Going the Apple route of making products more confusing, nice.
Lots of companies are guilty of this. Nvidia and SSD manufacturers with their stealth downgrades under same product name and the entirety of the monitor space:
Are you not excited for the “Intel Core 9 1900H Mid 2023”?
The apple chips are very straightforward though?
M1, M2 for generation, and (nothing), Pro, Ultra, Max for level.
I want to buy a second hand iPad or MacBook. How am I meant to know which one is which gen?
The only product they have that is clear and somewhat easy for consumers is the iPhone.
Always irked me. Not even apple fanboys i know could tell which is which until they know the date of release.
You don’t intuitively know which quarter of which year which version of a different device with the same name is at a glance?
They all have model numbers that are on the back of the device and easy to look up
Interesting because everyone i know always went “which macbook pro is that? Q3 2018?”
Or is the number system a new addition? Most of my apple. Experience was in uni a good while ago
It is as old as I can remember, they are just never referred to those numbers in marketing material. Not the best way to do it but they are there.
But why? It was easy and recognizable.
Was it though? Maybe to people like us, but not to my folks.
Personally, I‘d prefer some sort of naming convention that was like Apple’s. Generation number, then some sort of Good, Better, Best name tacked on the back.
That said, the words Apple picked for Good-Better-Best are kind of stupid and not as clear as the could be.
So it can confuse buyers, and they buy a lower generation for a higher price
Harder to recognise makes it easier to up-sell crappier models to those not close enough to the detail. I was mulling over going AMD with the next laptop (which admittedly won’t be any time soon), this makes me lean more towards that idea.
AMD’s new naming scheme is also horrific
It has all the info about the CPU in the name, that’s kinda cool
It’s got some fluff, but it’s basically the same as any gpu in the last 15 years. First number for generation, second for comparing performance within the generation.
The two market leaders woke up and chose violence
Weird scheme but at least high number good.
It’s because of Moore’s law. Unless Intel responds to AMD’s openSIL initiative to open the bootloader initialization API, it doesn’t matter what they do. The ability to finally run an entirely secure x86 computer hasn’t existed in 15 years since the i-core/ryzen series. OpenSIL means Intel doesn’t even exist any more IMO.
I’m confused, why does OpenSIL matter to this announcement?
They are no longer hardware relevant. Marketing obscurity will only make it worse.
Okay but what I’m getting at is why does OpenSIL make them hardware irrelevant? I’m not a programmer, I don’t know why a firmware library matters at all in this case, can you explain that to me?
There are several vulnerabilities in bootloaders that have not been fixed. Namely, there is an entire tiny operating system that is used to initialize the processor before the main bootloader begins. Then the bootloader creates a bunch of handles to control the hardware, and hands them over to the operating system kernel. The i-core/ryzen processors include the second generation of this tiny underlying operating system that runs before everything else. This tiny operating system was originally marketed as a way to remotely monitor and troubleshoot data center servers, but this is a very weak and flawed marketing strategy. The way this system runs before everything else, it has root/admin privileges and access that supersede everything that comes after it. A bad actor accessing this system is absolutely game over for all hardware including the bootloader itself. Well this tiny operating system is tied to the microcode for the processor generation.
If you know anything about old computers that had a bunch of boards and chips inside the case, modern computers still have all of these chips and systems, but they are all integrated into just a few chips. These systems are still complicated and have a certain way they must be powered up and initialized so that each system begins in a specific state along a long chain. The “microcode” in a modern computer is really just a bunch of “software” that controls the order that the hardware is brought online. In the i-core/ryzen generation of hardware the microcode is proprietary and copyright protected. This is a way to get around many x86 patents expiring. It has long been speculated that the tiny operating system is also a back door for governments as it can completely own any system regardless of encryption or any other security measures.
There is a way to mostly disable this tiny operating system but there is no way to monitor or confirm its activity at run time. OpenSIL is like having access to the control room of this tiny operating system for the first time. It means it is now possible to completely secure and verify the state of a system. There is no security in obscurity. OpenSIL is the removal of a major failed attempt at security through obscurity.
Ultimately, at the most fundamental level, openSIL means full ownership over your hardware. I can buy AMD, but can only rent Intel. Intel keeps ownership of this tiny little corner of the hardware and they have done a terrible job of managing what they own. When faced with that buying choice the outcome should be obvious, assuming you are able to run the software that can take advantage of this. It will take at least a few months, but there should soon be a completely open source version of Coreboot that will use openSIL. Hope this helps.
This is bestof material right here. Thanks.
Isn’t there a speculation that Intel CPUS are actually RISC chips with microcode emulating x86?
… well, that’s going to be incredibly confusing.
They had already gotten confusing when they started selling dual core i5 processors.