Intel announces simplified product-naming scheme

It looks like Intel has come to the realization that its product naming scheme has gotten a little out of hand and, as Ars Technica reports, it's now taking some measures to simplify things a bit. Apparently, Core 2 Quad, Core 2 Duo, and Core 2 Solo will all simply be known as "Core 2" starting on January 1st, 2008 (presumably with some other means to differentiate then), and Intel Viiv Processor Technology and Intel vPro Processor Technology will henceforth be known as Intel Core 2 Duo Processor with Viiv (or vPro). Further on down the line, Pentium D and Pentium Dual-Core will both be shortened to just "Pentium," while the server-centric Itanium 2 gets demoted to plain old "Itanium." According to Ars, Core 2 Extreme, Celeron, and Xeon will all stay as they are. Simple, right?

[strider_mt2k @ Aug 9th 2007 11:11AM]

Would you repeat that stuff where you said about the ...things?

[Tom @ Aug 9th 2007 11:16AM]

No! It's still not bloody simple at all. What they are now doing is cramming a load of apparently "different" processors into one name which will confuse us all further because we know that one core 2 duo will differ from another. They are simply producing too many different kinds of processor, that is, if the architecture amongst their product line is different at all. What is the difference between a Vpro and a Viiv? Is it just the way that they maket them, or is there something unique about each one?

[Blayne @ Aug 9th 2007 11:28AM]

I agree. I can't stand any of the new naming conventions, and this makes it even worse.

[mattclarkie @ Aug 9th 2007 11:36AM]

If by simpler you mean harder to understand.
Then yes it is much simpler.

[Warhorse @ Aug 9th 2007 12:09PM]

Almost sounds like one of those confusing sales strategy schemes.

[paloooz @ Aug 9th 2007 11:21AM]

Yay, fewer morons saying they have a "duo core 2" or a "duo core processor" when they are actually refering to "dual core" or "Core 2 Duo."

[OddManOut @ Aug 9th 2007 11:26AM]

I'm sorry but this just seems like a linguistic circle-jerk to me (like most of my engadget posts...). How is removing 'Solo', 'Duo', and 'Quad' going to help ? And what's the point of attaching 'Duo' to the Viiv line if you're not even going to call the Duos 'Duo's anymore ?

[Totalfixation @ Aug 9th 2007 11:33AM]

I guess for some it does make some sense. I suppose it would go something like this.

Core 2 Solo = Single Core
Core 2 Duo = Dual Core
Core 2 Quad = Quad Core
Core 2 Extreme = Enthusiast variations of duos and quads.

I think they should drop the Celeron, and Xeon, and leave it at that. The solo can replace the Celeron, the duo could be the Pentium replacement. The quad can become main stream, maybe not now but in 2008. The extreme can still be the enthusiast. Then when the newer version comes out they can just replace the core 2 with core 3.

Just my take on what they should do with there naming scheme.

[Robotochan @ Aug 9th 2007 11:34AM]

Just making it easier for retailers to distort weak specced systems to sound more powerful.

I would have gone for something boring like "Common Name Cores Special Tech Speed" Like erm "Core 2Viiv 1.21GHz" I never was one for shorthand :/

[roulette843 @ Aug 9th 2007 11:36AM]

Nah, I still think they don't get it. Taking out words just doesn't do the trick.

You see, if they had iViiv, iCeleron and iXeon, people would obviously buy them without hesistation. I mean come on, the allure of an iProduct is obviously much greater than just some plain unstylish loser product.

[crescentdavid @ Aug 9th 2007 11:38AM]

Let's see
itanium (model/speed)_______
duo (model/speed)_______
quad (model/speed)_______
celeron (speed)______
xeon (speed)______

and terminate with well-deserved prejudice the completely superfluous core solo, pentium d and pentium dual-core. Idiots.

[crescentdavid @ Aug 9th 2007 11:40AM]

Let's see
itanium (model/speed)_______
duo (model/speed)_______
quad (model/speed)_______
celeron (speed)______
xeon (speed)______

and terminate with well-deserved prejudice the completely superfluous core solo, pentium d and pentium dual-core. Idiots.

[mattclarkie @ Aug 9th 2007 11:41AM]

Single Core= Intel (insert number of GHZ)Single
Dual Core= Intel (insert number of GHZ) Dual
Quad Core= Intel (insert number of GHZ) Quad

Viiv = Intel Viiv (insert number of GHZ) (Dual, Quad)

Or maybe just leave it the way it is, just removingthe 2. Core-Duo, Core-Quad,

[paloooz @ Aug 9th 2007 11:52AM]

Viiv is not a processor.

[mattclarkie @ Aug 9th 2007 11:54AM]

It is a technology, but they have to denote it somehow.

[Muu @ Aug 9th 2007 12:01PM]

Makes sense.

the average consumer doesn't give two shits about how many cores the cpu has, as long as it'll do email and word processing and let them watch corny shows on youtube.

[Nith @ Aug 9th 2007 1:29PM]

I agree with you but this is why the average user will be satisfied with a Pentium III and never wish for more (unless you try installing Vista on there). Unless you're a gamer or you do video editing there is no need for dual proccessor computer. But I guess Intel doesn't want the public to figure it out

[Cameron @ Aug 9th 2007 12:08PM]

WTF? Intel, you MORONS!

[Chris @ Aug 9th 2007 12:15PM]

the parts they are changing, that's not the confusing parts. in fact, that's the most clear part of the naming scheme and now that's screwed that up too.

which is better, core 2 duo e6600 or pentium D 945? same socket, about the same price, both dual core, same cache, core has a faster bus, but the D has a faster clock. why do I even have to look at these kinds specs to try and figure it out? not that AMD is any better with the 64 and FX series.

now, *I* know the difference, but how is the average person supposed to know what they are getting? I think maybe they aren't, part of intel's world domination plan

[Maff @ Aug 9th 2007 1:58PM]

Tom's hardware has a very cool cpu chart to help peeps!

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

mo handy??!!

[Chris @ Aug 9th 2007 2:08PM]

"peeps" aren't gonna look at Tom's, they are gonna stand there in BestBuy and look at the labels, or at best look at an outdated consumer reports guide.

the only real way to solve this "problem" is to have an OS independent industry standard system benchmark tool. Boot off a CD or USB drive and run the benchmark, print a label and stick it on the box.

Keep in mind I'm talking about buying a prebuilt system, not just buying a cpu. if you can build a system, I'd hope you know to look stuff up on Tom's, and other review sites, first.

[James @ Aug 12th 2007 10:48AM]

The problem with your benchmark idea is that there are so many things you can ask a processor to do right now, and so many ways they can differ from one another, that it would be virtually impossible to make a set of benchmarks that are "OS independent" and actually mean anything. At this point, the market is complicated enough that *real-world* benchmarks are about the only way to make a meaningful choice. You have to be able to say, "OK, I want to buy the best value for playing Unreal Engine 3 games" or "I want the fastest image-save time in Photoshop CS3", because with all the complexities of cache arrangements and shared buses (and about a thousand other things), that answer will be different for every question you ask.

[Marshall @ Aug 9th 2007 12:38PM]

It was difficult before, but now quickly choosing the right processor will be close to impossible.

I suppose that a lot of the people who currently bring printouts to my desk and ask "will this computer do everything I need?" will be happy that there are fewer options, but most of those people are blindly buying Dells and probably don't need anything more than what an XO-1 laptop would provide. The people who care will be the most inconvenienced.

[alex @ Aug 9th 2007 1:25PM]

I was just wondering why you haven't posted anything about iweb crashing when you install iwork '08

[jalapeno @ Aug 9th 2007 2:47PM]

Intel needs some serious help, they are driving me crazy with all these processors...who can keep track of this stuff? You need a PhD in chipology.

[Galley @ Aug 9th 2007 2:47PM]

Perhaps it would be esaier if they used horsepower to measure computers. ;-)

[pedro @ Aug 9th 2007 3:41PM]

Wasn't intel supposed to have solved their naming conundrum last year when they came out with the Core chips? I was hopeful that they would have some sort of logical naming scheme, and then not 6 months later after they released the Core, they had to go and name its successor Core *2*, so now we had the genius name of Core 2 Duo.

[james @ Aug 9th 2007 4:19PM]

How about

Intel Single Core + Model/MHZ
Intel Dual Core + Model/MHZ
Intel Quad Core + Model/MHZ
Intel Extreme + Model/MHZ

[zaxour @ Aug 9th 2007 4:31PM]

Except that horsepower has to do with distance and motion

[pr_master @ Aug 9th 2007 5:58PM]

nvidia and ati plz take notes, you guys also
need some simple naming.

[Striker @ Aug 9th 2007 9:13PM]

Intel does not make a single-core Core 2 processor. Single cores on new processors ended with the original Core series (Core 2, at least a dual core processor,duh.)

[NewJohnny @ Aug 10th 2007 4:09AM]

Intel-- take a hint from Apple and reduce your product line to three offerings: Pentium, Xeon, and Celeron. Names that most everybody knows and (mostly) trusts.

[moondy @ Aug 11th 2007 5:42AM]

When i didnt know jack about processors i just thought that the faster the GHZ the faster the processor...of course now i know. But my friends on the other hand arnt exactly the computer type and they keep on bragging on how their P4 3ghz laptop is much better then my 2ghz core 2 duo...lol i cant be bothered arguing anymore.

So my bottom line is just maybe adjust the relative GHz speed compared to the newest version. So for example a 3.6 GHZ P4 compared to a 2GHZ Core2Duo might be 'as fast as 1ghz'.