Intel "Nehalem" to be named "Core i7"

[ltldrummerboy]

I. Seven.

You, my friend, are funny.

 

[Yvan256]

I. Seven.

We are Borg.

 

[L3X]

seems like it is usually the other way around, i.e. a + bi, but perhaps intel is thinking different[ly].

Normally, imaginary numbers are used the other way around, like this, "7i."

7i actually sounds better than i7.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Just give me that sweet sweet powerhouse of a 17" MBP with dual everything and 8GB of RAM.

 

[nanofrog]

Just give me that sweet sweet powerhouse of a 17" MBP with dual everything and 8GB of RAM.

Noooo! It' mine I tell ya, I saw it first!

 

[nanofrog]

Normally, imaginary numbers are used the other way around, like this, "7i."

7i actually sounds better than i7.

When I see an "i" in a product name/number, I can't help but think internal.
I must be spending too much time looking at hardware specs.

 

[iMacmatician]

Nope.
...
Pentium M and Core Duo are loosely derived from the "P6" line, but are different enough that they are their own line. I haven't seen anywhere specifically referring to it as an eighth generation, but for all intents and purposes, it was.

Core 2 is yet another new line. Yes, it carries some loose family resemblance to P6, but it is not derivative enough to be a true member of the family, just like Pentium M and Core Duo. It is also different enough from Core Duo to be separate. At this point, nobody refers to it by generation number any more, but it is effectively the ninth generation.

Nehalem will therefore be the tenth generation x86-family core.

That's why I put "686" and "786" in quotes.

Am I the only one who realizes that i7 is an imaginary number?

I want the Core 3 + 7i Quad. Works with my imagination as well as real data.

Why is it that intel is unable to come up with a coherent and logical naming scheme? It would be a lot easier to understand by the average consumer if they called it core 3, and retained the solo, duo, quad, and octo names.

Is there some sort of marketing advantage in consumer confusion?

It's probably like Apple, where they keep things as simple as possible. But seriously. Can't the average consumer just know the number of cores in a CPU at one glance?

I know that at some time in the future, we'll have 20, 24, 28, and 32 cores, like 2.0, 2.4, 2.8, and 3.2 GHz, and by then the core numbers can be dropped. But I don't think now is the time.

Even colors are better.

 

[Apple Ink]

I know that at some time in the future, we'll have 20, 24, 28, and 32 cores, like 2.0, 2.4, 2.8, and 3.2 GHz, and by then the core numbers can be dropped. But I don't think now is the time.

Even colors are better.

The current 45nm processing cant get any near to squeezing in more than 8 cores! And even for that Ill guess Intel'll shift to 32nm! So my guess is by the time 20+ cores do appear, we'll have a different system of things and obviously nomenclatures as well!

P.S.: Moore's law is also failing since there really isnt much space on a die with 45nm core for doubling the no. of transistors!

 

[macduke]

The current 45nm processing cant get any near to squeezing in more than 8 cores! And even for that Ill guess Intel'll shift to 32nm! So my guess is by the time 20+ cores do appear, we'll have a different system of things and obviously nomenclatures as well!

P.S.: Moore's law is also failing since there really isnt much space on a die with 45nm core for doubling the no. of transistors!

I think about a year ago, intel showed off their 80-core processor. Yes I said eighty. I belive at the time they were hoping to get 32 cores off the ground and mainstream by 2010-11 and ramp it up to 80 within the next two years. This might be the sort of "streaming processors" that larabee will use with their GPGPU solution and response to AMD and nVidia.

 

[J the Ninja]

Well, some people over at the Toms Hardware forums came up with a semi-plausible/believable explanation as to where they got the "7" from:

Pentium
Pentium II
Pentium III
Pentium 4
Core = Pentium 5
Core 2 = Pentium 6
Nehalem = Pentium 7 = Core i7


So they kinda just took their different line names and smushed them together, threw a trendy "i" in there, and called it good.

 

[iMacmatician]

P.S.: Moore's law is also failing since there really isnt much space on a die with 45nm core for doubling the no. of transistors!

And the other thing is that right now, with each microarchitecture, the core size increases. A Core i7 core/processor is about the same size as a Core 2 core/processor despite being built on a smaller process. I would assume this would change in the future, since Haswell (Sandy Bridge successor) is supposed to have 8 cores by default.

Well, some people over at the Toms Hardware forums came up with a semi-plausible/believable explanation as to where they got the "7" from:

The Inquirer has other explanations.

It could be, however, that Intel discovered some sort of Haxor dialect and they’re actually saying “Core it” – or their product code just tripped the 80777 number

 

[wonderbread57]

Lies. Core 2 Duo is marketable name because it describes it's most significant feature of having multiple cores. i7, what the hell is that describing? false rumor, Intel isn't dumb.

 

[noodle654]

That is a horrible name for a processor...horrible. What does i7 actually mean core wise to the consumer? When people here Core 2 Duo they hear multiple processing cores. With i7 I hear absolutely nothing about a processor. Yes, there was Pentium but at least you knew that Pentium IV is better than III. Bad idea on Intels part...

 

[gkarris]

That is a horrible name for a processor...horrible. What does i7 actually mean core wise to the consumer? When people here Core 2 Duo they hear multiple processing cores. With i7 I hear absolutely nothing about a processor. Yes, there was Pentium but at least you knew that Pentium IV is better than III. Bad idea on Intels part...

"7" is a lucky number...

And you should be so "lucky" to be able to afford one in today's economy...

 

[Gosh]

Eventually every marketing team loses the plot and screws up big time.

It was bound to happen to Intel sooner or later.

 

[ltldrummerboy]

Eventually every marketing team loses the plot and screws up big time.

Mobile Me

 

[Brianstorm91]

Not very important, but there's too many shadow lines over that logo.

 

[RichardI]

Marketing people are a riot. It kills me that someone got a LOT of money to come up with i7. Why a small i in stead of a capital I? How about I7? Now there's a logo. Or better yet - 007! Now we're talkin' LOGO baby!

Rich

 

[nick9191]

Core 2 Duo sounds stupid.

Core Duo made sense, as there were two cores.

But whats Core 2 Duo.

AMD smoke Intel when it comes to naming products. Phenom, Athlon, Sempron, Turion.

I like Core i7 a lot though, Core 2 Duo sounds ridiculous.

 

[Bengt77]

I. Seven.

We have a winner! Extremely funny.

 

[Saladinos]

Normally, imaginary numbers are used the other way around, like this, "7i."

7i actually sounds better than i7.

Anything multiplied by i is imaginary - and multiplication works regardless of the order. Euler's equation, for instance, is usually written e^(i*pi). In electronics, we also tend to put j at the front in exp. Form - e^jwt

So i7 is an imaginary number.

Can't wait for Nehalem. I hope there's no case redesign though - the current case is fantastic. It's also huge and overwhelming. It's like the Leni Riefenstahl movie of computers. I don't trust Apple's art direction right now. If they redo the case, they're going to screw it up. And it'll probably have a lot of build quality issues.

 

[Apple Ink]

Eventually every marketing team loses the plot and screws up big time.

It was bound to happen to Intel sooner or later.

May I ask you....... what do you mean by "eventually"? I think Intel's nomenclature has always been a bit on the 'eerie' side! (Especially all their code names)

 

[ltcol266845]

Mobile Me

Totally.

 

[ajohnson253]

I probably sound like an idiot. But whats the difference with the current and the new ones? No not the logo lol but performance wise

 

[iMacmatician]

I probably sound like an idiot. But whats the difference with the current and the new ones? No not the logo lol but performance wise

• Hyper-threading - Each physical core acts as two "logical" cores, delivering increased efficiency and therefore performance
• Integrated memory controller with 2~4 memory channels - Increased memory bandwidth
• QuickPath interconnect (selected variants) - Replaces the front side bus bottleneck of current CPUs
• Performance is about 15%~20% faster than Penryn core-for-core at equal clocks, IMC, QuickPath, and others provide additional performance improvements (total 30%~40% or so for high-end desktop variant)
• 30% lower power usage for the same performance (high-end desktop variant)
• On-chip integrated GPU (selected variants) - Reduces the CPU + GPU two chips to one
• Clock speeds are similar to those of current Penryn CPUs, which means nothing is lost there
• L1, L2, L3 cache - Three levels of cache for the best performance
• Modular and scalable - The # of cores, # of memory channels, # of QuickPath links, and amount of L3 cache can be varied to fit the target market segment
• SSE4.2 - New instructions to speed up performance in certain areas