Normally, imaginary numbers are used the other way around, like this, "7i."seems like it is usually the other way around, i.e. a + bi, but perhaps intel is thinking different[ly].
Noooo! It' mine I tell ya, I saw it first!Just give me that sweet sweet powerhouse of a 17" MBP with dual everything and 8GB of RAM.
Normally, imaginary numbers are used the other way around, like this, "7i."
7i actually sounds better than i7.
That's why I put "686" and "786" in quotes.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.
I want the Core 3 + 7i Quad. Works with my imagination as well as real data.Am I the only one who realizes that i7 is an imaginary number?![]()
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?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?
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!
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.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!
The Inquirer has other explanations.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 said:It could be, however, that Intel discovered some sort of Haxor dialect and theyre actually saying Core it or their product code just tripped the 80777 number
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...
Eventually every marketing team loses the plot and screws up big time.
Normally, imaginary numbers are used the other way around, like this, "7i."
7i actually sounds better than i7.
Eventually every marketing team loses the plot and screws up big time.
It was bound to happen to Intel sooner or later.
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