Intels new processor name

Im setting up this poll for one reason, and one reason only...

I prefered Nehalem as a name to Core i 7....

Just sounds right to me IMHO..

Vote on whats to come of this new chip from Intel...

I personally would like Intel to carry on the Nehalem name but hey ho im only a small minion.

Im not gonna say how great it is, nor blow intels trumpet, nor flambait in anyway...

If your gonna have a flame war on this, dont bother...

Im sick of my roller skate is better than your crap...... Its gone to far now...

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

yeah I hate the name I7

Reply to cow_moo

Makes no sense at all

Reply to blackwidow_rsa

Should have called it, HT Strikes back. :oops:

Reply to Grimmy

how would you distinguish between processers then? I'm not sure the "Intel Nehalem 965 extreme"... oh wait, it does sound ok

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to spuddyt

I think they should call it Whupass V1

Reply to rtfm

No I think that would be Whupass V2, version 1 is C2D, C2Q

------------------------------ Did I hit you with a Mack Truck?

Reply to kg4icg

Core 2 Octo

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

Giant Hurt Ball.

Reply to Grimmy

I dont care what its called, all I know is I got the cash and I'm buying it as soon as it hits market.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to roadrunner197069

roadrunner197069 wrote :

I dont care what its called, all I know is I got the cash and I'm buying it as soon as it hits market.

They'll charge a premium for new hardware though.

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

Well good thing I got loads of cash then. I dont hardly call a $290 - $300 cpu and $200-$300 mobo a premium, the Ram is already comming down also. Theres already Core 2 Duo counter parts that cost that much or more. Obviously I wont buy the $1000+ Extremes, but some early leaks indicate the entry level I 7 running 4.0 without a sweat.

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by roadrunner197069 on 10-05-2008 at 06:18:20 PM

Reply to roadrunner197069

roadrunner197069 wrote :

Well good thing I got loads of cash then. I dont hardly call a $290 - $300 cpu and $200-$300 mobo a premium, the Ram is already comming down also. Theres already Core 2 Duo counter parts that cost that much or more. Obviously I wont buy the $1000+ Extremes, but some early leaks indicate the entry level I 7 running 4.0 without a sweat.

That often cited price for i7 is wholesale price. Retailers can blow it up quite a bit.

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

Duh. But it wont be more then $20 hike on respectable sites like Newegg. They make major etailers abide by the MSRP. Mom and pop stores will charge a huge premium though.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to roadrunner197069

ye, it is confusing, should've dropped the core tag completely.

------------------------------ I'm a git, deal with it.

Antec 1200,PC Power & Cooling 750,Gigabyte DS4-x48,Intel Q9550@3.4 W/Xigmatek S1283,8GB OCZ DDR2 800,ATI 4870X2,X-FI>CA 640C amp>Tannoy R300/Senn 595's
Reply to strangestranger

spuddyt wrote :

how would you distinguish between processers then? I'm not sure the "Intel Nehalem 965 extreme"... oh wait, it does sound ok

See what I mean, its a fantastic name ... isnt it.... ?

Reply to Hellboy

roadrunner197069 wrote :

Duh. But it wont be more then $20 hike on respectable sites like Newegg. They make major etailers abide by the MSRP. Mom and pop stores will charge a huge premium though.

Most people stopped going to the mom and pop owned computer stores long ago and they went out of business never to return.

Reply to jj463rd

I dont care. Like I said the Etailers wont throw a big premium out, so I could care less.

I will be buying mine from Newegg!

Reply to roadrunner197069

It is actually more like Core for it, and i7 is more like 1337 speak. Typing Ci7 is also easier than typing Nehalem. C2D/Q are still better for gaming. Ci7 is definitely Intel's killer weapon for IT industry.

Reply to chaohsiangchen

While Intel's trumpet does not need blowing someone would do well to hand them a tissue to wipe their wet rear from all the kissing.

Reply to modtech

Just as long as its simple, I dont mind. Having a gazillion numbers makes it confusing/stupid, and either i7 or Nehalem word for me

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

Anything is fine as long as it's not intentionally deceiving, like AMD's naming system for their dual core cpus. Is a 3ghz X2 6000+ supposed to perform as a 6+ghz single core? Or is it supposed to be above 3ghz core2duo performance? Why don't they just call it "4500-" to accurately reflect performance. :sarcastic:

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

Im not so sure anythings fine, as having a bazillion numbers on a cpu is confusing. Maybe i7 means 7Ghz?

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

jaydeejohn wrote :

Im not so sure anythings fine, as having a bazillion numbers on a cpu is confusing. Maybe i7 means 7Ghz?

Only an idiot can arrive at that conclusion. The difference for AMD naming scheme is they openly intended for it to be a measure of performance. It worked back in the P4 era, because Athlons were faster than P4 at the same clock speed. Although they still overshot, naming a 1.53ghz Athlon 1800+ for 1.8ghz P4, while it's faster than 1.53ghz P4 but slower than 1.8ghz one.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/ [...] ng_scheme/
For some reason, they decided to continue the same naming scheme with Athlon X2 competing against Core2Duo, without dropping numbering below mhz number, pretending that they're still on top. And the uninformed and outdated consumers actually buys into it. Even worse, some people think performance exactly doubles with dual core because AMD decided to double numbering for dual cores. :sarcastic:

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ Q6600@3.6ghz, GA-EX38-DS4 motherboard, 8gb 800mhz ddr2 4-3-3-12, 8800GTS(g92)@780mhz, 1TB + 1.5TB hdds, 850watt psu
Reply to dagger

dagger wrote :

Only an idiot can arrive at that conclusion. The difference for AMD naming scheme is they openly intended for it to be a measure of performance. It worked back in the P4 era, because Athlons were faster than P4 at the same clock speed. Although they still overshot, naming a 1.53ghz Athlon 1800+ for 1.8ghz P4, while it's faster than 1.53ghz P4 but slower than 1.8ghz one.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/ [...] ng_scheme/
For some reason, they decided to continue the same naming scheme with Athlon X2 competing against Core2Duo, without dropping numbering below mhz number, pretending that they're still on top. And the uninformed and outdated consumers actually buys into it. Even worse, some people think performance exactly doubles with dual core because AMD decided to double numbering for dual cores. :sarcastic:

They didn't double their numbering. Least not in my two procs. AMD 3000 (Single-core, 130nm, 2.0Ghz) and my AMD 4000 (Dual-core, 65nm, 2.0Ghz (or is it 2.1?)). Same speed, +1000 in numbers. And I'd think that since the Athlon X2's came out Intel was making Pentium D's that they started their naming scheme from that, and didn't want to change it so that it WASN'T confusing (Can't have an AMD X2 4000 be faster than an X2 6000 just because they changed the naming convention halfway through).

*edit* I like Nehalem better, but when's the last time the marketing department came up with a name as cool as the codename. (I sure hope Bulldozer sticks (And bulldozes)).

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by Dekasav on 10-06-2008 at 06:56:57 AM

Reply to Dekasav

Dekasav wrote :

They didn't double their numbering. Least not in my two procs. AMD 3000 (Single-core, 130nm, 2.0Ghz) and my AMD 4000 (Dual-core, 65nm, 2.0Ghz (or is it 2.1?)). Same speed, +1000 in numbers. And I'd think that since the Athlon X2's came out Intel was making Pentium D's that they started their naming scheme from that, and didn't want to change it so that it WASN'T confusing (Can't have an AMD X2 4000 be faster than an X2 6000 just because they changed the naming convention halfway through).

*edit* I like Nehalem better, but when's the last time the marketing department came up with a name as cool as the codename. (I sure hope Bulldozer sticks (And bulldozes)).

Are we now saying AMDs problems are down to their silly names

Has Phenom worked.. No, not really

Did Spider work .. No, niet nada - another stupid name..

Crossfire - yeah it works, has been patchy in places but really - who needs to spend 500 quid on two cards when one for 400 is better ( 4870x2 or 9800gtx x2 anyone )

Then there is Bulldozer now will this be over hyped like the Phenom or will it be a success...

Only time will tell.. I hope that Bulldozer does succeed, but after the miserable Phenom launch.. Ill believe the hype when I see it..

Reply to Hellboy

dagger your answer was already given to you. The end of the single ended that comparison with the 4000. Since then theyve just gotten faster, and generally adopted names for every 200mhz + 200 in their scheme. Tho , tho that depended on cache as well, so there really wasnt a tie in at that point. A 4600=4800 except for the cache difference. Then it jumped to 60 , as in the FX60. So to say that its was only named after the P4 equivilent only held with the single cores. So anyone believing a 6000+ is to behave like a 6Ghz P4 would be stupid. Anyways, I thought this thread was on the i7? There may be reasons we dont know about for Intel to name it this way, such as Nehalem maybe sounded too religious heheh, or they have some cool ideas other than what we know, who knows? But, like I said, its better than AMDs 5 digit naming scheme like Id said earlier, tho I guess people didnt get that. And no, it doesnt matter what either Intel or AMD does for naming as for per performance, and names like bobcat and puma and bulldozer are catchy, and if you argue that i7 isnt as cool as Nehalem, it would seem Intel has taken the technical side in their naming, and not the fun side

------------------------------ I went drifting, thru the capitols of tin, where men cant walk and cant freely talk, and sons turn their fathers in
Reply to jaydeejohn

You should always take the fun side to your naming. AMD could have their Puma chips, and Intel could have Warthog chips!!!

Reply to Dekasav

The new naming might be more practical down the road. Consider that Nehalem is supposed to have 3 socket variant (1366, 1160 & 715). On top of that, each may have different number of cores, some chips on a given socket will support HyperThreading, others won't.

Intel has to have an easy naming scheme or things will get confusing really fast.

Reply to exit2dos

Forum CPU & Components : CPUs - Intels new processor name

Please mind