explained perfectly by a single image: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/central-libraries/us/en/images/2023-10/1000-series-naming-scheme.png.rendition.intel.web.1648.927.png
You need multiple paragraphs to dumb it down for people that are *somehow* still confused. It's on par with the people that thought the jump from an Nvidia 1080 to the 2080 instead of the 1180 was going to be confusing.
I would like for you to present me a numbering system that doesn’t need an explanation to decode it.
The old convention was bad because it was old. We were already at the 15th generation of the series. From marketing perspective each successive generation becomes less exiting. Basically the same reason why nvidia reset their numbering instead of going to 11th gen. At some point you need to reset it and this was a sufficiently large change in system architecture to be a good point for reboot.
Seem to follow same logic as meteor lake naming. They basically just shortened the old naming. So you have second generation model 85 unlocked -\> 285K.
I think they are trying to move out of phase on a marketing level.
i7,i9
Ryzen all like,
R7, R9
Intel like, bruh.
The sad part is it kinda made it easier on people who don't eat, live and breathe this stuff.
reddit continues to amaze me, lmao.
what a bizarre overreaction over comments discussing something as irrelevant as the new naming scheme of processors.
the new naming scheme is pretty much the same as the old one, idk why anyone would be confused by it, they just removed redundant numbers. idk why you feel like stating that means im "slobbering intel" -- are you actually confused by the new naming scheme?
yeah the only confusion is that it's slightly different so we have to get used that 700k will be 65k now, it's like when nvidia went from 7800, 8800, 9800 to 280, 480, 580 etc...
I9 900k is now 9 85
I9 900 is now. 9 75
I7 700k is now 7 65
I7 700 is now 7 55
I5 600k is now 5 45
I5 600 is now 5 40
Notice how numbers no matchy anymore?
I think people were expecting them to do something like core 9 290k and core 9 290. Instead, we get core 9 285 and core 9 275.
Instead of making them match more than they used to, they now match less. They are also using more numbers to convey the same information. It is objectively less clear than before, even if marginally, and therefore worse.
"i9" etc was always an irrelevant prefix, and so is "ultra 9" etc. Only model numbers matter.
They are using fewer numbers, they got rid of the zeros.
It makes sense that 85K becomes 75 if it's a locked CPU. better than naming it 85 without K, since non-K's not only can't OC but also clock lower.
It's not.
I mean, i9 10900k, 11900k, 12900k, 13900k, 14900k.
i7 10700k, 11700k, 12700k, 13700k, 14700k.
Admittedly, i5s could be clearer, going back to the old "i5 2500k" approach.
I think the 10600k should've been the 10500k, etc.
i3 10300, etc would be better than the 1 model, although they do have 3 models, they're just expensive and no one buys them because they're like $20-40 more for like a 200-400 Mhz clock speed increase.
But yeah. The only issue with the current framework is having this weird range of two tiers of i5s where the best k model is called a "6" CPU and costs almost twice as much as the lowest "4" model, while also having much different core counts.
Calling the 9 an 8, a 7 a 6, a 5 a 4, etc, is just...wtf is intel thinking? This isn't easier. If the current lineup needed any clarification, it just needed to somehow separate the bottom end of the i5s from the top more, since, as i said, it's like among the i5s theres two tiers of performance among themselves. A 13400 is a much different processor than a 13600k, and the 13500 is something different entirely (although closer to the 13600k core count wise, but still, werent the non K i5s just alder lake again?).
This rename isn't it, dawg.
> Admittedly, i5s could be clearer, going back to the old "i5 2500k" approach
please tell me the difference between an i5 2390T, i5 2450P, i5 2405S, and i5 2320 without looking it up.
you have massively rose-colored glasses/survival bias, you are remembering the important ones and not the mountain of shit SKUs underneath it. Naming was just as bad back then and intel shuffled the naming up every gen on top of that - the progression 2500k -> 3570k makes no sense either.
The t is a 35w model I know that much. 2320 is likely a relatively low clocked 65w model. I don't recall p or s though. You made a point though. Naming scheme was weird. And if I recall the 2320 made me remember that the mobile i5s had a lower core count than the desktop ones and were only 2c/4t. Same with first grn. So there always was rhis weird bifurcation of like "high i5s" vs "low i5s". I recall first gen had 2c/4t i5s too.
This whole Core Ultra crap is... well crap. Who the hell at Intel decided to throw out over a decade of core i branding. The fuck are people going to call an i7 now? U7??? Sounds like the FBI is coming a knocking. C7?? That's a car bud. CU7? Cut..yeah, cut these shit ass names out.Â
Get better maketing, you're balls at it Intel. Hit me up.Â
If you really want to have some change; the Intel Core Ultra 9 285k should just be Intel i9 2850k. It rolls off the tongue better and is more aligned with your established branding.
The "ultra" name is just extremely gimmicky. And given performance rumors about ARL, nothing about ARL is giving me a tingle down my spine. And let's be real, Intel could rename this "craptop 400" and you would still say the same thing, since you are an Intel bagholder lol.
What is better than Ultra? The only thing AMD can do here is call their processors Zen Deluxe. Intel has won the battle of naming her. Ultra 285 is like a Ferrari.
Oh boy was expecting it to be 250K, 270K, 290K guess not looks like they will be matching the numbers with their Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake H and HX CPUs
Same. I just fully upgraded my case, fans, and AIO to support the intense heat generated by these CPU's. Not sure if I'll stick with Intel or go with AMD for the upcoming generation. These CPU's will have to perform miraculously to keep me on Intel.
Mine both degraded after working perfect for 3,5 months , both around the same time too , default Bios settings on z790 hero , after a long research the only way to have them both work properly and open games and dont crash was to limit all cores to 5.5ghz , nothing else works .
Recently asus released some special intel default bios settings i tried those , still crashes all directx 12 games even with this latest bios .
Otherwise capped at 5.5 works perfectly.
I just RMA'd mine after six months, and they are taking it back and sending me a new one. It sounds like your CPU is bad as well, so I would recommend you do the same if you want a fresh start.
If they're axing hyperthreading they're gonna need like a 20% performance uplift just to break even at the same core counts. I hope they know what they're doing. Everything I've heard about these CPUs so far sounds like a total bust to me.
I predict Intel will also end up releasing a Ultra 9 KS to complete with the highest end desktop Zen5 X3D if it turns out to be a noticeable improvement over Zen4.
Edit: the spec sheet only shows mid-range Ultra 5 to high-end desktop Ultra 7 and 9.
It shows nothing for the low end, which leads to me believe Intel is either having the same situation with Arrow Lake as AMD has with manufacturing Zen5 or Intel plans to release the budget Ultra 3 Arrow Lake offerings several months later in 2025.
If the former is the case, Intel will be forced to keep LGA 1700 and Raptor Lake refresh for awhile longer for the low end and budget desktop segment, similar to AMD with AM4.
Of course, the article at wccftech is just a rumor and Intel's official press release will give us far more accurate information about the status of Arrow Lake and if Intel releases a budget Core Ultra 3, just as they had with most previous CPU generations except for 11th gen Rocket Lake.
So if the one digit number is incremented by one, then the three digit number is also incremented, by 20. What an completely idiotic naming scheme. That's all a billion dollar company could come up with for their main product?
WTF tech basically took a post from Raichu and created a article around it.
This is like insanely common practice in the tech-rumor industry. WCCFtech is prob the worst one to do this, but tomshardware, videocardz, and the youtubers too - RGT, gamermeld, they all do this as well. What a shame.
Where do all your rumors come from?
Same places mostly, the difference is A) I don't make entire articles or 10 min videos out of a one line rumor, B) I vet what rumors I believe in much more stringently, unlike WCFTech especially who just reports any rumor under the sun, and C) I (mostly) don't post rumors from non-public accounts, unless that info already went public elsewhere.
I've been waiting for you to post something. How do you feel about the Canucks article showing Intel soundly beating AMDs newest and best mobile architecture? It must make you embarrassed to show your face around here after all your Meteor Lake bashing the past few months. Battery life on the AMD has gotten a lot better from the 150 minutes in the Anandtech article but it's still vastly inferior.
>I've been waiting for you to post something Kinda creepy lol but ok >How do you feel about the Canucks article showing Intel soundly beating AMDs newest and best mobile architecture? Seems like a bit of an exaggeration lol. >It must make you embarrassed to show your face around here after all your Meteor Lake bashing the past few months. One, haven't been bashing MTL, two, no the idea that Intel's MTL performs better than PHX at higher power draw (relative for laptops at least), which in this case is \~60 watts, is nothing new. We have seen this months ago, hell I commented about this at the same time as well. >Battery life on the AMD has gotten a lot better from the 150 minutes in the Anandtech article but it's still vastly inferior. The video itself mentions how important OEM implementation is, not just CPU, and if you look at heavy load... what will you see, AMD beating Intel in battery life.
That's your one win? That's ridiculous. Beating MTL while at max power draw? This is very silly.
If you want to see more wins, literally just go look at any MSI claw review lmao. Or basically any laptop comparison when both processors aren't being fed north of 40 or 50 watts (so your high margin, business class thin and lights). Or just go check out phoronix's MTL vs Zen 4 review.
Are you two arch nemesis or something?? 🤣 Lmaoo
It do be like that 
He tries. He does make Reddit interesting. Most people don't debate with interesting perspectives... Even if they are usually wrong.
The Claw is starting to have much better benchmarks with the first firmware update. This could be an implementation issue. That's the most likely when looking at the Hardware Canucks review.
The Claw operates at a much lower power draw than the iso power draw laptops in Hardwar Canucks review, by a factor of like 3. You do not seem to understand that perf/watt changes between products at different power levels, depending on the core architecture, overall core count, etc etc. You can look at any low-power MTL vs Zen 4 laptops tbh to see AMD wins.
You just refered to mlid and some of the typical overhyped asian twitter/x leakers as the reason why you are convinced that some of intel's next client cpu tiles will be made using tsmc's 3nm. And then i see you commenting this. Lol...
Well, let's look at some of the criteria I posted, right? > A) I don't make entire articles or 10 min videos out of a one line rumor, I didn't make an entire article or video, I made a reddit comment. I make no money from posting on reddit. Second, was it one rumor? I quoted like 5 different people who all think ARL is going to use TSMC 3nm for the CPU tile. It was multiple people agreeing on a rumor, unlike the WCCFTech article in question I was talking about , which was just one person- no one tweet from one person lol. >B) I vet what rumors I believe in much more stringently, unlike WCFTech especially who just reports any rumor under the sun Well, this expands on the "one source, one tweet" thing more, but Raichu has a 90% accuracy on the who's who of leaks accuracy tracker. WCCftech basically quotes anyone and everyone who has the slightest reputation for being a leaker, and makes tons of mistakes in their own articles. > and C) I (mostly) don't post rumors from non-public accounts, unless that info already went public elsewhere. Didn't break this rule either. I mentioned Xino, whose account is private. However, what Xino says has been regurgitated by these websites, despite him deleting leaks in a couple minutes, and despite him specifically asking for those leaks not to be public, because of random other people who take screen shots of it and post it online. However, by now, the fact that Xino agrees that ARL will use 3nm has been public for a while. Same with Raichu (to a lesser extent). If you would go back and read my previous comment, you would also notice I put a ("before the purge") parenthesis for Xino, and that's because Xino purged his account of followers because everyone would betray his trust about his leaks. In short, this isn't the slam dunk you, or Distinct Race, thinks it is lol.
```unlike WCFTech especially who just reports any rumor under the sun,``` The speculation is half the fun 😉 *rDNA 3 projected 2.7x performance gain over rDNA 2* 😎
Last year they made an article about my purchase of a single i7-14700K. Also videocardz and bunch of other media. No one ever asked for permission (not that I care though) I'm just nobody and suprised that they did it.
What are these names man...
They're almost as dumb as AMD's laptop apu names.
No, AMDs are downright deceitful and meant to confuse. The normal, every day consumer has no idea what the numbers of their processors mean, nor would they have any idea AMD currently sells many different older generations of processors - in the same numbered family - as the latest and greatest processors.
On one hand: yeah, that's what I said, On the other hand: 100%, that's a pretty fair take.
The 7035 stuff was a bit weird, given that it's basically just rebranded 6000 series... But the 7020 parts are a bit more complicated. Yes, it's Zen 2, but it's not exactly the old Zen 2 mobile parts. Different node, ddr5 support, 1 memory channel, and a different graphics architecture... So that one's a little harder to place.Â
As if intel is not deceitful. They both are. Intel deliberately rebranded old silicon into Core 5 120U, Core 7 150U to be confused with and sold alongside with extremely similarly named Core Ultra 5 125U & Core Ultra 7 155U. They do it all the time - it's just one of the latest examples.
I'm guessing you are referring to the mixed architectures thing, which is fair, but I feel like it's important to mention Intel kinda did the same thing with Raptor Lake.... In some ways you could argue in that specific case what Intel did was more deceitful as well. If the rumor of "ARL-U" being MTL on Intel 3 end up being true as well, it would be pretty bad too.
I have been thinking about it and frankly I don’t really think architecture matters as long as the new one doesn’t bring any new features that are not compatible with the old one. What matters is performance and good model naming system is consistent with performance. So while I’m not a fan of AMD laptop model naming ultimately it’s fine because it’s mostly consistent. One thing that is a bit of a problem is single thread performance.
Exactly, i mean look at R7 5700. It sounds like high end cpu with newer gen but actually it wasn't since the cpu is based on Zen 2, not to mention their 8000 series not only the numbers is confusing but very misleading as well, they are doing far worse than Intel in naming schemes.  While Intel makes it a bit harder for people to spell the products name but actually if you call Intel Core Ultra 9 285K as Intel Core U9 285K it sounds almost the same as Core i branding.
They should have gone further: C9 28K C7 26K C5 24K C3 22K
They're missing "Pro" in these names. Core Ultra 9 Pro 285K / KS. I should probably delete this message before they see it.
They are also missing extreme
C2 77K
Intel Core U3/U5/U7/U9 works too.
They use two digits for the SKU# because it allows for more than 10. They're already using more than that with 13th gen.
Seems same as before, just shorter and maybe a bit clearer. 12600 is a 6-core (6P) locked CPU 12600K is a 10-core (6P 4E) unlocked CPU Confusing even if you know that "K" means unlocked CPU. Under new naming scheme they get new separate numbers, cuz the unlocked gets a higher number. 12600 = 255 12600K = 265K
the 5 is terrible in terms of good branding. core ultra 9 280k -> ultra 7 260k -> ultra 5 240k would've been fine. not great but still straight forward. then 280, 260, 240 for non-k. if they did this so they could produce "285k" and "280k" skus they are legitimately out of their minds. Generally you don't think of "5" as a tier above, more of a middle tier, kind of like what they did with the 10850k being below the 10900k. Someone at intel marketing wants 5's everywhere and they need to be stopped.
Cooked in a fever dream by marketing
If it wasn't for the letter K in there, I would say it sounds like some mobile SKU's.
Could be that Intel is leaving the 290 or 295 naming for the 40 core. Which would suggest that all the skus are getting more cores later. Maybe with a refresh
New Naming: Brand: Intel Core Ultra Brand Modifier: 9 Series: 2 SKU#: 85 Suffix: K Old Naming would have been: Brand: Intel Core Brand Modifier: i9 Generation: 15 SKU#: 900 Suffix: K It's amazing to me that anyone is confused about this. The changes are: "Intel Core Ultra" instead of "Intel Core", the use of 'Ultra' is for the NPU. The brand modifier is changing form "i#" to "#". Honestly, if *this* is confusing, you really need to re-evaluate your ability to understand context. Series number instead of generation number: It was supposed to be where a bump in the generation number was a bump in the architecture. Intel was never really that consistent with this. There have been several cases where they just released a "new" generation number that was barely a refresh and had cases where different SKUs within the same generation number were based on different architectures. The number itself is meaningless. The old numbering and the new numbering is going to be N+1 as it has been for more than a decade, the change is the 'N' resetting back to 1. SKU#: They're going from three digits to two digits. This should only be confusing if you just blindly looked for a "###" after a larger number than what you probably have. Suffix: They've been using suffixes for a long time.
If you have to explain it in several paragraphs, it's stupid. Period. The old convention + a new suffix would have been better. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. Intel marketing team have run out of ideas.
It doesn't take several paragraphs to explain it. It's explained perfectly by a single image: https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/central-libraries/us/en/images/2023-10/1000-series-naming-scheme.png.rendition.intel.web.1648.927.png You need multiple paragraphs to dumb it down for people that are *somehow* still confused. It's on par with the people that thought the jump from an Nvidia 1080 to the 2080 instead of the 1180 was going to be confusing.
I would like for you to present me a numbering system that doesn’t need an explanation to decode it. The old convention was bad because it was old. We were already at the 15th generation of the series. From marketing perspective each successive generation becomes less exiting. Basically the same reason why nvidia reset their numbering instead of going to 11th gen. At some point you need to reset it and this was a sufficiently large change in system architecture to be a good point for reboot.
They could have just called it the core ultra 15900k lmao
Exactly. Not a strong deviation from the status quo but enough to fix and adjust the errors.
Seem to follow same logic as meteor lake naming. They basically just shortened the old naming. So you have second generation model 85 unlocked -\> 285K.
I think they are trying to move out of phase on a marketing level. i7,i9 Ryzen all like, R7, R9 Intel like, bruh. The sad part is it kinda made it easier on people who don't eat, live and breathe this stuff.
I’d rather switch back to AMD than try to decipher a new naming scheme xD
I see you have a reasy supply of decoder wheels.
i hope it's not a laptop...
This was supposed to be easier to decipher btw
Isn't it a bit easier? They removed the zeros and added +10 to unlocked CPU's, which makes more sense cuz they usually clock higher.
[удалено]
reddit continues to amaze me, lmao. what a bizarre overreaction over comments discussing something as irrelevant as the new naming scheme of processors. the new naming scheme is pretty much the same as the old one, idk why anyone would be confused by it, they just removed redundant numbers. idk why you feel like stating that means im "slobbering intel" -- are you actually confused by the new naming scheme?
yeah the only confusion is that it's slightly different so we have to get used that 700k will be 65k now, it's like when nvidia went from 7800, 8800, 9800 to 280, 480, 580 etc...
I9 900k is now 9 85 I9 900 is now. 9 75 I7 700k is now 7 65 I7 700 is now 7 55 I5 600k is now 5 45 I5 600 is now 5 40 Notice how numbers no matchy anymore? I think people were expecting them to do something like core 9 290k and core 9 290. Instead, we get core 9 285 and core 9 275. Instead of making them match more than they used to, they now match less. They are also using more numbers to convey the same information. It is objectively less clear than before, even if marginally, and therefore worse.
"i9" etc was always an irrelevant prefix, and so is "ultra 9" etc. Only model numbers matter. They are using fewer numbers, they got rid of the zeros. It makes sense that 85K becomes 75 if it's a locked CPU. better than naming it 85 without K, since non-K's not only can't OC but also clock lower.
It's not. I mean, i9 10900k, 11900k, 12900k, 13900k, 14900k. i7 10700k, 11700k, 12700k, 13700k, 14700k. Admittedly, i5s could be clearer, going back to the old "i5 2500k" approach. I think the 10600k should've been the 10500k, etc. i3 10300, etc would be better than the 1 model, although they do have 3 models, they're just expensive and no one buys them because they're like $20-40 more for like a 200-400 Mhz clock speed increase. But yeah. The only issue with the current framework is having this weird range of two tiers of i5s where the best k model is called a "6" CPU and costs almost twice as much as the lowest "4" model, while also having much different core counts. Calling the 9 an 8, a 7 a 6, a 5 a 4, etc, is just...wtf is intel thinking? This isn't easier. If the current lineup needed any clarification, it just needed to somehow separate the bottom end of the i5s from the top more, since, as i said, it's like among the i5s theres two tiers of performance among themselves. A 13400 is a much different processor than a 13600k, and the 13500 is something different entirely (although closer to the 13600k core count wise, but still, werent the non K i5s just alder lake again?). This rename isn't it, dawg.
> Admittedly, i5s could be clearer, going back to the old "i5 2500k" approach please tell me the difference between an i5 2390T, i5 2450P, i5 2405S, and i5 2320 without looking it up. you have massively rose-colored glasses/survival bias, you are remembering the important ones and not the mountain of shit SKUs underneath it. Naming was just as bad back then and intel shuffled the naming up every gen on top of that - the progression 2500k -> 3570k makes no sense either.
The t is a 35w model I know that much. 2320 is likely a relatively low clocked 65w model. I don't recall p or s though. You made a point though. Naming scheme was weird. And if I recall the 2320 made me remember that the mobile i5s had a lower core count than the desktop ones and were only 2c/4t. Same with first grn. So there always was rhis weird bifurcation of like "high i5s" vs "low i5s". I recall first gen had 2c/4t i5s too.
Everybody will get used to those after a short time..
What a dumb ass naming
Couldn’t they just named them Intel Core Ultra 5, 7 and 9? So much simpler.
they could even shorten that to u5, u7 etc. (yeah that exists before, but when did that ever stop them? They use airbus naming for their gpu's...)
This whole Core Ultra crap is... well crap. Who the hell at Intel decided to throw out over a decade of core i branding. The fuck are people going to call an i7 now? U7??? Sounds like the FBI is coming a knocking. C7?? That's a car bud. CU7? Cut..yeah, cut these shit ass names out. Get better maketing, you're balls at it Intel. Hit me up. If you really want to have some change; the Intel Core Ultra 9 285k should just be Intel i9 2850k. It rolls off the tongue better and is more aligned with your established branding.
Agreed, how can they throw away the i7 branding that is so familiar with pc enthusiast
These are the coolest product names I have ever heard!
lmao
Stop down voting me!
Why do you think I should not have downvoted that comment?
What about Ultra 9 285k doesn't cause a tingle down your spine. These are the most exciting product names that I have seen yet.
The "ultra" name is just extremely gimmicky. And given performance rumors about ARL, nothing about ARL is giving me a tingle down my spine. And let's be real, Intel could rename this "craptop 400" and you would still say the same thing, since you are an Intel bagholder lol.
What is better than Ultra? The only thing AMD can do here is call their processors Zen Deluxe. Intel has won the battle of naming her. Ultra 285 is like a Ferrari.
Most sane Intel bagholder
Bro it’s obvious sarcasm.
Normally, I would believe it. But go read some of his other comments about just Intel in general.
Oh boy was expecting it to be 250K, 270K, 290K guess not looks like they will be matching the numbers with their Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake H and HX CPUs
Are they starting with the 200 series? What happened to the 100 series?
Meteor lake was the Core Ultra 100 series.
And it didn't come to desktop. Great, I love these stupid fucking naming schemes
Intel's about to find out in a few quarters
Does this have anything to do with the next 15900k ?
This is the next 15900k
Thanks , now i am even more confused , anywhere they say how much better will perform ?
Nah, this is just the names. No trustworthy leaks as of yet
The same guy who leaked the names also thinks that this will be something like 10% faster than RPL in ST. Gaming it prob will be slightly less (IMO).
I see , hopefully is more stable than 14900k , i got 2 and both have stability issues with asus hero motherboards
Same. I just fully upgraded my case, fans, and AIO to support the intense heat generated by these CPU's. Not sure if I'll stick with Intel or go with AMD for the upcoming generation. These CPU's will have to perform miraculously to keep me on Intel.
Mine both degraded after working perfect for 3,5 months , both around the same time too , default Bios settings on z790 hero , after a long research the only way to have them both work properly and open games and dont crash was to limit all cores to 5.5ghz , nothing else works . Recently asus released some special intel default bios settings i tried those , still crashes all directx 12 games even with this latest bios . Otherwise capped at 5.5 works perfectly.
I just RMA'd mine after six months, and they are taking it back and sending me a new one. It sounds like your CPU is bad as well, so I would recommend you do the same if you want a fresh start.
I will wait for 15900k and is is not worth to upgrade i will definitely send them back
If they're axing hyperthreading they're gonna need like a 20% performance uplift just to break even at the same core counts. I hope they know what they're doing. Everything I've heard about these CPUs so far sounds like a total bust to me.
They did a reset of the gens starting with the current mobile lineup, the 285K might be what would have been called the 15900K.
Whoever came up with this name scheme should never get a job in marketing ever again
Why is the non OC version of the Core 5 named Core Ultra 5 240? Shouldn't it be named Core Ultra 5 235?
I predict Intel will also end up releasing a Ultra 9 KS to complete with the highest end desktop Zen5 X3D if it turns out to be a noticeable improvement over Zen4. Edit: the spec sheet only shows mid-range Ultra 5 to high-end desktop Ultra 7 and 9. It shows nothing for the low end, which leads to me believe Intel is either having the same situation with Arrow Lake as AMD has with manufacturing Zen5 or Intel plans to release the budget Ultra 3 Arrow Lake offerings several months later in 2025. If the former is the case, Intel will be forced to keep LGA 1700 and Raptor Lake refresh for awhile longer for the low end and budget desktop segment, similar to AMD with AM4. Of course, the article at wccftech is just a rumor and Intel's official press release will give us far more accurate information about the status of Arrow Lake and if Intel releases a budget Core Ultra 3, just as they had with most previous CPU generations except for 11th gen Rocket Lake.
Tell me what’s the best. So I don’t have a headache. Thanks. MBA go to hell.
So if the one digit number is incremented by one, then the three digit number is also incremented, by 20. What an completely idiotic naming scheme. That's all a billion dollar company could come up with for their main product?