Back to Article

  • Pratheek - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    this regrouping is done for layman only. Hope they will have series within the four categories so that the end user need not gamble his head... Reply
  • jrs77 - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Well, I'll never understand the technology-companies and their tons of little differences. Why isn't there a simple lineup like "low-end", "mid-range" and "high-end"? And by that I mean a maximum of 3 processors in the companies line-up and not dozens of low, mid and high-end parts.
    Everyone does it, and it applies to GPUs, CPUs or whatever. It makes the market totally oversaturated and for the end-consumer it's a jungle they feel lost in.

    Look at the car-industry. Most have very simple lineups basically, like BMW 1/3/5/7, but then they'll end up with the same crap because you can choose between 5 or more motors for each one of them, forget about the extras and/or preconfigured editions.

    Less is more. It makes it way easier for the endconsumer to make a decision. Usually people buy something and then feel bad about their decision, because they are not sure, if their decision was the right one, simply because there where so many choices to be made, that they got lost somewhere inbetween.
  • nexox - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    """Why isn't there a simple lineup like "low-end", "mid-range" and "high-end"? And by that I mean a maximum of 3 processors in the companies line-up and not dozens of low, mid and high-end parts."""

    If silicon manufacturers did that, they'd lose the benefit of binning parts that aren't up to the highest performance spec, and would thus have to throw quite a few more dies away. Chips aren't cars - you don't know what clock speed or how many functioning cores you'll get out of them until you've tested each and every one.

    Plus it'd probably put a lot of marketing people out of a job, and this would be a course of action proposed by a marketing department - there's no way they're going to voluntarily downsize.
  • Uritziel - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    This. Reply
  • peterfares - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    I like my options. If you don't want choice, buy from Apple.

    Why is it saying this comment is spam?
  • Metaluna - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Apple has it's own simplified naming scheme:

    "The new iPhone 5...Now 23% more magical!"

    Sorry, couldn't resist :)
  • freezervv - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    > Apple has it's own simplified naming scheme:
    > "The new iPhone 5...Now 23% more magical!"
    > Sorry, couldn't resist :)

    I'm sure you were trying to be funny but everyone knows that the iPhone 5 features 5G wireless technology I'm not sure where you got your info from but don't post wrong things I know I'll be buying one!
  • analytical - Monday, September 26, 2011 - link

    What an odd idea. It sounds like you've been listening to too much Apple cheerleading.

    5G wireless has not yet been defined, there are no prototype projects, and it probably won't be implemented before 2020. Your Iphone 5 will be looking a bit long in the tooth by then.
  • superccs - Saturday, August 06, 2011 - link

    I really hate having choices too. Derp! Lol, eat your human food, and drive your automobile, to your work station, repeat. Reply
  • PyroHoltz - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Is it funny/odd that Qualcomm decided to use an image for the Xbox 360 to indicate console gaming performance and support? Reply
  • Aikouka - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Even worse is that the S1 seems to be using the image of a SEGA Nomad!

    All joking aside, I do think they need to ease back on the marketing fluff a bit in regard to real life equivalents. The games certainly are "console-like", but it's more like last-generation's Playstation 2 at this point. To be fair, while the graphics look like a PS2, they are rendering at higher resolutions than the PS2.
  • ViRGE - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    I think that's the bottom half of a Nintendo DS, not a Nomad. Reply
  • MobileSoC - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    This is fine for a snapshot of Snapdragon in time, but going forward these definitions with GHz and core specifications will change, and they will lose all the value of the low to high segments. Or are these are just examples, with S1-S4 specs changing over time? The tiers of devices and their uses will also change, so this looks like a short-term solution that they will have to re-consider in the future. Trying to make thing simpler now may make it more complicated later. Reply
  • DanNeely - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Looks like something out of intel's book; so keeping it consistent shouldn't be a problem:

    Pentium Pro ... this one's not intended for normal users because it sucks at running old code
    Pentium 2 ... but this is a successor to both P and P-pro
    Pentium 3
    Pentium 4
    Pentium M ... err this is OK since it's a laptop part not a desktop chip
    Core ... new stuff new branding but we'll be consistent again in the future
    Core 2 ... see
    Pentium ... but it seems some people still think pentium means fast so we're bringing it back but will only put really slow stuff here. Yeah that's the ticket.
    Core i3/5/7 ... the i is for... umm .. uhh
    Core i3/5/7 .... same stuff bigger model numbers, makes perfect sense, right?
  • MobileSoC - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Great examples! Maybe they were just looking for a short-term approach, but I think they boxed themselves in without longer-term thinking. Reply
  • ImSpartacus - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    That's not boxing themselves in.

    They want people to understand what i3, i5 and i7 mean, and they want them to be consistent.

    People know that machines with i7 processors are capable. I love going to Best Buy and hearing college kids tell each other that i7 processors are very fast. That is EXACTLY what Intel wants. They want people to identify the three levels of processors and not much more.

    For us, they still have model numbers. Nothing has changed.
  • A5 - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    I think the idea is that next year they will add an S5, then S6, and so on. This is just how it fits in with the current lineup. Reply
  • formulav8 - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    AMD probably see's this and really hates the thought of selling off all of its IP to qualcomm.

    Unless it was someone else they sold it to???
  • cohetedor - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Nice, so s1 dumb phones are for women, s2 are for men, and s3 are for the geeky tech nerd?
    There's no way those three images were chosen by accident either.
  • DrApop - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    "The new branding helps segment things a bit although I do believe Qualcomm will need to follow AMD/Intel’s lead and introduce some sort of a model number to indicate performance differences between parts within a family."

    I have absolutely no idea how this small change can be compared in anyway to AMD/Intel. What AMD and Intel have done is completely confuse the general public on the level of cpu's. As an AMD person, I have all but given up on trying to understand most of their naming and model makes no sense to me anymore. I can no longer tell which is the latest model/archetecture change (or subchange within a certain model). It is the main reason I have forestalled my upgrade for the last couple of years. I don't have time to do all the research I need just to buy a $100 cpu for my system.
  • Conficio - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    While S1-S4 is a good step, it is still a moving target over time.

    Either pick a particular benchmark and name things realtive to this benchmark, so L2300 for a linpack 2300 scoring SKU, etc. (I knwo Linpack is nto a good benchmark anymore, but you all get the idea). If you want pick two benchmarks one for raw computing and one for graphics power. At least that way it gives you an idea what kind of differences to expect between SKUs available at the same point in time as well as with available upgrades.

    As an alternative give this kind of class system and the year of introduction into the market. So a S1-2011 to S4-2011, if you want to be more precise and distinguish more than one SKU per year, make it a subclass inside the 0-9 spectrum, like S10-2011 for the lowest scoring part of the S1 class and S15-2011 for a middle scoring part.

    But at the end of the day that would cut a few jobs in the marketing department :-(
  • Greg512 - Thursday, August 04, 2011 - link

    That is not a significant job of the marketing department. To put it in simple terms, the marketing department defines the product categories and cost/performance of the products. To define a product category takes a great deal of market research and analysis and a substantial knowledge of the industry at large. Advertising and product naming is a small subset of a marketing department and even advertising is more than just thinking of slogans. Not directing this at you, but it amazes me what people think of marketing. Companies would not pay for marketing employees if they did basically nothing. Reply
  • awaken688 - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    Better idea

    S = Single Core
    D = Dual Core
    Q = Quad Core

    Q300 > Q200 > Q100 >D300 > D200 > D100 > S300 > S200 >S100

    Next year, just go to the XX1. Oh well. Kindof similar to the BMW naming. Start with the first number/digit, that gives you the series, then look at the numbers after that.
  • Flunk - Wednesday, August 03, 2011 - link

    You're all forgetting that the names of these chips are mostly for the people who engineer the phones/tablets/what have you. The overwhelming majority of consumers don't even know what chip is in their phone, all they care about is how well it works so the branding isn't as important as it is for desktop chips. People buy a Samsung Galaxy S, they don't buy a phone with the Samsung Hummingbird processor. Reply
  • NCM - Thursday, August 04, 2011 - link

    Anand writes: "All microprocessor companies struggle with the same basic marketing problem: how do you explain to the average consumer why one part is faster than another without saying cache, GHz or cores. Intel and AMD have been using model numbers to abstract hardware differences for years."

    Flunk (see above post) is the only one who gets it.

    For smartphones, which are now a mass market item, only our infinitesimally small market segment that reads tech sites such as Anandtech either knows or cares about processor specs. If microprocessor companies are indeed struggling with this alleged marketing problem, then they're missing the point.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now