Intel Rebrands its Processors (Again)

Intel LogoYesterday, Intel announced that they were going to help simplify their processor naming scheme (great!). The bad news is that, as per usual, their marketing is getting exponentially more complicated. From Deborah Conrad at Intel, who shall remain nameless:

As I have read today’s posts, I thought it time to clarify a few things, since I am responsible for marketing and branding at Intel.

First, an important clarification. We are not going to have a line up of names for each derivative, for example a Core i(n) for every flavor of processor. Instead, there will be just three – Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7. And in each, there will be a few versions, but a consumer won’t need to see that level of detail (unless they elect to, of course).

The fact is that the new approach is about putting it all back on “Core” as the processor family name, just as suggested. That’s really the most important part of this effort. Right now we have so many variants, with names that are confusing (Duo, Quad, etc), that moving to a simple “good, better, best” approach makes the most sense.

There is no “easy” way out. We have a lot of products in the market today, with a whole new line up coming out. We can’t change the names of products that are out there, but we can change the pattern of naming moving forward, and make it intuitive, which is what we did.

Intel’s marketing schemes are a real mess right now, though understandably so. There are so many processors coming out all the time that it’s hard to keep track of. This is not doing it for me:

  • Atom
  • Celeron
  • Pentium
  • Core
  • Core i3
  • Core 2
  • Core i5
  • Core i7

Is that even correct? Is Core i3 slower end than Core 2? Or will some Core i3 chips be slower than Core 2 and some faster?

There are two fundamental problems: overlap and an excessive number of categorizations. The good, better, best idea works fine but not when pulled into subcategories of a product line. What should be done is to stop tacking numbers on to product lines that mean absolutely nothing. If you want to add a number to it then make it a number which represents the year it was launched.

For example:

Intel Core E8400 2009 vs Intel Core E8400 2010

Same product name, different year. Don’t need to mess around with marketing at all. Simply tacking on the year to the product name mean you can reduce, reuse and recycle names. Anyone can tell instantly which of the two is better plus onsumers don’t need to relearn entire product lines every year or two.

Oops. Want to release an architecture update twice this year? No problem, the 2010 model is out early, though I don’t think that ever happens with Intel’s tick-tock model anyways. Why this is made out to be so complicated, I don’t know…

So remember:

Intel (name) (number) (year)

Intel is the company name
is the product line name
Number is the product number where bigger is always better
Year is the yea the architecture was released

So what do you guys think? Is my way better? Pretty sure that it would clean up the entire naming scheme with minimal effort on everybody’s part…

Here is a link the original post by Intel.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *