I'm wondering who would use 5000€ on standard computer instead of buying a custom,.
9050 branding is for next year, for the full stack with Krakens and halos and fire ranges.Also, 8050?
9050 branding is for next year, for the full stack with Krakens and halos and fire ranges.
So next year Strix will be "Hawked" and be named 9x5x?9050 branding is for next year, for the full stack with Krakens and halos and fire ranges.
Was surprised because I thought AMD present Strix directly as Ryzen 9X5X. Guess that's for next year.It's not a particular SKU. It's another way of writing 8X5X to cover the range of possible SKUs (e.g., 8955, 8740, etc.). This follows AMD's stated scheme of the numbers being year, tier, arch. generation, feature (really a perf. modifier option).
Calling Strix Point 8050 is insane. Even for AMD.9050 branding is for next year, for the full stack with Krakens and halos and fire ranges.
Duh.So next year Strix will be "Hawked" and be named 9x5x?
It's existing naming convention.Calling Strix Point 8050 is insane. Even for AMD.
"It's existing medical convention to rub poo on wounds to heal them" - soon to be dead Dark Ages peasant following Established Medical ConventionsIt's existing naming convention.
Meds."It's existing medical convention to rub poo on wounds to heal them" - soon to be dead Dark Ages peasant following Established Medical Conventions
Same logic
It makes sense.AMD's naming scheme is catastrophic and it is amazing that they'd squander a good product with this drudgery again.
AMD marketing dept sure needs them.Meds.
To nobody outside of AMD's 4th dimension naming crew.It makes sense.
Didn't need to be evil, is thoroughly unacceptable.Acceptable evil.
"It's existing medical convention to rub poo on wounds to heal them" - soon to be dead Dark Ages peasant following Established Medical Conventions
Same logic.
AMD's naming scheme is catastrophic and it is amazing that they'd squander a good product with this drudgery again.
Back to spending hours explaining to friends how to navigate the atrocious AMD naming scheme and how "8040" is radically different and a completely different generation from "8050" and how 8050 is what they want.
They're ok.AMD marketing dept sure needs them.
Pretty straightforward more number better.To nobody outside of AMD's 4th dimension naming crew.
Next year.Didn't need to be evil, is thoroughly unacceptable.
Call it 9xxx and stop the insanity. Nobody wants to have this two-headed system of "mobile goes like this, desktop like that". It makes Intel look consistent. I'm not even joking.
It will be transparent to exactly 1% of buyers, the 1% that hang around tech spaces.Pretty much everyone's model naming format sucks because it's driven by OEMs who want to make you believe you're buying something new every year, even if it's really just a rebrand. AMD's format is at least transparent and consistent once you know how it works.
Pure cope, to use your own terms.They're ok.
Pretty straightforward more number better.
Next year.
It just works.Pure cope, to use your own terms.
The purest cope.
It's simple enough for us enthusiasts, but not for general public.It just works.
8k stack this year, 9k stack next year.
Simple enough for you?
General public buys laptops randomly or by hearsay.It's simple enough for us enthusiasts, but not for general public.
Assuming they read those anyway.
But you just made me realise that we'll get news about Zen 5c along with Zen 5. And get perf soon too, since it comes out with Strix Point. I really wonder if they'll be able to do as good as they did with Zen 4? 35% area improvement?
It will be transparent to exactly 1% of buyers, the 1% that hang around tech spaces.
Having a consistent 1000->3000->5000->7000->9000 naming scheme in DT for Z1/2/3/4/5 and having another naming scheme where 7040 is Z4, 8040 is Z4, 8050 is Z5, is something absolutely nobody will pay attention to.
You're going to have a crazy amount of ill informed buyers on this. It's just a basic fact of reading these specs, you assume the first number is the most important. Heck it's a basic fact of READING. Leftmost number most important!
This naming scheme was mad since the start but now it's just destructive to the brand. Nobody's going to care to understand this.
And the OEMs can go suck on a tree, it's AMD that decided on this, not them.
This is literally having an excellent product and mingling it with an older, less interesting product.
It is abysmal marketing.
Can I work for AMD for free for a few months? Just so I don't see these kinds of atrocities anymore.
For pete's sake, most people still answer "I have an i9/i7/i5" when you ask them what CPU they have.
And you think they're going to focus on the 3rd number in a sequence of 4?
Dense is always the exact same RTL.They already have a working split AVX512 implementation, it would make a lot of sense to use that for the c part.
Yeah, there are still plenty of ways to better hide the "OEM tax" number (that keeps rising ever year) The generation should be the first number or brought out totally separately e.g. "Gen 5"Pretty much everyone's model naming format sucks because it's driven by OEMs who want to make you believe you're buying something new every year, even if it's really just a rebrand. AMD's format is at least transparent and consistent once you know how it works.
Pretty straightforward more number better.
Put the "tax number" as any number after the first.Can you come up with a better scheme?
Yeah, there are still plenty of ways to better hide the "OEM tax" number (that keeps rising ever year) The generation should be the first number or brought out totally separately e.g. "Gen 5"
It only works as the 8xxx series has no zen 3 parts. If it had a 8630U would be significantly worse than a 7840U or 7640U
Put the "tax number" as any number after the first.
Use a prefix or suffix "Gen 4" it could also mean year, not actual gen, if you must
... plenty of options