Ryzen's Confusing New Numbering Scheme
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 09. 2022
- Visit www.brilliant.org/TechQuickie/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Learn about AMD's somewhat confusing naming and numbering scheme for its new Ryzen 7000 mobile CPUs.
Leave a reply with your requests for future episodes.
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► AFFILIATES, SPONSORS & REFERRALS: lmg.gg/tqsponsors
► PODCAST GEAR: lmg.gg/podcastgear
► SUPPORT US ON FLOATPLANE: www.floatplane.com/
FOLLOW US ELSEWHERE
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
Twitch: / linustech - Věda a technologie
![How To Pick The Right AMD Ryzen CPU For Your PC [Guide]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hb345ItpHwA/mqdefault.jpg)
![How To Pick The Right AMD Ryzen CPU For Your PC [Guide]](/img/tr.png)
To be honest, nothing can be worse than USB naming scheme
They just simplified the naming and made obligatory for speed to be displayed on the product
LTT's next video channel will be LTT 2.0 Gen 2 2x2.
No. This is much worst! USB naming is bad, but this definitely worse! It was designed to screw over the consumer! They going to market heavily that the first number is the year, then the "performance" number (what the average Joe going to understand).
So next year or after that they going to release an old architecture cpu with a new (year) number, so the average consumer going to understand "it's had the new 96xxx cpu and it's cheaper while the other laptop has the old 85xxx cpu and it's more expensive, what a deal I found!"
Nobody going to looking for the power consumption or the architect number!
Also 7 is 7, but 8 is also 7 and also 9! WTF?!
It was designed to be confusing as much as possible! The USB guys are not evil, just bad at naming their products.
Wifi will be missed...
Truth
I think I’m going to become rich, buy out AMD and Nvidia and make normal naming conventions forever
Where’s your GoFundMe?
@@moldetaco2281 they are hopeless
That's a level of philanthropy Bill Gates could only strive to achieve.
great idea, but if you really think about it, it's kinda hard, how would you tell me how expensive, how fast, what generation and what type (ultrabook, desktop replacement) i'm going to have to expect the product to be in?
You need to have money to buy em? Meaning you need to be rich first to accomplish that task. Nonetheless if you can buy em indicates you're rich? hence your mission is now accomplished so congratulations :)
In the new naming scheme, you can add all the digits of a year and you get the first digit of the sku.
Eg. 2023 2+0+2+3=7
2024 2+0+2+4=8
Dayum
Except in 10 years when that's no longer true.
@@ArdentMoogle that's a problem for future Jake
@@ArdentMoogle I'm pretty sure until then we won't even have ×86 cpus (atleast for laptops)
@@ArdentMoogle He thinks they'll be using the same name scheme in 10 years. Sweet summer child.
Oddly enough, it makes me think of the naming scheme used for metals. If you understand the rules, you can very quickly get the important details (i.e. 1095 is steel that is alloyed with .95% carbon). Works great … if you know the rules.
Carbon isn't everything in a steel...
@@Danirio96 10 means Plain carbon tho.
Yeah, the problem with this scheme, and many number schemes for chips, is they are unintuitive for those who don't know the rules. When it comes to chips your scheme should generally be higher number = mo powa baby, but by putting the model year at the beginning you are just going to confuse people who do not know that they really should be looking at the second number.
I believe the thing is at least they can communicate with people that would spend a lot of time on it effectively.
There are no way to name things intuitively to everyone anymore, user that spend less time on the hobby were supposed to look for guides anyways.
My main concern is how long this naming scheme would last.
IMO the better way might be Gen-Tier-version-extra-power tho.
@@rudymeow like I said, the intuitive naming scheme will make the higher number generally mean more powerful. That is what the majority of consumers expect. The scheme is specifically designed to trick unknowing people to buy the latest model year.
It's harder for people who don't know about tech so much, but it's much easier to somewhat accurately guess the performance and capabilities of a chip just from the name itself for the tech enthusiastic audience.
Really nothing in the name that gives us the specs though. Only with a chart to go with it
@@bjrnerikmol7737 Not all of them, but better than havin a 5700U on Zen2 and a 5800U on Zen 3. It's complicated, sure, but it's logical and has meaning.
that's the purpose... to fool old people to think that 8510U is better than 7545U because 8 is greater than 7...
It's incredibly deceptive for the tech-illiterate. By putting the model year as the first digit, they create the illusion that they're making generational changes every single year, when the actual generational information (the architecture) is all the way near the end of the name.
While the enthusiasts will understand, they will also buy after actually researching it. Naming should help the people who have no clue, because they are the ones who will buy based on the number on the box.
Not quite sure what I should think of this. We probably have to wait and see how the naming scheme holds up in use. At least AMD explains what number means what.
youre not sure what to think? well something something.. your mother , grow up.. there you go.. i am arguing, just like LMG asked me to!
its amd so this is pure gold
if this was nvidia or intel or any other company people would be up in arms
this fangirling has to stop, they arent your friends.
@@Freestyle80 the reason why i went to PC from console a year ago was to move away from the toxicity (and because multiplayer is free). AMD fanboys are the same as console peasants
barely
Just do not use laptops - stick to your desktop; literally
After all, there is no reason to leave your parents' basement, amirite?
I personally like the naming scheme except for that like a Ryzen X8XXY is either a Ryzen 7 or 9. it just gives clarity for newer models by just looking at the name
They would still put the designation of the cpu class infront of the specifics. Ryzen 7 7840HS or Ryzen 9 7845HX
@@bafon That's probably because there could be a less powerful "Ryzen 9 7845U" and a more powerful "Ryzen 9 7945U". The 7945U then would be the most powerful Ryzen with 15-28W.
So basically, X8XXY mean either *Ryzen 7 TI* or *Ryzen 9 Max-Q*,
but wait until the TDP comes.
Ryzen 9 with shitty 5w, but upper model.
Or Ryzen 5 with HS but lower model can be faster than Ryzen 9 E variants.
This means AMD CPU can has so many variants.
@@FaridRudiansyah iirc, the r9 class processors only use h/hs/hx suffixes (not including embedded processors)
you will like any garbage amd puts out
Never put it past companies like AMD, Intel, Nvidia or the rest to overcomplicate even the simplest of things.
When they named zen2 cpu 5700u and zen3 cpu 5800u, people complained. So here we are, more clarity and more complexity.
It's not that it's overcomplicated (it isn't), it's that it puts the year up front to trick people into thinking a crappier, newer chip is more powerful than an older, better one in order to let laptop manufacturers charge a novelty tax instead of having people buy a more powerful model from a previous year. Everything else about it is actually fairly straightforward.
@@mademedothis424 It's fine, let the people who are too lazy to research their $1000 purchases buy whatever is in front of them while people who put in the bare minimum get a better deal for cheaper as retailers have to discount it since demand for it is less.
@@DaybreakPT That's... not how it works, but congratulations on making it weird for literally no reason.
Besides the Year numbering scheme, everything else makes perfect sense it's fairly alright. Thought only the year to be indicative of the CPU age is bad.
excuse me? How is branding a Zen2 CPU the same as Zen 4(them both being 7000 series) is ok? They are completely 2 different classes of performance, not even close to each other.
Imagine when we get to 2026 and to zen 10. Can't wait for the Ryzen 9 109105HX
I really like that this information is in the product name.
I cant tell you how many people i had to let down gently because no, that $189 laptop with an Athon 3050E was in fact not Zen2, not even Zen+, but the OG Zen1
the 3 number is probably the one that's confusing because we initially think it's zen 2
@@pauloazuela8488 Right! it annoyed me to no end that a 3000 series product could be Zen2, Zen1+ or Zen1
they fixed the generational naming in 5000 series. in 5000 series, both laptop and desktop CPUs were Zen 3, no confusion there. Now they've made it worse than ever.
It makes sense but is a tad confusing at the same time. Well I am old enough to remember when AMD started to use number codes instead of just clock speeds to name processors.
We will adapt.
Sempron 2400+ ?
The new naming scheme will get a hand calculator at some point
The 4 numbers have a meaning to each nothing special or hard about it
It actually makes it easier for mobile people to get the right CPU while not conflicting with the desktop naming scheme
the only thing i wonder wil all hk chip have a 5 or will some have a 0 and what features will be locked to 5 chips but i do like have a way to evan know the power draw of a chip just by looking at it so like will we get 7645hs and a 7640u
@@donxx1206 you can have any config with very few constraints
You could theoretically have a 7945hx, 7945hs, 7945u, 7945c, 7945e
The TDP is configurable so very important to look at it as the letters determine the max power draw and hence determine the max boost under heavy load
While a 7945e and a 7945hx could have the same max single and dual core boost the 4 core, 8 core boost will be different and probably by an order of magnitude
Lets say e vs hx is 1 core 5.5ghz, 2 core 5.5ghz then e 4 core 4.7ghz vs hx 5.5ghz, then finally 8 cores e 4ghz hx 5.2ghz
Or something like that
I'm looking forward to the e-series chips. We don't see enough fanless laptops these days.
oh, this was great timing. coming off from a power outage earlier, i was searching when the Mendocino laptops were coming out and stumbled into their new naming scheme.
Awesome, thanks for trying to make a bit more sense in the World James, despite nobody making it any easier... just a quick note that there's a missing space after the ampersand symbol (&) during final credits in "Director &Producer" ;-)
It seems the least significant thing is the model year. The most important thing(s) are the performance specs.
Honestly I like that they're trying to explain it so that everyone can understand. The naming scheme might be really odd, but at least there's clear information on what everything means.
Pulseway got an ad on youtube made for ltt videos with linus talking about their service, and my brain automaticly thought that it was just a sponsorship and i watched the entire ad
i think it is a better idea to assign the first number to the architecture, instead of the year (Kinda as they have always done with Ryzen).
They assigned generation to the first number, not architecture
@@HappySlappyFace Exactly, that is where the inconsistency lies. For example, if we put this scheme on desktop CPUs, it would look like this:
The R7 5800X would be called R7 5830X, so far nothing wrong.
But the R7 5800X3D would be called R7 7830X3D, because the 2 models are 2 years apart.
And that's only assuming that they are based on the year of release, and not the year the unit was produced, then it would be even worse:
an R5 5600X manufactured in 2020 would be called R5 5630X, but an R5 5600X manufactured in 2021 would be called R5 6630X? See what I mean.
I know that what I say does not make much sense if we talk about the desktop environment, but if we look at it from the portable environment where basically the CPU is soldered. That's where it makes sense.
@@HappySlappyFace He meant it SHOULD be that way. Pretty sure he knows what the digits currently represent.
@@cap_napu7757 I think my the year they mean the design year not silicon producing year but yeah the rest of what ur saying is right
they put themselves in an awkward bind with the previous few naming conventions so this seems to be a good bridge for them to transition to a newer system with out throwing EVERYTHING off. Its also nice that they gave a clear description of the numbers.
For me, it feels like the first digit being the model year instead of generation can be a bit confusing for non-tech-savvy people (even misleading, in a sense). I feel the rest is good enough, excluding the 8, but I guess that's needed in case there's more than 4 R7/R9 SKUs
What they had, actually made sense. This is just a way for them to sneak in their old tech at higher prices than they'd normal go for and also potentially tricking people to believe it's the next generation, just not as good. Makes you really understand how little these companies care about the people who purchase their products. smh
Oh ...
Very surprising fact is it?
Whenever you're making a major purchase like this, it's on you to be an informed consumer. If the manufacturer can pull the wool over your eyes just by incrementing the model year, then you haven't done nearly enough research.
I remember a few years back when I was speccing out some servers and had some very specific requirements for how they would be balanced with respect to CPUs, disk, etc. CDW tried to sell me on the new Skylake processors saying that the new Silver/Gold bullshit wasn't comparable to the old chips because the new chips were based on a magical new architecture. In the end, I got Dell to sell me the systems I needed using the last generation of chips with higher core counts and better TDPs. Did exactly what I needed and I saved some money.
@@thewiirocks You're missing the point. Do you really believe that the vast majority of people do research, let alone know what goes in to a computer other than 'number bigger'? They are playing off this, which makes them a slimy AF company. It's not the people like us who are the majority. FAR from it unfortunately.
@@yozul1 If everyone did something, because someone else did it, this world would be so much worse to live in. smh
@@thewiirocks should people research yes, should companies be allowed to used deceptive marketing and get away without being called out no. hope that clears it up for you
I actually love this naming scheme. It tells you way more than previous ones.
Same. I just need it to be included on product pages tho. Imma forget a few of these as is... Tho wish those same product pages would make sure to include it, bc some will forget and just slap a generic ryzen 7 on there without saying what it is....
Except year is one of the worst indicators of performance. Nearly identical chips with newer production years might have a 5% performance bump, vs. just buying the next architecture for a 20-30% bump. Year being the leading digit is misleading.
But why does it include the year? That has nothing to do with the CPU’s actual properties. The reason is it makes old CPU architectures share the same first number as new CPU architectures.
In a vacuum is a fine naming scheme for anyone familiar with the naming scheme. The year as the first digit will certainly be misleading to unfamiliar people, but it beats mamh tech naming scheme out there currently.
The huge issue I see is that this naming scheme is presumably applied only to laptops is horribly misleading when compared to desktop chips that seem to be using their old system.
If you have a 7650, most would expect it to be a laptop version of something like a 7600 because the numbers so similar. But that laptop chip would be a generation behind in architecture. Reminiscent of when AMD had the Zen 2 desktop chips and Zen 1+ Laptop chips both labelled Ryzen 3XXX, and the blowback leading to adopting the new system of laptops using an even first digit and desktops odd.
@@KellyWu04
AMD: here's a "gen" 9th cpu, it's also on our beloved zen 1! 🤡
The year and architecture should nearly be synonymous, and it's misleading to have both, especially if for example the incremental improvements between a 2023 zen 4 and 2028 zen 4 are next to none.
You'd see 7640hx vs. 12640hx and assume the latter is leagues ahead of the other. They should have done it in a way that felt more linear, ie. architechture-segment-revision (instead of year), etc
Then the above examples would read 4610hx vs. 4660hx. Much smaller looking and visibly incremental improvements. This also fixes the issue in the future when we have zen 10 or higher, and see chips like the 126100hx.
but AMD creates 2 laptop versions in the time it takes to release a new architecture. For example. the 6000 chips are still zen 4, but will a little extra spice. they would either have to stop this trend and only use fresh architectures, or use the year based number
@@jarjarpfeil So modify the form factor to specify laptop chips. It's not hard, add a p for portable. 4610hx vs. 4610phx.
That's also what revision is for. 4610phx vs. 4620phx. The 1 vs. 2 shows the spice. When the chip is made (year) has no meaning. How many times it's improved upon (revision) does.
Using year just results in someone buying an outdated chip because "leading number big, must be good".
Imagine they made a revision of a chip in the same year. Their naming convention is already broken. 7640hx exists, but this chip is also in 2023, so they have to name it 7640hx too. Meanwhile my convention you just add 1 to the 3rd number and call it a day, even if that update happens 300 years in the future.
Having 6nm Zen 2 and 4nm Zen 4 in the same 7000 series is BS to trick people, performance and efficiency of 4nm Zen 4 is orders of magnitude higher then 6nm Zen 2 (during Zen 4 event they said that at 65W Zen 4 performes 74% better then Zen 3).
If they updated Zen 2 to 4nm, I could kinda understand if they kept it for Athlons or created a Ryzen 1/2 tier of CPUs with just 4 cores, but the way they are doing is BS.
Yeah, I think the year is the most redundant number (you want to know the age OF THE ARCHITECTURE, NOT THE SILICON) and them putting it in first place certainly helps them more than us, as they obviously want to push the new stuff they don't have to discount, and big number sounds better.
0:14 that coffee reflection 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I would have swapped the 1st and 3rd number, so that the number was more indicative of architecture and performance, and minimal the year to year performance uplift on the same architecture and the same market segment would be relegated to the 3rd column, so column 3, 2, 1, 4.
Alternatively column 3, 1, 2, 4 could work, but it would take away from the performance difference between the different market segments
Tbh, it might be confusing, but it's actually extremely clear
Props to AMD for actually provide the full scheme
It's just confusing that there are multiple architectures within the same generation, and that numbers aren't exclusive
The mixed architectures/generation thing was already an issue, so I'm glad they're at least calling attention to the zen revision now.
even if AMD slaps you, you'll probably thank them and turn the other cheek
you fangirls lol
Like he said, it's like they are taking a page from the automobile book by creating a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) for the chips... Definitely confusing but informative when you decode it.
@2:17 I see what you did there to the last digit 🤣
I Traded $AMD. I am earning more this year because I have been investing while working at the same time. I invested through TERESA JENSEN WHITE, same woman that an anchor kept mentioning on CNBC, and made multiple of my start up capital within three months . She lives here in the USA and she is licensed
I can’t drop her info here,
Just do a web lookup using her full name and connect to her official webpage .
Thank you for writing this Spam comment
@@kenai2316 😩🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@dr.raymond8 Thank you for your convincing argument.
I'm glad there is a way to tell which generation the processor uses. It was becoming hard to remember
That subscribe to techquickie was smooth lol 2:17
I find this new scheme much more confusing. I'd rather have it be Architecture > Market Segment > Feature Isolation > Form Factor.
No model year, especially since in this case the number doesn't directly reflect the actual year the product was launched.
You guys should do a video on uma framebuffer size I’m personally struggling to find a safe bet answer on this. I own a gaming laptop with dedicated graphics but I know when I’m not gaming the laptop uses the igpu so idk if lowering it from 2gb to 1gb is a good idea
This makes sense, I think it clearifies better what chip is used. That is, if the first number is the same as the "corresponding" desktop variants.
I think most people can get an idea just by the first two digits and the letter, and we, tech enthusiasts, can know about the chip using the rest. I often just look at names and conclude the performance for recommending or buying instead of watching the entire keynotes. Usually works out fine.
100%
Most people:
Select year and then Ryzen 3,5,7 etc. core count. And that’s it.
Most laptops are designed with their suffix letters in mind, so a hefty boy has a higher wattage, ultrabook is appropriate. So basically if you select a form factor you want, just decide how much you want to pay up the premium line
The first digit does mostly the same job as the third, they could have used the last two digits as a whole to indicate slightly different model within the same rank, leaving the job of indicating product year and generation all to the first one (or two after the 9th gen) digit to make a more flexible naming scheme.
I think they will quickly need a new naming scheme since they have almost reached 9 with the first number, or wll they go with 10 -> 2026?
what about when they reach zen 10? or do they think they will have a different name for their architecture by then?
If so I vote for liquid potato clock 1
Correct, an average fart will last longer than this naming scheme 😷
The first digit has no limits - 10. 100. Whatever. The other digits can start over from 1 again after they cross over from 9
With the older laptop chips using the much older architecture and usually requires pulling up the spec sheet before buying, this is much better I think.
Just look up the horizontal bar charts that some tech sites compile that include all the CPUs/GPUs from the past few years and their objective performance as a length of bar.
That's tells you all you need to know, unless you deliberately want a low wattage one.
Very informative. Sounds like it is a pretty reasonable way to label their product
What would be the better CPU using this naming scheme: a 7540u or a 7730u
@@moist_ointment That depends. Does the architectural differences between Zen 5 and 3 outweigh double the physical/logical cores in your application needs?
@@moist_ointment Depends on architectural improvements. If anything, since it's a u chip with lower power draw I would expect the 7550u to outperform the 7730u.
@@moist_ointment The 7730 as it would indicate a ryzen 7, even tho it's 2 generations behind.
@@moist_ointment so zen3 ryzen 7 vs zen5 ryzen 5, 2023 production year for ultra portable.
We need some bechmark here
"Healthy comment section" - Editor: "James smells" 🤣
What's the name of that shirt colour James?
"Salmon and Sick"?
This is actually a pretty normal naming convention from an engineering standpoint.
The year is a little goofy, and we are only 3 years away from needed to adopt a 2 digit year designation. At which time just making it the actual year would probably make sense.
Why did they include the architecture number? Are they going to release new cpus with old architecture?
At least their naming scheme is consistent across the board now.
Remember a few years back?
Athlon/Sempron - Phenom/Phenom II - A Series - E Series - C Series - FX, each chip has its own tier.
FX 4000, 6000, 8000 (and later 9000)
AMD A4 A6 A8 (and later Athlon FM2)
not mentioning there are E1 E2, E350, etc.. and C series like C50 C60..
and remember AM1? the Sempron 2650, Athlon 5650 something...
and at that time, the most shop still also sells the older Phenom II, making all the confusion about the naming scheme way more confusing.
As someone who used to work at a computer shop, AMD naming scheme back then was way way more confusing to most users.
and they just end up buying Intel because its easier to understand "i3 is entry ones, i5 is midrange ones, and i7 is high-end one"
Right now, it's kinda simple, Athlon is for the entry/budget ones, R3 is the entry ones, R5 is the mid-range ones, R7 is the high-end ones, and R9 / Threadripper is the enthusiast ones.
I've been laptop shopping lately and, it's so much more annoying than it used to be the last time I bought a laptop in 2019. Especially, the ones with Nvidia cards. Half the time they don't list the TGP of the card.
What about the only "h" series? Also the architecture number did not occurs in most precious CPU. Like ryzen 5 4600h.
I think you should do a Techquickie on why graphics cards and all other add in cards are upside down, and why the industry has never been able to fix it.
Because many of the old school cases had the motherboard on the opposite side, with access from the right panel, so at the time all the connectors were face-up. When they went with the newer board style (I think in the mid to late 00s) everything switched to the current upside-down version with access from the left panel. I think the opposite/old way is now called "reverse ATX" or "inverse ATX." This obviously still doesn't explain why they've had a couple decades to fix it and haven't yet.
I actually love this naming scheme--it follows the "numbers always go up" convenient that puts the recency first and foremost--and aligns those numbers to the desktop series for once!--then puts the correct details in the following digits that generally correlate to "higher number is more better" with enough wiggle room for marketing.
Honestly the last time I saw a naming scheme this clear was Ferrari: (displacement)(cylinder-count), so:
- 512: 5L, 12cyl
- 488: 4.8L, 8cyl
- 296: Get outta here--a V6? That's a Dino.
Since they provided the decoder ring. Seems cool to me.
I really like this naming convention as AMD HAS TO sell older architectures and this just makes it easier for people to know what they are buying - looking at you nvidia.
what was the old naming scheme?
I really like that you will easily see the architecture generation in the name.
its actually not a bad naming scheme the first 2 digits basically will tell you if its top of the line or not so good processor just like before but with additional info in every digit of the number now.
edit: and also we need to think about what we had before. before it was just bigger number equals better with no additional info in it. Now its kinda the same but with more info so i like it.
Yo putting the year first and the more important numbers right after is actually a genius compromise between telling enthusiasts what they need to know and making it easy for casuals to understand (at least in theory).
ok so the new 7040 series uses zen 4 architecture with.... which market segment?? the second number should go from 1 to 9
What about something like “-ver. Zen 2” after the processor?
Video suggestion, what system cooling is more energy efficient given a workload, water cooling, solid state or fan?
Passive dissipation.
monitor manufacturers: _nervous sweating_
I just wish they had actually included some info on the igpu in the naming scheme...
The new Mendocino chips have a Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 that only differ in clockspeeds.
5xxxx and 6xxxx series had Ryzen 5 as 6 cores and Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 9 as 8 cores.
2xxxx and 3xxxx series had ryzen 5 and 7 as quadcores, but the number of GPU cores was higher in ryzen 7.
I appreciate amd trying to give us something that can be easily decoded, but OEMs can easily exploit the layman, for example by charging a premium for Ryzen 5 Mendocino over the Ryzen 3, while not offering much of a performance benefit.
OK hear me out. What if [Architecture] [Market Segment] [Form Factor/ specialization] [Revision number]?
Model year is up front just to make the number go bigger without releasing anything new. Architecture seems like it should be in that spot.
The 1-9 product segments should be able to handle most of what the Feature Isolation 0/5 is supposed to to and whatever it doesn't could be tacked on as a + or rev.2 after the letters
It makes sense if you have a pamphlet telling what means what AND understand what e.g. "wattage" or "cpu architechture" means. So very few people and frankly not that many salespeople either at your local electronics store let alone supermarket.
I think it would make more sense if the tech behind it (architecture) got the first number. I mean, who actually cares which year it was made in if it's outdated regardless? It may be made of wafers but it doesn't really have a max. shelf life.
I like the P/N style altough i would went for (staying at the eg:) 4670U. And ad a a letter that its a new naming like: Z4670U.
I don't like that the first "generational" number (as we've come to expect it from Intel and Nvidia anyways) is simply the model year instead of the architecture. I'd imagine Zen 4 on N5 could probably outperform Zen 3(++?) on N3 with the same core counts/memory/etc.
They had me until I saw they were putting the architecture before the model type. THey've already passed off older architectures as part of a new lineup, which was confusing, so this is just another means to that end.
It won't matter to me since I'll always look up the cores and architecture + reviews before making a decision or recommendation, but it definitely seems confusing. There's no good way to say a higher numerical number is 'faster' than a lower, so it's still going to require a separate lookup table.
"This video was great. I bet the editor is cute. Also, James smells."
😂 Way to go Robert. 😂
I'd still have to Google what the numbers mean when I shop though. Then some numbers don't guarantee one thing.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Processor nomenclature is so confusing, always has been (in my opinion). In fact all hardware nomenclature is confusing. You should do more of these videos. Make them a series! ...Joe
That's not the first time AMD makes Ryzen mobile CPUs based on a prior gemeration architecture. They did that with Dali (Athlon/Ryzen 3 3000U series, Zen 1) and Lucienne (Ryzen 5000U series, Zen 2). AMD made it easier (for those who understand the numbering sheme) to see what generation is the CPU architecture.
The only thing they did was make use of the 4th digit and adding the zen architecture in the name. They moved the feature isolation from the third to the fourth digit and add designated the third digit to the zen architacture.
What was their old naming scheme again
I wish they use decimal points.
Like how a Dolby Atmos system could be 7.2.4
I'm an electrical engineer, anything short of 15 characters long is a godsent
I think it makes a decent amount of sense, though I don't like the split between 7 and 9 all that much. I wonder if it would've been better to move the second number down one, so that x0xx and x1xx denoted Athlon, 2/3 were R3, 4/5 were R5, 6/7 were R7, and 8/9 were R9. I think it overall can make sense though, it gives 4 different model options for Ryzen processors, because you could have the second number to denote a broader improvement whereas the fourth number denotes a minor improvement; x4x0 is better than x3x5.
Market-Architecture-Feature set-Year-TDP (Market should stick to its original Naming scheme with 1,3,5,7,9 one being for athalon)
It's not that hard to do something that makes sense without trying to scam idiots into buying next year's model even though it's the exact same as last year's.
The first number for the year is sneaky. The same chip can be released every year without change and it will seem like a new chip. 7650u
Having worked in engineering and supply chain I can firmly tell you that when it comes to product naming/numbering schemes, you'll never win. You can either encode information in the product number (as AMD is trying to do here with [Model Year]/[Model Number]/[Architecture]/[Wattage] or you can just randomize numbers that'll never ever match up with previous years (say, in 100 years from now) and no matter what someone will be mad because it doesn't match what they think will work.
Do what you want, AMD, as long as you make a good product it won't matter.
Since 3, 5, 7 and 9 still retain their old numbers... I guess the other ones seems to be a new way to separate higher and lower end batches of the same "tier" thus allowing for more different price and performance ranges... The 7 interlacing with the 9 probably means high end 7 and low end 9s could be on the same 8 tier now...
How do you read 5600g?
I definitely want to see it in action,but for those of us with the knowledge of how the naming scheme works it’s great! For those that don’t know and think bigger number better than this can be a little predatory.
BUTTTT….. I do think it’s on consumers to research a product before buying it. And it’s not complicated IMO.
I wouldn’t feel bad for someone who bought a nvidia 6800gt thinking they were getting something as good as a rx 6800xt.
0:15 Anyone noticed the mug?
Seems logical. It’ll take a bit but people will get used to it and prefer it more likely than not. As someone already mentioned, it has similar characteristics to nomenclature of other things that are based on rules per digit, like metal alloys
Gonna need a cheat sheet everytime you look at laptop specs lol.
This video was great. I bet the editor is really cute. Also, James smells.
This needs to be pinned
I don’t understand the sneaking in old tech argument; how does this naming scheme do that? I really like this new scheme, minus the 7/9 confusion bit. I work with VINS though, so this makes perfect sense in my brain; first check year, then check the third digit for generation, then last two for performance. For most people, this method should work great to determine if the chip is right for them.
Man I miss the times you could compare CPUs by clock speed and be done
Clock speed never really was a good way of comparing CPU performance. This myth led to Intel jacking up their MHz without paying as much attention to actual performance.
AMD Marketing: What happens when we hit Zen 10?
AMD Engineer: We change the digit back to 2.
This is very confusing, because I'm never gonna remember these differences, and I just learned how all the AMD and Intel chip names worked last year
its like the invented the wheel again but it still square. just put M after and call them the same
I think the naming convention is great. It gives much more detail about the hardware than any other naming convention I’ve seen. I can definitely see it taking a little bit to get used. But it’s great. I wish others can follow this.
Maybe swap the first 2 digits? I feel like the model year # is redundant and would just cut it out entirely unless it's meant to be an indicator for generational improvement.
I...probably won't be able to remember all this for any significant amount of time...😥
I like it, though i wish the architecture was first and year made wasn't there
What about Zen 3+ models produced in 2023? 763+5u?
I didn't know the old naming scheme so starting with this will be great. So I can make better decisions by the name.
And I thought Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Edition 2 was a bit complicated back in the day. Do I get a saving roll against all of these CPU/GPU manufacturer's naming schemes?
Clearly confusing.. was the first thing I thought of.
Architecture makes sense, Feature Isolation saying *if needed * is a bit odd, will some not have that digit?
First 2 digits makes sense, except for x8xx. Those seem to be just intended to be valid for 3 years.