In the newest Intel roadmaps, Intel indicated it would change their product naming schemes, again. For those who thought the three digit product naming system wouldn't last; well, it didn't. Less than 18 months ago Intel changed the way new CPUs would be named by replacing the clock rate with a three digit product name instead. We just got briefed on the newest wave of things to come at Intel.

The new product naming scheme for some mobility processors will change to a five character alphanumeric product name based on the watt usage and general performance. All new Mobility product names will start with one of the following letters:

  • E: TDP >50W
  • T: TDP 25W to 49W
  • L: TDP 15W to 24W
  • U: TDP <14W

The next four digits after the TDP estimate will denote the CPU's processor family and performance. For example, T1700 will denote a higher echelon 25-49W Yonah chip. T2700 would denote a high performance Merom processor.

Corresponding features that are added into later Yonah or Merom cores will be denoted in the last two digits of the product name. Although the roadmaps did not indicate this, our sources claimed that two versions of a T1500 - one with VT and one without - might be denoted by a change in the last digit of the product name.

Intel's name scheme will change on all new mobility processors, but our sources close to the roadmap indicate that all Intel processors will get a similar facelift about the same time we expect Conroe, similar to the brand-wide shift of April 2004. Existing mobility chips (Dothan, Banias), will not change. Furthermore, the roadmap also revealed that single core Yonah chips will not have a letter prefix corresponding to the wattage, but this might have just been an idiosyncrasy of the roadmap. Single core M chips based on Yonah will continue to use the three digit nomenclature, however.

Server & Desktop

Although Intel's future server and desktop processors will also get a single letter prefix, for now they will just switch to four digits. Below is a quick rundown of the new 65nm Dempsey Intel processors:

  • Xeon MP 7041: 3.0GHz 800FSB
  • Xeon MP 7040: 3.0GHz 667FSB
  • Xeon MP 7030: 2.8GHz 800FSB
  • Xeon MP 7020: 2.66GHz 667FSB
  • Xeon 5070: 3.46GHz, 130W
  • Xeon 5063: 3.2GHz, 95W
  • Xeon 5060: 3.2GHz, 130W
  • Xeon 5050: 3.0GHz, 95W
  • Xeon 5040: 2.83GHz, 95W
  • Xeon 5030: 2.66GHz, 95W
  • Xeon 5020: 2.5GHz, 95W
POST A COMMENT

34 Comments

View All Comments

  • Sunner - Thursday, October 20, 2005 - link

    Ok, AMD's scheme caught a lot of flak back in the day, but this is just ridiculous.
    At least AMD's scheme makes some kind of sense in that a higher number tends to mean higher performance, even though it will vary somewhat depending on what apps you run.
    But you can always bet a 4000+ will beat a 3000+ in everything.

    WTF is up with a 530 and a 620? The 620 has the higher number, so it should be better right? What about if we throw a 570 in there? Or maybe a 570J, it's even got a letter so that's sure to be a good sign. But the 571 then...it's missing that nice letter but it's got a slightly higher number...and why doesn't the 670 come with a letter?
    And so on, it's a huge fvcking mess, you'd need a damn manual just to understand what's what in Intel's product range.
    Reply
  • StriderGT - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Well I was considering giving intel a break, who wants to flog a dead horse forever, but they keep coming up with more bull every day...
    What they lack in proc speed & features, they envision balancing it with more fuzzy logic names poping up in netburst mode.
    Really intuitive they are, no two persons in this world can communicate which model they bought without the use of the intel proc refference encyclopaedia.

    These are really signs that intel is going forward, but where exactly is that forward thing?!?
    Reply
  • dragonballgtz - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    /head explodes Reply
  • Beenthere - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    If you can't dazzle potential customers with brilliant products, baffle them with B.S. as Intel has been doing for the past 6 years.

    SOS, DD.
    Reply
  • stateofbeasley - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    So if you don't like it, vote with your dollars instead of whining about it. I bought AMD because it was the best bang for my $.

    Did Intel kill your dog or something?
    Reply
  • bob661 - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    quote:

    Did Intel kill your dog or something?
    Killed it AND ate it. Bastards.
    Reply
  • Questar - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Hope it was tasty. Reply
  • melgross - Monday, October 17, 2005 - link

    Yes. Reply
  • OvErHeAtInG - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    When did "mobility" replace "mobile" as a type of processor?

    Hey PR illiterati: Mobility is a noun; mobile is the adjective. PR doublespeak drives me nuuuuuuuts.
    Reply
  • Scrogneugneu - Sunday, October 16, 2005 - link

    So, why did Intel chose to use those four letters to determine the TDP?


    E : Extreme power
    T : Total power
    L : Low power
    U : Uber low power


    ?

    Then we got a zillion numbers meaning nothing next to it... a 1700? What is that again... is a L1700 better than a T1600? What about the E1500? Would I be better with a U2700 after all? What is the difference between the L2700 and the L2800? Where's my Celeron? My Pentium?


    We end with a thousand models, all with letters and numbers meaning nothing to nobody... am I alone being unable to quantify the performance of, say, a P4 630 vs anything else than another P4 ? Is it supposed to get better by adding another digit and a letter before it?


    I guess AMD is gonna push up sales just because their naming scheme is better than Intel's...
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now