It's ok the AIPC sticker and cope-pilot button will!And the 8040 -> 8050 naming doesn't represent the magnitude of the leap for the normies
In four seconds:Can you come up with a better scheme?
Literally increment the last number instead of the first one?Remember that you have to increment for new laptop models every year for your biggest customers to be happy.
It's such a disingenuous argument I'm not even going to bother. Your naming scheme is atrocious and anyone knows it, and your best cope is "well, theirs is worse!!!"?Would you prefer something like Intel's where the numbers have no real indication of generation or specs outside of bigger means better but not always?
Sane naming conventions make sense to the general consumer. It’s important to make that distinction.I understand and appreciate the honesty from AMD and their decision to stick to their naming convention. But if there was one time where I would have allowed them to be greedy, it would be right now. Because Strix is a huge leap over Phoenix/Hawk. And the 8040 -> 8050 naming doesn't represent the magnitude of the leap for the normies.
Congrats on pissing OEMs off.PHX: 740U, 780HS
Hawk: 741U, 781HS
Well you enjoy doing that to people all the time, now it's my time to enjoy it with them.Congrats on pissing OEMs off.
Yet AMD current naming persists.Well you enjoy doing that to people all the time, now it's my time to enjoy it with them.
In four seconds:
Gen Tier Rev Extra
First letter is the generation, Zen 5 = 9
Second is the tier, from 1 to 9
Third is the revision
And you can use your 4th number for the year if you insist on keeping it. I don't think anyone cares.
And you still have room for whatever letters after.
PHX: 740U, 780HS
Hawk: 741U, 781HS
STX P: 9[1-6]0HS
STX Halo: 9[7-9]0X
Literally increment the last number instead of the first one?
Since "number order doesn't matter" then it really shouldn't change anything?
It's such a disingenuous argument I'm not even going to bother. Your naming scheme is atrocious and anyone knows it, and your best cope is "well, theirs is worse!!!"?
It will, next year when Strix Halo land everything will be haloed.I understand and appreciate the honesty from AMD and their decision to stick to their naming convention. But if there was one time where I would have allowed them to be greedy, it would be right now. Because Strix is a huge leap over Phoenix/Hawk. And the 8040 -> 8050 naming doesn't represent the magnitude of the leap for the normies.
One would hope LNL is better than Zen 5 mobile because Lunar thats it whole thing, right?@adroc_thurston You said in the Intel thread that only LNL had merits due to battery life. But are Strix/Kraken comparable to LNL in battery life. Or LNL is undisputed x86 battery champion?
This.Or LNL is undisputed x86 battery champion?
That's true.One would hope LNL is better than Zen 5 mobile because Lunar thats it whole thing, right?
Perf/w is purpose of lunar, if it fails that. Intel needs to go on a holiday.
Strix and Kraken have really good performance/W and battery life. But LNL is something else entirely. Fair enough.This.
LNL is more purpose-built for that.But Strix and Kraken have really good performance/W and battery life. But LNL is something else entirely. Fair enough.
Right. Had Intel used all the tricks to achieve Apple like battery life and failed, it would have been a clown moment hahah.LNL is more purpose-built for that.
That's all there is to it.
paging bmw, paging bmw, bmw to the white courtesy phoneYeah the naming scheme is bad. Like xbox levels bad.
LNL has four P-cores and four LP E-cores. That's it. It doesn't have intermediate E-cores for MT workloads. Intel is going to put as much of the typical workload on those LP E-cores as realistically possible to squeeze out battery life, and it sounds like they will be far more successful at it this time around than in MTL because the performance ceiling of the LP island is just much higher: 1) the LP cores are based on Skymont, and 2) there's four of them instead of two.@adroc_thurston You said in the Intel thread that only LNL had merits due to battery life. But are Strix/Kraken comparable to LNL in battery life. Or LNL is undisputed x86 battery champion?
LNL has four P-cores and four LP E-cores. That's it. It doesn't have intermediate E-cores for MT workloads. Intel is going to put as much of the typical workload on those LP E-cores as realistically possible to squeeze out battery life, and it sounds like they will be far more successful at it this time around than in MTL because the performance ceiling of the LP island is just much higher: 1) the LP cores are based on Skymont, and 2) there's four of them instead of two.
Performance isn't the LNL selling point.So about the same perfs as a 6C/12T AMD SKU, it is meant to compete with a cut down version of Kraken, the lowest part in AMD s next gen unless they go 4C/8T, at wich point LNL would be surrounded from top to bottom as well as from left and right.
Dunno what they are chasing here, because battery life wont be a probleme for AMD s lower end part as well, a high IPC core can be clocked lower while providing the same perf and this will compensate for its lower efficency at same frequency, you could even end with lower power at same throughput.Performance isn't the LNL selling point.
that's really not the key element to any BL win.Dunno what they are chasing here, because battery life wont be a probleme for AMD s lower end part as well, a high IPC core can be clocked lower while providing the same perf and this will compensate for its lower efficency at same frequency, you could even end with lower power at same throughput.
1) is not a big deal, they change naming scheme every 2 years anyway.I wrote about the Strix Naming (and that it is a lose-lose situation for AMD) months ago. There are 2 Possibilities:
1: Call it 9x5x and break your own, only 1.5 Year old naming convention, which will get a lot of critics
2: Call it 8x5x and basically make it look like a last years part to 90% of customers when they go to AMD website and see that Desktop 9000 series is out
Well intel gotta win something, can't afford to lose to amd in all segments.Dunno what they are chasing here, because battery life wont be a probleme for AMD s lower end part as well, a high IPC core can be clocked lower while providing the same perf and this will compensate for its lower efficency at same frequency, you could even end with lower power at same throughput.