Why is Intel dropping the Pentium name?

S

Spare-Flair

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Messages
7,471
As the news post said, why is Intel dropping the Pentium name? It's already dropped the actual clockspeed from it's name, only listing some ambiguous model number in their grand marketing scheme but what's the point of all this?

Are they trying to make the most user-unfriendly, general-public confusing, grandmother shopping for computer aneurysm inducing marketing plan ever? Are they trying to get in on the trend of naming cars only by number?

I try to keep up to date on processors and even I get confused by everything in Intel's naming pattern and have difficulties explaining this to people. Aren't computer and electronics stores going to have difficulties explaining for sales as well?

AMD does this with their Opterons but that's a enterprise/server class CPU technically, their processors for the general public still list their equivalent speed scheme (3200+ etc.) and market segment brand (Sempron/Athlon) which seems to have now ironically become the clearer definition of speed in processor names versus Intel where previously, it was the more confusing marketing contrivance.

This probably means Celeron is gone as well. Has Centrino already gone? (Unless Intel wants to keep that one so that consumers will have to buy laptops bundled with their wireless adapters).
 
the Pentium name used to represent the best of Intel, like P1/P2 and Pentium Overdrive days they would stomp AMD's but since they are lack lusters for most of the P3/P4 vs. K7/K8 days, i think they figure they should drop the name since its not the best, unless you consider the Pentium-M. They seem like they are just going through alot of change to change there image and maybe this 3 digit number scheme is made for tech's/sales reps to make sells cause the average joe doesn't care to learn every spec of these processors to find the best when they can just ask a computer sales rep/tech what the best is. Everyone knows Intel for quality and stability so i don't think sales will drop significally.

Who knows, the Xeon name might disappear as well?

I might be wrong, but the centrino wasn't a processor, i thought it was the name for a intel laptop running?!

EDIT: The centrino is a power notebook, not a processor like i thought.
http://www.powernotebooks.com/articles/index.php?action=fullnews&id=14
 
Well, part of it I'm sure is Intel perparing the public for Conroe latter this year.

The naming schemes, particularly from intel, are confusing because the product lines are confusing. AMD kept the little features (like die shrinks) out of their numbering scheme which makes comparing one A64 to another a bit simpler, but you've got a 3100+ sempron that's slower than a 3000+ Athlon64 and an Athlon64 3800+ that's sometimes faster than a Athlon X2 3800+ and sometimes not. So overall, it's a mess. Numbering scheme's hide specific reasons (features) that it's a mess, but I don't believe they make it a bigger (or smaller) mess.
 
Maybe it will make it easier to explain to people that the new P4 has very little in commong with the P4 that came out - I don't remember how many years ago.

It actually seems rather smart marketing: since most of the 'upgrades' in processors have been improvements in core design, multi core architecture, small changes and not MHz increases, it is important for Intel and AMD to explain this difference to Joe Average Customer. He needs to 'think' that the new Intel EE 940 is sooo much better (by 100 points!) than the old 840EE.

In the end, I have mixed feelings about the model numbering scheme. Apart from making it hard for me to understand which Yonoah (or whatever they are called) has which clock speed, it also disguises the fact that the T2700 and the T1400 are almost clocked the same (2.4 vs 1.83 GHz or so).

I think that a clear distinction of models is to the customers advantage, however I think that they are somewhat designed to deceive and confuse more rather than clear up. In the end, it reduces transparency, which is an attribute that I hold in high regards.
 
It is very difficult to have the same name across very different processor designs. ( Pentium M / Pentium 4 / Pentium D /Pentium EE )
 
AMD is outselling Intel processors in the retail market. Intel has some re-branding to do.

Additionally, this coincides perfectly with the introduction of Apple on Intel. I'm sure Apple pressured Intel a fair bit so that the new Apples don't appear to use the same technology PC's have had for 10 years.
 
Spare-Flair said:
their processors for the general public still list their equivalent speed scheme (3200+ etc.) and market segment brand (Sempron/Athlon) which seems to have now ironically become the clearer definition of speed in processor names versus Intel where previously, it was the more confusing marketing contrivance.
Click to expand...
Quick, what's a Turion ML-32, and what are the differences between the Turion MT-30 and Turion ML-32? :p None of those come with xxxx+ PR attached to the names and the ML and MT have slightly different scales.

---
And as pointed out above, AMD has it's own naming problems. One line uses xxxx+ ratings (Sempron, A64, S462 use different scales), another line uses FX-xx ratings, Opterons use xxx ratings and another line uses ML-/MT- ratings.

Intel uses Pentium 4/M/Celeron/D xxxxMHz (the last descriptive method used by AMD or Intel), Pentium 4/D/M/Celeron D/M xxx ratings and now a Txxxx/Lxxxx rating.

Same mess, but you're only outraged at Intel? :rolleyes:
---

The Pentium name is old. Pent- is a suffix meaning 5. The successor to the 486 was named "Pentium" because Intel couldn't trademark the "586" name (although other manufacturers like Boeing have no problem trademarking 747/757/767/etc, and Apple is litigious about naming an OS after sequential digits). It's only surprising that the "Pentium" name was around so long, well over a decade. The silliness of it caught up with what may have been the next name: Pentium 5. The "Athlon" name will face a similar change in the future. It's going to be 7 years old soon, but we'll probably see lame Windows-related variations before it's retired (Oh boy, "Athlon Live!").
 
I see it as possibly a big mistake. So many people say... "I don't want this computer b/c it doesn't have a Pentium in it. I don't want a Celeron or AMD... I want a Pentium!!"

I've seen it time & time again. Generally all these noobs know is Pentium = teh good.

So taking away that easy moniker for them I think will definitely hurt Intel. And may be just making AMD's job (of selling) easier.
 
Well, it seems that some more general comparison needs to be shown to the average joe consumer. He needs to be informed of the processors' strong and weak points, and an overall comparison. What made everything so confusing is the vast array of naming schemes and numbers thrown in the mix. Conclusively, id have to say both companies need a straight-forward naming scheme that dosnt confuse the hell out of the customer.
 
Emission said:
He needs to be informed of the processors' strong and weak points, and an overall comparison.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't. He needs a computer.
 
chrisf6969 said:
I see it as possibly a big mistake. So many people say... "I don't want this computer b/c it doesn't have a Pentium in it. ...

I've seen it time & time again. Generally all these noobs know is Pentium = teh good.
Click to expand...
Even with a label on the front of the computer stating "Intel Core Duo," Joe and Jane Consumer will still probably call it a Pentium. Think of the people who call all carbonated beverages "Coke". :p

Anyways, look at how quickly the Centrino branding was built up from nothing. The same thing will happen with Core Duo/Solo. Advertising works (er, pricing does too, explaining AMD's success in retail).
 
pxc said:
Anyways, look at how quickly the Centrino branding was built up from nothing. The same thing will happen with Core Duo/Solo. Advertising works (er, pricing does too, explaining AMD's success in retail).
Click to expand...

As long as ViiV doesn't catch on I'll be happy
 
Emission said:
How does he know which to buy if he cant tell the difference?
Click to expand...
The computer expert that he's talking to uses his knowledge to make a recommendation. If the user resists the expert's recommendations because of some ill-conceived notion that comes from Blue Man Group commercials, and the expert wants to convince him otherwise, I don't think a thorough discussion of x86 architecture is prudent. Fudging the facts is fine, though ;)

In any case, the end user doesn't need to have any clue about the difference between an Athlon and a D 840. The end user needs a computer that does what he wants.

To illustrate this, consider a guy who walks into a hardware store looking for a drill bit. The astute salesman doesn't launch into a lesson about various materials and shapes because the person is interested in drill bits. Instead, he realizes that what the consumer really wants is a HOLE, and sells him the appropriate bit.
 
Ehh.. well put. The sales guys have to at least know what pc is good for what purpose. Multi-tasking, gaming and the such.
 
Intel is dropping the name because if they keep it sooner or later they'll have to use "Pentium 5" . . . and that would just be stoopid :)
 
pxc said:
Quick, what's a Turion ML-32, and what are the differences between the Turion MT-30 and Turion ML-32? :p None of those come with xxxx+ PR attached to the names and the ML and MT have slightly different scales.

---
And as pointed out above, AMD has it's own naming problems. One line uses xxxx+ ratings (Sempron, A64, S462 use different scales), another line uses FX-xx ratings, Opterons use xxx ratings and another line uses ML-/MT- ratings.

Intel uses Pentium 4/M/Celeron/D xxxxMHz (the last descriptive method used by AMD or Intel), Pentium 4/D/M/Celeron D/M xxx ratings and now a Txxxx/Lxxxx rating.

Same mess, but you're only outraged at Intel? :rolleyes:
---
Click to expand...

My issue is with Intel on the retail level. The processors you listed are mainly enterprise class or otherwise niche processors that everyday consumers will never use or even know exist. Turion, FX, Opteron, etc. are not sold at the retail level.

I believe that there should be a transparency at the consumer level of the business and the processors sold in that segment to aid the average-joe consumer.

I have no problem with dropping the Pentium name, it's definetely just a 586 artifact, I just used it in the title of my post to link it to the news post on the front page. But I think that the Pentium/Celeron distinction was superbly useful for making the distinction between performance and value segments and I think Intel should adopt a similar scheme at the consumer level.

kumquat said:
In any case, the end user doesn't need to have any clue about the difference between an Athlon and a D 840. The end user needs a computer that does what he wants.

To illustrate this, consider a guy who walks into a hardware store looking for a drill bit. The astute salesman doesn't launch into a lesson about various materials and shapes because the person is interested in drill bits. Instead, he realizes that what the consumer really wants is a HOLE, and sells him the appropriate bit.
Click to expand...

With the analogy of the drill-bit, I think that's the greatest danger because you are removing even more information from the consumer in the process. If the consumer doesn't know what he's getting, only what the sales guy gives him to "fill the hole", that's less protection against being conned by a slick-salesman.

Seriously, how many salesman in your typical CompUSA are educated enough not to do this? And not fudge-facts or oversimplify to decieve or mislead consumers? Or how many completely honest salesman do you find in your stand-alone computer store that's suriving on the thinest of profit margins? We can look at the WidowPC article and see the kind of fact-fudging and misleading for profit by "Evan".
 
I dont think it will matter a great deal. Intel has used the Pentium name for a long time, they are about due for a change...

I definately agree that the various naming systems in place atm are confusing to a the average consumer. It makes me laugh when I can walk into a local computer store and see a laptop claiming to have a 3000Ghz Sempron CPU - but I can only imagine how confusing it must be to the average consumer walking in off the street. Still I dont think it will effect sales as alot of consumers walk into a store and say 'I need a new PC, I have $xxxx to spend, what is the best machine that fits my budget'

I can still remember when AMD started using the xxxx+ naming system, and i didnt like it at all. In my opinion it was just a way of confusing average-joe into buying 1700+ that wasnt really even 1700mhz. Im sure this is all it was, AMD had 'slower' CPUs that performed as well as the 'faster' Intels. I think the reason for intels new three number naming system is so that they can drop down the clockspeed significantly, give the cpu a xxx style name and it will still appear better to the average person. Otherwise i think Intel would see alot of lost sales from the drop from ~3.8Ghz to ~3.2Ghz, who wants to upgrade to a 3.2 when they already have a 3.8? It is marketing desing to hide what is really going on from the consumer, while still assuring them they are buying a better cpu.
 
Spare-Flair said:
My issue is with Intel on the retail level. The processors you listed are mainly enterprise class or otherwise niche processors that everyday consumers will never use or even know exist. Turion, FX, Opteron, etc. are not sold at the retail level.
Click to expand...
FX comes in retail boxes, just like the P4 EE/PD EE <-- niche products, someone who knows of one will know about the other(s).

Opteron comes retail boxed, just like the Xeon (the Xeon still uses GHz, not model numbers) <-- enterprise products, the same chance of a particular type of user being familar with either one.

Turion doesn't come in retail boxes, just in laptops that prominately display "Turion" on them with a completely meaningless rating (using 2 different scales for ML and MT models), somewhat like the Pentium M (which uses one scale). Neither the Turion or Pentium M are niche or enterprice processors. Both are very common at retail.

Selective outrage always makes a "great" argument. :rolleyes:

If you weren't so blindly loyal to a chip manufacturer you would see what you complained about applies just as much to AMD as it does to Intel. It's the same mess and it's the worst at the retail level for both. Since you didn't get it before...

Joe Shopalot is shopping for a desktop or laptop at retail. He sees:
Sempron xxxx+ (S754/S939)
Athlon 64 xxxx+ (S754/S939) different scale from above
Athlon 64 x2 xxxx+ different scale from 2 above
Mobile Athlon 64/Sempron xxxx+ laptop slightly different scale from all 3 above
Athlon FX-xx
Turion ML-xx laptop
Turion MT-xx laptop different scale from the ML-xx
Pentium 4 5xx/6xx with and without 64-bit and/or HT for the 5xx
Celeron D 3xx with and without 64-bit
Pentium D 8xx/9xx
Mobile Pentium 4/Celeron xGHz laptop with and without HT for the Mobile P4
Pentium M 7xx laptop
Celeron M 3xx laptop different scale from Celeron D above
and soon the Core Duo and Core Solo Txxxx/Lxxxx laptops and desktops

But the problem is obviously only Intel, since no one buys the equally confusingly labelled AMD systems at retail. :rolleyes:
 
There just needs to be the

Intel Value Processor 2006
Intel Midrange Processor 2006
Intel Mobile Processor 2006
Intel High End Processor 2006
AMD Value Processor 2006
AMD Midrange Processor 2006
AMD Mobile Processor 2006
AMD High End Processor 2006

And thats it

And they can release all 4 one time a year
so next year it can be

Intel High End Processor 2007... and I will know what is what, and how new/old it is.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
There just needs to be the

Intel Value Processor 2006
Intel Midrange Processor 2006
Intel Mobile Processor 2006
Intel High End Processor 2006
AMD Value Processor 2006
AMD Midrange Processor 2006
AMD Mobile Processor 2006
AMD High End Processor 2006

And thats it

And they can release all 4 one time a year
so next year it can be

Intel High End Processor 2007... and I will know what is what, and how new/old it is.
Click to expand...

Perfect idea.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
There just needs to be the

Intel Value Processor 2006
Intel Midrange Processor 2006
Intel Mobile Processor 2006
Intel High End Processor 2006
AMD Value Processor 2006
AMD Midrange Processor 2006
AMD Mobile Processor 2006
AMD High End Processor 2006

And thats it

And they can release all 4 one time a year
so next year it can be

Intel High End Processor 2007... and I will know what is what, and how new/old it is.
Click to expand...

This is a good idea, but I don't think it will ever happen :(.
 
Spare-Flair said:
As the news post said, why is Intel dropping the Pentium name? It's already dropped the actual clockspeed from it's name, only listing some ambiguous model number in their grand marketing scheme but what's the point of all this?
Click to expand...
I don't work for Intel, but chances are its some marketing restructuring program to compeat with AMD.

So mister so and so, would you like to buy the C class today, or can I upgrade you to an E class? Ah yes, you want the best of the best, well there is nothing better then the SLK AMG compensatingforsomethingthatshallnotbestatedhere---31137--omgownz class.

^_^, ohhh.......... at least I make myself laugh.

Still, deep down in my heart I think intel will actually make their new product names Eaiser to work with. Wouldn't it be funny to see them actually make a 180º and start naming each of their processors something....... like name the P4's some type of bird.... I don't now.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
There just needs to be the

Intel Value Processor 2006
Intel Midrange Processor 2006
Intel Mobile Processor 2006
Intel High End Processor 2006
AMD Value Processor 2006
AMD Midrange Processor 2006
AMD Mobile Processor 2006
AMD High End Processor 2006

And thats it

And they can release all 4 one time a year
so next year it can be

Intel High End Processor 2007... and I will know what is what, and how new/old it is.
Click to expand...

It would be a good idea, but you have to divide each of those into separate subcatagories, I mean, the X2 series is generally high ened, but the 3800 isn't in the same category as the FX's
 
Well, if Intel is shying away from gigahurts marketing, should AMD do the same? Didn't AMD do the 3000+, 3200+, etc. to let people know how they stacked up to intel? (3000+ is in the ballpark of 3.0GHz intel, etc.)? I thought that was how AMD jumped on the game... marketing their chips so that people know where they stand towards the 'only processor brand'...

Had a dude tell me one time that he had a pentium, and man, those things rock. Told him I was going AMD on the next build... he said what's AMD? Well if pentiums 'rock', what are you comparing it to? LOL
 
The logical thing would be to get some standardized CPU limited benchmark and just post the scores of each chip for comparison purposes along with the rest of the specs - have one basic standard Intel and AMD platform to test them on. Then they could name their processors whatever they wanted, and people could still easily compare one to the other: higher-benchmark numbers mean you are getting a faster chip.
 
NulloModo said:
The logical thing would be to get some standardized CPU limited benchmark and just post the scores of each chip for comparison purposes along with the rest of the specs - have one basic standard Intel and AMD platform to test them on. Then they could name their processors whatever they wanted, and people could still easily compare one to the other: higher-benchmark numbers mean you are getting a faster chip.
Click to expand...
the companies would end up just performing to the benchmark so it may seem fast on the benchmark but not be as fast in real life... overall performance would suffer.
 
Lets see...

Pentium
Pentium II
Pentium III
Pentium 4
Pentium D
Pentium M

Compared to...

Athlon
Athlon XP
Athlon 64
Athlon FX

They could probobly stick with the Pentium D name a little longer, and they probobly will, but I think that they'll be able to sell more with a new name. Intel will probobly wait for a major CPU release to do it, obviously the Pressler wasn't it, it'll probobly happen when the desktop Pentium M processor comes out.

Hopefully they don't name it something really gay like Septium...
 
acascianelli said:
Lets see...

Pentium
Pentium II
Pentium III
Pentium 4
Pentium D
Pentium M

Compared to...

Athlon
Athlon XP
Athlon 64
Athlon FX

They could probobly stick with the Pentium D name a little longer, and they probobly will, but I think that they'll be able to sell more with a new name. Intel will probobly wait for a major CPU release to do it, obviously the Pressler wasn't it, it'll probobly happen when the desktop Pentium M processor comes out.

Hopefully they don't name it something really gay like Septium...
Click to expand...

Well, the logical step after Pentium would be Sextium.... but I somehow doubt that would clear the board.

Also you forgot some AMD chips: Turion, and Athlon 64 X2
 
It all goes back to Intel suing Cyrix and AMD because they were creating knock off 486 processors. The Supreme Court ruled that numbers by themselves could not be copyrighted and therefore Intel renamed it's P5 Microarchitecture to "Pentium". Giving it a name meant they could copyright that name. Thus, AMD and Cyrix had to come up with other names to differentiate their processors from Intel's. So the days of cheaper knock of processors being sold at nearly Intel's pricing were over.

Mom and pop computer shops were often guilty of selling a 486-DX2 66 with an AMD processor for the same money as they would an Intel 486 DX2 66. The thing was the knock offs didn't perform as well and had some software incompatibilities. There has never been massive margins in computer hardware, so hardware vendors would sell these knock off chips in these machines at the same or close to the same price as they would have been with the Intel chips, and they'd pocket the difference.

Of course Cyrix is all but dead, and is now not so mainstream and is sold by VIA as the C series processors, and AMD is far from producing knock off Intel designs any more.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
It all goes back to Intel suing Cyrix and AMD because they were creating knock off 486 processors. The Supreme Court ruled that numbers by themselves could not be copyrighted and therefore Intel renamed it's P5 Microarchitecture to "Pentium". Giving it a name meant they could copyright that name. Thus, AMD and Cyrix had to come up with other names to differentiate their processors from Intel's. So the days of cheaper knock of processors being sold at nearly Intel's pricing were over.

Mom and pop computer shops were often guilty of selling a 486-DX2 66 with an AMD processor for the same money as they would an Intel 486 DX2 66. The thing was the knock offs didn't perform as well and had some software incompatibilities. There has never been massive margins in computer hardware, so hardware vendors would sell these knock off chips in these machines at the same or close to the same price as they would have been with the Intel chips, and they'd pocket the difference.

Of course Cyrix is all but dead, and is now not so mainstream and is sold by VIA as the C series processors, and AMD is far from producing knock off Intel designs any more.
Click to expand...

so we could see intel return to calling their CPUs a 686? obviously they no longer need to diferentiate their cpus from AMD and Cyrix, and by using an un-copyrightable name intel would save money not paying for copyright? :rolleyes:
 
towert7 said:
I don't work for Intel, but chances are its some marketing restructuring program to compeat with AMD.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is too far off, however Intel still clearly dominates in overall sales so they probablly care very little in the retail market to be honest.

Their business base is where the money is at, and here is hoping to all the little guys out there that they have an IT guy smart enough to know that it doesn't have to be a Pentium.
 
UltimaParadox said:
I don't think this is too far off, however Intel still clearly dominates in overall sales so they probablly care very little in the retail market to be honest.
Click to expand...
Actually, they don't. AMD outsells Intel both in retail box processors as well as desktop market share.

http://news.com.com/AMD+market+shar...3-6028349.html?part=rss&tag=6028349&subj=news

"sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."
 
kumquat said:
Actually, they don't. AMD outsells Intel both in retail box processors as well as desktop market share.

http://news.com.com/AMD+market+shar...3-6028349.html?part=rss&tag=6028349&subj=news

"sales of AMD-based desktops took the lead during the pivotal fourth-quarter holiday shopping season. AMD chips were found in 52.5 percent of desktop PCs sold in U.S. retail stores during that period."
Click to expand...

Sold in retail stores. That excludes Dell. That excludes business contracts, walk through any office and the chances are incredibly high the PCs sitting on the desks will be Dell Optiplexes. Intel destroys AMD overall in total systems shipped sells

EDIT to fix spelling mistake. Also, that excludes server sales, where Intel has a hefty lead.
 
Emission said:
Well, it seems that some more general comparison needs to be shown to the average joe consumer. He needs to be informed of the processors' strong and weak points, and an overall comparison. What made everything so confusing is the vast array of naming schemes and numbers thrown in the mix. Conclusively, id have to say both companies need a straight-forward naming scheme that dosnt confuse the hell out of the customer.
Click to expand...

1) Like AMD and Intel are going to clearly point out that "This processor sucks at data mining, but it's great at running ten pron streams at once!". Not. Gonna. Happen.

Marketing departments are populated with liars, err, I mean "Media Professionals" for a reason.

2) As others have said, Joe Blow needs a PC. Besides, everyone's an expert. Walk into any PC store and listen to Tom telling Dick and Harry that "Pentiums are much better for gaming... you don't want one of those ADM CPUs." Consumers are already confused. What difference does it make attaching a number drawn from thin air to the CPU?
:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top