AMD has recently announced a change to its naming scheme for laptop processors, reverting back to a more conventional system. This move comes less than two years after the company introduced a detailed reference sheet to inform buyers of what they were purchasing. However, the previous system had a flaw in that AMD could change the first digit of the processor model number every year, making newer models appear more advanced even if they didn’t bring significant improvements. The new naming scheme for AMD’s Ryzen AI laptop processors, codenamed “Strix Point,” will use a three-digit number to indicate the chip’s generation and SKU. This change brings AMD’s numbering scheme more in line with its competitors like Intel.
The decision to abandon the previous numbering system and return to a more conventional method reflects the challenges faced by chipmakers in creating a simple and consistent naming system. These challenges include PC OEMs’ expectation for new products every year, despite chips taking years to develop and release updated designs. Additionally, casual and low-end users may not benefit significantly from performance enhancements, allowing older chips to remain relevant for longer periods. Different market segments may also require specific chip variations, and there is a need to “bin” chips to recoup manufacturing costs and minimize waste.
While AMD’s previous numbering system aimed to inform buyers of the specific features and improvements of each chip, it ultimately created confusion and allowed for misleading distinctions between generations. By adopting a more traditional model number system, AMD aims to simplify the buying process for customers and align itself with industry standards. However, this new system still leaves room for ambiguity and complexity as AMD’s product lineup expands.
Apple has perhaps come closest to an ideal processor naming scheme, using a combination of a chip generation number and additional descriptors like “Pro” or “Max” to communicate performance levels. They also provide clear information on the number of CPU and GPU cores included, allowing for flexibility in product variations. However, Apple’s position as the sole producer of its own processors and its tendency to release new products only when significant improvements are available make its model less applicable to other chipmakers.
In conclusion, AMD’s decision to simplify its processor naming scheme by adopting a more conventional model number system reflects the challenges faced by chipmakers in creating a clear and consistent way to inform buyers. While the previous system aimed to provide detailed information, it ultimately led to confusion and allowed for misleading distinctions between generations. By reverting to a more familiar naming scheme, AMD hopes to simplify the buying process for customers and align itself with industry standards. However, challenges remain in creating a model that adequately addresses the complexities of the market and caters to the diverse needs of customers.
Source link
