AMD to use new naming scheme on CPUs

AMD to use new naming scheme on CPUs

No more PR+ ratings! I suppose "6000+" was a touch over optimistic anyway.

Do you remember when AMD reintroduced the PR rating back when it launched the Athlon XP (Thoroughbred "A") range? Or perhaps you've been around a bit longer and can remember the initial introduction back on Socket 7?

Well with the impending release of the Phenom processor and revamp to its whole line up in the next month or so, AMD will kit its new processors with a new naming scheme consisting of two letters and four numbers, according to to Leslie Sobon, Director of Product and Brand Management at AMD.

The breakdown of the new code is as follows:
  • First letter = Product Target Market: G = Premium, B = Intermediate, L = Value;

  • Second Letter = Power Consumption: P = greater than 65W, S = around 65W, and E = less than 65W;

  • First Digit = Product Family: 1xxx = Sempron or single cored Athlon, 2xxx = dual core Athlon, 6xxx = dual core Phenom, 7xxx = quad core Phenom;

  • Second Digit = Core Frequency: The specifics are as yet undisclosed;

  • Last two Digits = Future upgrade functions and specific differentiations
Since 32/64-bit coherence is now the norm for both Intel and AMD's ranges, and it's been quite a while since socket A Athlons were discontinued, AMD has decided to drop the 64 nomenclature entirely favouring just a simple "Athlon X2" instead.

The whole change over will take place over the next six months and we're already wondering what the new logo will look like, because the 64-bitness has been a massive part of AMD's marketing for at least three years.

Do you think the new new naming scheme is more informative and will help with future processor decisions? Or do you just think it's more complicated for the sake of it and AMD will try to use it to make Bees sound like Gees? What is "around 65W" -- hand wavy science? Let us know your thoughts in the forums!


Discuss in the forums Reply
DougEdey 15th June 2007, 16:27 Quote
I'm confused by the last two digits, "Future upgrade functions" does that mean it'll be used in the future to mean something?
LVMike 15th June 2007, 17:02 Quote
Leet user 1 --hey man check out my new BS7100 over clocked to a BS7250.

Leet user 2--Oh yah when its nothing compared to my GP7500

Me --- wait your chip is BS?

user 1 ---- yeah.

Me--- OK just checking.
Bindibadgi 15th June 2007, 17:27 Quote
Originally Posted by DougEdey
I'm confused by the last two digits, "Future upgrade functions" does that mean it'll be used in the future to mean something?

Like Intel is doing with the "50s" and "20s" of their Core 2s.
Ramble 15th June 2007, 17:35 Quote
Why can't they just name is simply for God's sake?
1e8o 15th June 2007, 20:17 Quote
Because it would be to easy ;)
knuck 15th June 2007, 20:31 Quote
AMD Model #1 , AMD Model #2 , etc...

that would be much better :D
pendragon 15th June 2007, 21:42 Quote
Originally Posted by Ghys
that would be much better :D

what about working in the word "boobs" to the name?

Because hearing AMD marketing execs talking about "Boobs processors" makes my inner-12 year old chuckle with glee :D

fine fine.. I'll add something constructive ... I'm not really sure if this will really simplfy their brand recognition at all.. sounds like it will be confusing at first
DXR_13KE 15th June 2007, 22:36 Quote
Originally Posted by pendragon
what about working in the word "boobs" to the name?

great idea :D
completemadness 15th June 2007, 22:53 Quote
so what, middle range users get the B grade processors, pfft :p
radodrill 15th June 2007, 23:01 Quote
Still too complicated; think back to the Intel Pentium through PIII there the numbers represented the clock speed and made it easy for us to defferentiate between them.

They just don't want people to be able to easily compare their product to the competition.

LOL The BS CPU is a stupendous idea for AMD to implement
L2wis 15th June 2007, 23:47 Quote
hummm seems a bit better than the whole 1800+, 3200+ crap they used to have... not that i'll be buying one of these new processors untill 5+ years after they're out...
Neogumbercules 16th June 2007, 00:22 Quote
Woot GP7260. Sounds like a made up piece of technology from a b-rate sci-fi movie. I like it though, kinda makes it sound important. Might be a little overcomplicated for the average consumer though.
Aankhen 16th June 2007, 00:31 Quote
I'll take a GE7999, please. :D
crazybob 16th June 2007, 01:15 Quote
I don't really care about the model numbers because I, like most of you, will have the whole method memorized in a few weeks. The average users won't get it but they don't know what the current system means, either, so they really aren't losing any ground. However, I am really pleased to see a manufacturer place a rough description of the power consumption in the name of their processor. I care about silence, so I care about power, so I'll really enjoy not having to look that up separately.
MonkeyNutZ 16th June 2007, 02:37 Quote
Well I've known about the power consumption for a while now but it's nice too see it confirmed!

*grins as his tiny super PC plans actually seem to be working*
thecrownles 16th June 2007, 06:34 Quote

B-40W-1Core-1.5Ghz-2nd Rev. Die

How hard can it be to just make a simple naming scheme like that instead of using BS crap like G, B, L, and P, S, E or whatever. This whole technology world needs to get ahold of itself.
Butcher9_9 16th June 2007, 09:03 Quote
well it makes more sense than intels naming system

not that either of them are easy for the layman to understand
yakyb 18th June 2007, 09:05 Quote
i dont know whats so confusig really i quite fancy a gp7 series
crazybob 18th June 2007, 23:50 Quote
Yakyb: I'm right there with you on the G*7, but why a P? Remember that with the middle letter, power consumption, larger numbers are worse, not better, and that the P is the hottest and most expensive to run. A GE7, on the other hand, would probably be the top-end processor.
kenco_uk 19th June 2007, 00:38 Quote
Top End = Luscious
Mid = Banana
Low End = Door knob.
The_Beast 19th June 2007, 01:52 Quote
that is really crappy way to do it
firefly 19th June 2007, 10:41 Quote
Not entirely sure what the agro is against this method, it looks as if it's about to become a lot more simplified to understand spec, and - the increasingly important - power consumption.

Granted, for the simplistic ones amongst us, I suppose it will be a little more effort to make the direct omfg, l33t, my 5000Mhz0r is so much bettAr than your t3h-suck 3000Mhz one lolz0R' ... comparisons, heh.
completemadness 19th June 2007, 18:20 Quote
Sadly the average n00b still wont know, they probably wont be told the serial of the CPU, and if they are they will forget it anyway

That was the nice thing with the 3200+ system or whatever, as long as AMD only made 1 chip with that spec, you knew what they had
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums