Friday, June 19th 2009

Intel Explains Brand Strategy with Core

In a recent blog post by Intel's Bill Calder, details emerged on how Intel will be treating its product names to make it simple for consumers to choose their client products. The strategy lays to rest a long-standing speculation that markers such as "i7", "i5", and "i3" remain confined to a particular kind (read: core design) of the client processor lineup, and spells out the purpose of these markers, and how they make it easy to figure out which Intel processor to buy.

To begin with, there are three markers it calls "modifiers": i3, i5, and i7, to denote entry-level, mid-level, and high-level respectively. These serve merely as modifiers to the brand "Intel Core". As such, "Intel Core i7" isn't a brand in itself, but a higher class of Intel Core series processors, than Core i5 and Core i3. The actual silicon, socket, or architecture used remains abstract to the marker. For example, some higher variants of the "Lynnfield" quad-core processor will use the name Core i7, while the bulk of its mainstream lineup remains in Core i5. The "Clarksfield" mobile quad-core chip makes it to the Core i7 series, as it denotes the highest performance available for notebooks. In all, we can expect Intel to use its modifiers solely to explain what features each processor carries, to replace the existing strategy of giving model numbers to spread products across value, mainstream, performance, and extreme performance segments.
Says Bill Calder:
"We are focusing our strategy around a primary 'hero' client brand which is Intel Core. Today the Intel Core brand has a mind boggling array of derivatives (such as Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad, etc). Over time those will go away and in its place will be a simplified family of Core processors spanning multiple levels: Intel Core i3 processor, Intel Core i5 processor, and Intel Core i7 processors. Core i3 and Core i5 are new modifiers and join the previously announced Intel Core i7 to round out the family structure. It is important to note that these are not brands but modifiers to the Intel Core brand that signal different features and benefits. For example, upcoming processors such as Lynnfield (desktop) will carry the Intel Core brand, but will be available as either Intel Core i5 or Intel Core i7 depending upon the feature set and capability. Clarksfield (mobile) will have the Intel Core i7 name."Source: Intel
Add your own comment

67 Comments on Intel Explains Brand Strategy with Core

#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
lemonadesoda said:
Let me split a hair with you: Lynnfield uses QPI for intraconnect and DMI for interconnect. ;)
It does not matter. All QPI does on Bloomfield is connecting the processor to the X58 northbridge. All it does on Lynnfield is connecting the CPU die to the northbridge die. X58 continues to use DMI to connect with the ICH10R. Architectural difference? Null.



Does it matter how big the green rectangle is? It can even gulp down the ICH/PCH and become an SoC. It still wouldn't make for an architectural difference. The QPI link on Lynnfield is user controllable, just like the one on Bloomfield. Therefore, there is no difference in the roles they are playing, and it shouldn't matter where it is present. Lynnfield does use QPI, and in the same way Bloomfield does. In no way is Bloomfield superior to Lynnfield when it comes to implementing QPI.
Posted on Reply
#3
Sihastru
Actually because the NB die + CPU die are on the same package for Lynnfield this could translate into a small advantage when comparing latencies. So in single video card configurations (1 x PCIe 16x), Lynnfield might give you a just few extra frames per second.
Posted on Reply
#4
PCpraiser100
Sihastru said:
Actually because the NB die + CPU die are on the same package for Lynnfield this could translate into a small advantage when comparing latencies.
That will be so until they are overclocked. This is why AMD hasn't done this, as this kind of design, or advantage, should be only taken to platforms that require minimal setup that seem careless about heat, like cell phones and game consoles. This is not recommended for media towers however should suffice with good old mATX and ATX towers. Taking this to the notebooks will remain decent until you either burn through your favorite pants with the heat or run out of battery before noticing.
Posted on Reply
#5
jagl4d
SKU Nightmare

One hell of a nightmare for systemboard makers and retailers. :rolleyes: Even recycling :twitch: So much all for going green.
People looking for midrange to high performance boards and prociess will have to shell out more $$$. Nice intel, just nice! :slap:
Posted on Reply
#6
locoty
and Intel CPU now like GPU in the terms of naming scheme

There is i3, i 5, i7

i'am not surprised that there will be i9, i11, i13 and so on
Posted on Reply
#7
Sihastru
There will be an i9. I am hoping for an i1, since these processors are too powerful.
Posted on Reply
#8
mdm-adph
Wow -- reading all this makes me glad I use AMD chips.

I don't care if they're slower -- what Intel has done looks like a massive, expensive fucking headache.
Posted on Reply
#9
jessicafae
I hope Intel did extensive marketing research on this. there is a small possibility this might not work exactly like they hope.

Given this chart I bet this is just marketing so they can eventually say "i5 is approximately equal to PhenomII and i7 is better" or something similar to try to "dumb down the consumer". "why is this laptop $300 more? it has an i7 which is faster..." . Why did they place the Clarksfields mobile processor in i7 and there are no mobile processors in i5? I bet it will be slower than the current i7 920.. it is a mobile processor after all with thermal limits.

Of course anyone can play the FUD/simplification game... if this accelerates it could lead to a bit of backlash. People don't need to upgrade, computers are generally fast enough, people are looking at computers more and more like a cellphone, music player, or TV (something that just works and does xxx). The netbook / iphone / ps3-xbox360 factor.

Consumer: Why do I need a faster computer?
Sales person: Well you need more power to video encode your Bluray movies down to 480x320 resolution for your ipod
Consumer: hmmm
Posted on Reply
#10
Wile E
Power User
mdm-adph said:
Wow -- reading all this makes me glad I use AMD chips.

I don't care if they're slower -- what Intel has done looks like a massive, expensive fucking headache.
How is AMD's naming sceme any less confusing to the consumer?

I'll tell you right now, it isn't.
Posted on Reply
#11
mdm-adph
Wile E said:
How is AMD's naming sceme any less confusing to the consumer?

I'll tell you right now, it isn't.
Not talking about the naming scheme -- I'm talking the possibility of all these sockets.

Right now, I can run anything from AM2, to AM2+, to AM3 on my board. To me, that's much, much easier. That's why I said it makes me glad that I use AMD chips. :laugh:

But please -- return and tell me how I'm wrong, how they're the same, blah blah blah.
Posted on Reply
#12
TheMailMan78
Big Member
Wile E take it from me. Arguing with mdm-adph is like arguing with water. He just flows around your rocks of logic and common sense.
Posted on Reply
#13
Wile E
Power User
mdm-adph said:
Not talking about the naming scheme -- I'm talking the possibility of all these sockets.

Right now, I can run anything from AM2, to AM2+, to AM3 on my board. To me, that's much, much easier. That's why I said it makes me glad that I use AMD chips. :laugh:

But please -- return and tell me how I'm wrong, how they're the same, blah blah blah.
Can't run any Athlon 64/64 X2, Phenom I's or PII 940's in an AM3 board, for example, as they lack DDR3 controllers. Sometime in the relatively near future, you won't be able to run new AMD cpus in AM2+ or earlier boards, as they will lack a DDR2 controller as well. And this isn't the first time with multiple socket for AMD either. Remember the 939 days? 754, 939, and 940 all at the same time.

AMD and Intel both are guilty of similar things throughout the history of both companies.
Posted on Reply
#14
[I.R.A]_FBi
If you dont like intel dont be all up in their grill is all
Posted on Reply
#15
mdm-adph
TheMailMan78 said:
Wile E take it from me. Arguing with mdm-adph is like arguing with water. He just flows around your rocks of logic and common sense.
Your rocky logic and common sense? :laugh:

What -- you're running an AMD chip. Stop sticking up for them. You're either with us or against us.

Wile E said:
Can't run any Athlon 64/64 X2, Phenom I's or PII 940's in an AM3 board, for example, as they lack DDR3 controllers. Sometime in the relatively near future, you won't be able to run new AMD cpus in AM2+ or earlier boards, as they will lack a DDR2 controller as well. And this isn't the first time with multiple socket for AMD either. Remember the 939 days? 754, 939, and 940 all at the same time.

AMD and Intel both are guilty of similar things throughout the history of both companies.
Yes, the 754/939/940 days sucked. However, like I said, for me, right now, AMD seems like the much, much easier/cheaper choice. There's no need to be offended because you run Intel chips. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
mdm-adph said:
Your rocky logic and common sense? :laugh:

What -- you're running an AMD chip. Stop sticking up for them. You're either with us or against us.



Yes, the 754/939/940 days sucked. However, like I said, for me, right now, AMD seems like the much, much easier/cheaper choice. There's no need to be offended because you run Intel chips. :laugh:
I'm not offended. And there's no need to defend AMD in an Intel topic, just because you run an AMD chip. :p
Posted on Reply
#17
jagl4d
Intel could have just made their i5s & i3s similar to the i7 layout with No Connects & their ICH chips reconfiguring accordingly. That strategy could well sink AMD deeper than ever.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment