search for it

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The Radeon HD 5000's Symptoms And Their Relevance To Windows 7

We had to prove to ourselves that direct, unbuffered output of various GDI primitives (the geometric shapes) for the Radeon HD 5870 and the Radeon HD 5750 took much longer under Windows 7 than it did on other graphics cards. Before we tried to isolate the causes more precisely, we needed to examine the symptoms more carefully, because that'd determine the users most likely to be affected, and thus, whether or not anyone is likely to run into trouble as a result. This is not the kind of problem that every user is bound to encounter, but those who do have to cope with reduced 2D functionality can’t help but feel like helpless bystanders in the middle of a demolition derby.

Mouse-based selection of multiple objects in a drawing: dragging such an object around in realtime can turn into an exercise in patience and perseverance

Problems with Direct Drawing

As reported in Part 1 of this story, the main performance issue for the latest ATI cards centers on the output of lines, curves, ellipses, and polygons. We could only measure about 4,000 curves per second on the Radeon HD 5870 running under Windows 7, without individual buffers for the display device. When we moved a single graphics object consisting of 50 curves in real-time with help from the ROP, it could only redraw 25 individual instances per second while it was in motion (remember, though, that the XOR technique used to make objects disappear from their previous position requires a second redraw, so this is actually 50 operations).

If the object to be moved exceeds 100 curves, then the total number of curves to redraw (5,000 per second, given 100 curves at 50 operations per second) exceeded what the Radeon HD 5870 could handle! Ornaments and clip art elements normally consist of more than 100 curves, making a flicker-free drag of such objects (“float”) impossible. This causes major problems for productivity and functionality, even for the most basic graphics programs.

In addition, many applications use such simple graphics commands that developers see no need to buffer them, as long as direct output to the display behaves reasonably well. These are the programs hardest hit on the Radeon HD 5780.

Problems Drawing to a Buffer

Even when programs use their own internal buffers and handle updates for various types of geometric forms, you may encounter noticeable performance issues that lead to slow output. Likewise, the block-level transfer of buffer contents (called BitBlt, pronounced “bit blit”) also slows to a crawl.

Which Types of Programs Are Affected?

In short, every 2D program that emits GDI commands to draw objects on-screen can fall prey to this issue, particular when they must render lots of drawing objects. This also holds true for programs that manipulate graphics information, such as drawing programs, project planning software, and even productivity applications (like elements of the Microsoft Office suite).

For Which Programs Did We Find Concrete Issues?

  • CorelDraw, Adobe illustrator, Adobe Freehand MX, Nemetschek AllPlan (2D functions)
  • Adobe Photoshop CS3/CS4 (general vector objects on various layers)
  • Microsoft Publisher, Microsoft PowerPoint, and various home layout packages
  • Microsoft Excel when rendering larger charts, or big spreadsheets with area fills
  • Various construction tools, including those for electrical, plumbing, and HVAC drawings
  • Various industry-specific tools (drawing annotations, site plans, landscaping plans, etc.)


We’d also like to observe that all of these programs run reasonably well on other current consumer-level graphics cards. We’re not trying to suggest that these applications need workstation-class cards from the FireGL or Quadro families, either. In fact, we got satisfactory results from numerous low-cost graphics cards priced under $50. Neither craftsmen nor real estate companies need buy ATI's or Nvidia's stack to solve these problems.

Which Programs Are Generally NOT Affected?

  • All 2D programs that use Direct2D to render 2D graphics (and don’t work in XP)
  • All 3D programs that use Direct3D and that don’t output 2D content
  • All programs that use OpenGL for 2D rendering


Summary and First Set of Conclusions

Our best advice to you is to patiently wait for new drivers (which we have in-house and are currently testing), and only then decide which of the problems we document will affect your apps. There’s no need for an emotional response. These issues affect only 2D performance for Windows 7 when GDI or GDI+ are called upon to render 2D graphics info. Apps that run under Windows XP, on the other hand, will almost always fall prey to these problems. Finally, there’s the issue of which graphics primitives actually benefit from hardware acceleration (some do, some don’t).

Because the Radeon HD 5750 is also subject to these troubles, suggesting a driver issue rather than a more fundamental hardware issue (a suspicion ATI confirmed for us in Part 1), it's very likely that the entry-level 5000-series cards launched last month are subject to the same conclusions. Thus, even if what we've covered is not a widespread epidemic among all new graphics cards, it can still be a serious problem for those affected. This is why we believe it’s so important for the vendors to address their software as soon as possible.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Phenom II X2 555 Vs. Pentium G6950: New Budget Dual-Core Titans : AMD's New CPU Portfolio And The New Phenom II X2 555


Intel finally has quad-threaded processors to compete with in the sub-$200 space that AMD has dominated for so long: the Clarkdale-based Core i3 and Core i5 CPUs. Notice we said quad-threaded. These are still dual-core parts with Hyper-Threading, yielding four logical cores. With its launch earlier in January, the company now offers a handful of viable value options for the LGA 1156 platform, with attractive scalability to higher-end Core i5 and Core i7 models.

AMD isn't taking this frontal assault on its turf sitting down, of course, and its retaliation strategy employs a sizable mix of clock speed bumps and reduced prices. The already-attractive price/performance ratio of the sub-$200 CPU market will most definitely take a turn for the better, and you, the enthusiast, win again.

In the midst of all of this new model chaos, we couldn't help but notice the Phenom II X2 555 Black Edition. At an aggressive 3.2 GHz, this is the fastest dual-core CPU that AMD has ever made, and the best part is that it boasts the same $100 price tag as its predecessor, the 550. Intel's counterpoint, the new Clarkdale-based Pentium G6950, is about $5 cheaper and has a slower clock rate of 2.8 GHz, but it does have the advantage of an efficient 32nm process and reportedly-unholy overclocking headroom.

So we couldn't help but wonder: which of these two entry-level offerings is the better bet? How does stock performance compare to a more expensive option, like the quad-core Core i5-750? And could either of these processors offer budget-busting performance if we overclock them, despite their dual-core "limits?"

We certainly slammed headfirst into a few surprises along the way (not all of them pleasant), and we didn't walk away innocent of a mistake or two. But before we dig into the dual-core battle, let's spend a little time looking at AMD's new processor portfolio.


Phenom II X2 555Pentium G6950
Codename: CallistoClarkdale
Process: 45nm 32nm
CPU Cores: 2 2
Clock Speed: 3.2 GHz
2.8 GHz
Socket: AM2+/AM3LGA 1156
L1 Cache: 2 x 128KB
4 x 32KB
L2 Cache: 2 x 512KB
2 x 256KB
L3 Cache: 6MB
3MB
Thermal Envelope:
80W
73W


Sunday, February 14, 2010

Core i7-980X aka Core i9: Intel's 6-core desktop CPU pictured



Intel's desktop CPU (codename: Gulftown with 32 nm Westmere architecture) hasn't even been announced yet, but that doesn't stop the omniscient Internet from spreading information. Now the first Core i7-980X aka Core i9 arrived at the PC Games Hardware office.
PC Games Hardware had access to a engineering sample of a Gulftown processor. See our hands-on test of the six-core CPU for application and game benchmarks.

Original article:
The Lynnfield with the Nehalem architecture hasn't fully hit the markets yet, but the CPU fans are already looking for Westmere, Intel's 32 nanometer architecture, that replaced Nehalem step by step in 2010.

Westmere will be available in several variants. For gamers the Core i9 series with the codename Gulftwon might be the most interesting option since it offers six cores with twelve parallel threads due to SMT. Gulftown CPUs are produces in a 32 nanometer process (like the dual core CPU Clarkdale) and will be released for the socket 1366 (like the Bloomfield). Thus motherboards with Intel's X58 chipset will be required. The TDP is said to be 130 W. Intel's Turbo Boost technology is supposed to be integrated, too, in order to accelerate applications that don't make use of multiple cores. Apparently the first Core i9 that will be released is going to be an Extreme Edition processor.

Source: PC Games Hardware

Intel Gives More Details Six-Core Gulftown CPUs


In a press conference yesterday Intel offered a few more tidbits of information on the six-core Gulftown chips it plans to launch later this year.

Scheduled for release sometime in the first half of this year, Gulftown is aimed at high-end desktops and workstations. Intel yesterday offered some juicy deets on the Westmere chip, including that 1.17 billion transistors onto 240mm sq. die and carries 12MB in L3 and a thermal design power of 130W at 3.33GHz. But the part we're most excited about is improvements in power efficiency.

This is the first design that can do power gating with not just CPU cores, but also the "uncore" parts of the chip. Previously, power gating the L3 cache was not possible because all that core data needed to be stored somewhere after everything else was shut down. However, rather than saving core data in the L3 when it shuts off, Intel has added a dedicated SRAM to store core data and enable Westmere 6C to power gate the L3 cache.

Other information revealed yesterday is that Gulftown will be sold under the Core i7 brand, will be capable of running 12 threads at once, and will not include integrated graphics. Unfortunately, the folks at Intel kept it zipped in terms of clock speeds

Source : Tom's Hardware US

CPU Chart, Processors Hierarchy

What about this other CPU that’s not on the list? How do I know if it’s a good deal or not?

This will happen. In fact, it’s guaranteed to happen because availability and prices change quickly. So how do you know if that CPU you’ve got your eye on is a good buy in its price range?

Here is a resource to help you judge if a CPU is a good buy or not: the gaming CPU hierarchy chart, which groups CPUs with similar overall gaming performance levels into tiers. The top tier contains the highest-performing gaming CPUs available and gaming performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there.

However, a word of caution: this hierarchy is based on the average performance each CPU achieved in our charts test suite using only four game titles: Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3, World in Conflict, and Supreme Commander. While we feel this represents an acceptable cross-section of typical gaming scenarios, a specific game title will likely perform differently. Some games, for example, will be severely graphics subsystem-limited, while others may react positively to more CPU cores, larger amounts of CPU cache, or even a specific architecture. We also did not have access to every CPU on the market, so some of the CPU performance estimates are based on the numbers similar architectures deliver. Indeed, this hierarchy chart is useful as a general guideline, but certainly not as a gospel one-size-fits-all perfect CPU comparison resource.

You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two processors, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your CPU unless the potential replacement is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in game performance.

Gaming CPU Hierarchy Chart
IntelAMD
Core i7 Extreme 965, 975
Core i7-860, -870, -920, -940, -950
Core i5-750
Core 2 Extreme QX9775, QX9770, QX9650
Core 2 Quad Q9650

Core 2 Extreme QX6850, QX6800
Core 2 Quad Q9550, Q9450, Q9400
Core i5-650, -660, -661, -670
Phenom II X4 Black Edition 955, 965
Core 2 Extreme QX6700
Core 2 Quad Q6700, Q9300, Q8400, Q6600, Q8300
Core 2 Duo E8600, E8500, E8400, E7600
Core i3 -530, -540
Phenom II X4 945, 940, 920, 910, 810
Phenom II X3 720 Black Edition
Athlon II X4 630
Athlon II X3 435
Core 2 Extreme X6800
Core 2 Quad Q8200
Core 2 Duo E8300, E8200, E8190, E7500, E7400, E6850, E6750
Phenom II X4 905e, 805
Phenom II X3 710, 705e
Phenom II X2 545, 550 Black Edition
Phenom X4 9950
Athlon II X4 620
Athlon II X3 425
Core 2 Duo E7200, E6550, E7300, E6540, E6700
Pentium Dual-Core E6300, E6500
Pentium G9650
Phenom X4 9850, 9750, 9650, 9600
Phenom X3 8850, 8750
Athlon 64 X2 6400+
Core 2 Duo E4700, E4600, E6600, E4500, E6420
Pentium Dual-Core E5400, E5300, E5200
Phenom X4 9500, 9550, 9450e, 9350e
Phenom X3 8650, 8600, 8550, 8450e, 8450, 8400, 8250e
Athlon II X2 240, 245, 250
Athlon X2 7850, 7750
Athlon 64 X2 6000+, 5600+
Core 2 Duo E4400, E4300, E6400, E6320
Celeron E3300
Phenom X4 9150e, 9100e
Athlon X2 7550, 7450, 5050e, 4850e/b
Athlon 64 X2 5400+, 5200+, 5000+, 4800+
Core 2 Duo E6300
Pentium Dual-Core E2220, E2200, E2210
Celeron E3200
Athlon X2 6550, 6500, 4450e/b,
Athlon X2 4600+, 4400+, 4200+, BE-2400
Pentium Dual-Core E2180
Celeron E1600
Athlon 64 X2 4000+, 3800+
Athlon X2 4050e, BE-2300
Pentium Dual-Core E2160, E2140
Celeron E1500, E1400, E1200

Summary

There you have it folks: the best gaming CPUs for the money this month. Now all that’s left to do is to find and purchase them.

Also remember that the stores don’t follow this list. Things will change over the course of the month and you’ll probably have to adapt your buying strategy to deal with fluctuating prices. Good luck!


(http://www.tomshardware.com)

VGA Chart, Hierarchy Graphics Card

What about this other card that’s not on the list? How do I know if it’s a good deal or not?

This will happen. In fact, it’s guaranteed to happen, because inventory levels and prices change quickly. So how do you know if that card you’ve got your eye on is a good buy in its price range?

Here are two resources to help you judge if a card is a good buy or not. The first is the graphics card hierarchy chart, which groups graphics cards with similar overall performance levels into tiers. The top tier contains the highest-performing cards available and performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there.

You can use this hierarchy to compare the pricing between two cards, to see which one is a better deal, and also to determine if an upgrade is worthwhile. I don’t recommend upgrading your graphics card unless the replacement card is at least three tiers higher. Otherwise, the upgrade is somewhat parallel and you may not notice a worthwhile difference in performance.

At the request of readers, I have added mobile graphics and integrated chipsets to the hierarchy chart. I want to make it clear that there is very little performance data available for these graphics solutions. While the discrete video cards in the chart are placed in tiers based on a lot of information, many of the mobile and integrated devices in the chart are guesstimates based on their specifications. At worst, I don’t think they’re more than one tier away from their actual performance, but this is something to keep in mind when considering mobile graphics chipsets.

Graphics Card Hierarchy Chart
GeForceRadeonIntel

Discrete: HD 5970
Discrete: GTX 295Discrete: HD 4870 X2, HD 5870
Discrete: GTX 280, GTX 285 Discrete: HD 4850 X2, HD 5850
Discrete: 9800 GX2, GTX 260, GTX 275 Discrete: HD 4870, HD 4890, HD 5770
Discrete: 8800 Ultra, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTX+,
GTS 250
Discrete: HD 3870 X2, HD 4850, HD 5750
Discrete: 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS 512 MB
Go (mobile): 280M
Discrete: HD 4770

Discrete: 8800 GT 512 MB, 9800 GT
Go (mobile): 260M (112)
Discrete: HD 4830, HD 5670
Discrete: 8800 GTS 640 MB, 9600 GT, GT 240 (GDDR5) Discrete: HD 2900 XT, HD 3870
Discrete: 8800 GS, 9600 GSO, GT 240 (DDR3)
Go (mobile): 260M (96)
Discrete: HD 3850 512 MB, HD 4670
Mobility: 3870

Discrete: 8800 GT 256 MB, 8800 GTS 320 MB, GT 220
Go (mobile): 8800M
Discrete: HD 2900 PRO, HD 3850 256 MB
Mobility: 3850

Discrete: 7950 GX2 Discrete: X1950 XTX, HD 4650 (DDR3)
Discrete: 7800 GTX 512, 7900 GTO, 7900 GTX Discrete: X1900 XT, X1950 XT, X1900 XTX
Discrete: 7800 GTX, 7900 GT, 7950 GT Discrete: X1800 XT, X1900 AIW, X1900 GT, X1950 PRO, HD 2900 GT
Discrete: 7800 GT, 7900 GS, 8600 GTS, 9500 GT (GDDR3)
Go (mobile): 7950 GTX
Discrete: X1800 XL, X1950 GT, HD 4650 (DDR2)
Mobility X1800 XT

Discrete: 6800 Ultra, 7600 GT, 7800 GS, 8600 GT (GDDR3), 9500 GT (DDR2)
Go (mobile): 7800 GTX, 7900 GTX
Discrete: X800 XT (& PE), X850 XT (& PE), X1650 XT, X1800 GTO, HD 2600 XT, HD 3650 (DDR3), HD 3670,
Mobility: X1900, 3670

Discrete: 6800 GT, 6800 GS (PCIe), 8600 GT (DDR2)
Go (mobile): 7800, Go 7900 GS
Discrete: X800 XL, X800 GTO2/GTO16, HD 2600 PRO, HD 3650 (DDR2),
Mobility: X800 XT, HD 2600 XT, 3650

Discrete: 6800 GS (AGP)
Go (mobile): 6800 Ultra, 7600 GT, 8600M GT, 8700M GT
Discrete: X800 GTO 256 MB, X800 PRO, X850 PRO, X1650 GT
Mobility: HD 2600

Discrete: 6800, 7300 GT GDDR3, 7600 GS, 8600M GS
Go (mobile): 6800, 7700
Discrete: X800, X800 GTO 128 MB, X1600 XT, X1650 PRO
Mobility: X1800

Discrete: 6600 GT, 6800LE, 6800 XT, 7300 GT (DDR2), 8500 GT, 9400 GT
Go (mobile): 7600 (128-bit)
Discrete: 9800 XT, X700 PRO, X800 GT, X800 SE, X1300 XT, X1600 PRO, HD 2400 XT, HD 4350, HD 4550
Mobility: X800, 3470
Integrated: HD 3300

Discrete: FX 5900, FX 5900 Ultra, FX 5950 Ultra, 6600 (128-bit)
Go (mobile): 6800 (128-bit)
Integrated: 9300, 9400
Discrete: 9700, 9700 PRO, 9800, 9800 PRO, X700, X1300 PRO, X1550, HD 2400 PRO
Mobility: X1450, X1600, X1700, 2400 XT, X2500, 3450
Integrated: HD 3200, HD 4200

Discrete: FX 5800 Ultra, FX 5900 XT
Go (mobile): 6600, Go 7600 (64-bit)
Discrete: 9500 PRO, 9600 XT, 9800 PRO (128-bit), X600 XT, X1050 (128-bit)
Mobility: 9800, X700, X1350, X1400, X2300, HD 2400

Discrete: 4 Ti 4600, 4 Ti 4800, FX 5700 Ultra, 6200, 8300, 8400 G, G 210, G 310 Discrete: 9600 PRO, 9800 LE, X600 PRO, HD 2300
Mobility: 9700 (128-bit), X600, X1300
Integrated: Xpress 1250

Discrete: 4 Ti4200, 4 Ti4400, 4 Ti4800 SE, FX 5600 Ultra, FX 5700, 6600 (64-bit), 7300 GS, 8400M GS, 9300M G, 9300M GS Discrete: 9500, 9550, 9600, X300, X1050 (64-bit)
Mobility: 9600

Discrete: 3 Ti500, FX 5200 Ultra, FX 5600, FX 5700 LE, 6200 TC, 6600 LE, 7200 GS, 7300 LE
Go (mobile): 5700, 8200M, 9200M GS, 9100
Integrated: 8200, 8300
Discrete: 8500, 9100, 9000 PRO, 9600 LE, X300 SE, X1150
Mobility 9700 (64-bit)
GMA X4500
Discrete: 3, 3 Ti200, FX 5200 (128-bit), FX 5500,
Go (mobile): 5600, 6200, 6400, 7200, 7300, 7400 (64-bit)
Discrete: 9000, 9200, 9250
Mobility: 9600 (64-bit), X300

Discrete: FX 5200 (64 bit)
Go (mobile): 7200, 7400 (32-bit)
Integrated: 6100, 6150
Discrete: 9200 SE
Integrated: Xpress 200M, Xpress 1000, Xpress 1150
GMA X3000, X3100, X3500
Discrete: 2 GTS, 4 MX 440, 2 Ultra, 2 Ti, 2 Ti 200 Discrete: 7500 GMA 3000, 3100
Discrete: 256, 2 MX 200, 4 MX 420, 2 MX 400 Discrete: SDR, LE, DDR, 7000, 7200 GMA 500, 900, 950
Discrete: Nvidia TNT Discrete: Rage 128 Intel 740

Summary

There you have it folks; the best cards for the money this month. Now all that’s left to do is to find and purchase them.

Don’t worry too much about which brand you choose, because all of the cards out there are close to Nvidia’s and ATI’s reference designs. Just pay attention to price, warranty, and the manufacturer’s reputation for honoring the warranty if something goes wrong.

Also remember that the stores don’t follow this list. Things will change over the course of the month and you’ll probably have to adapt your buying strategy to deal with fluctuating prices. Good luck!


(http://www.tomshardware.com)

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

DDR3 Overclocking: Corsair sets new DDR3 RAM world record


Corsair was able to increase the frequency of its DDR3 modules, which is very high anyway, even further and thus set a new world record.

With a validated memory frequency of 2,533 Megahertz and sharp timings of 7-8-7-20 Corsair was able to overclock the 2,000er modules of the Dominator GT series quite impressively. For the new record attempt only high-end hardware was used. The test system was powered by an 1,000 watt Corsair PSU (HX1000W) and a 256 GB SSD (P256) was used to store the data. A Core i7 Extreme 975 - which isn't available to customers yet - was placed on a EVGA X58 3X SLI Classified, which is regarded to be one of the best overclocking motherboards available at the moment.

Besides the high frequency this record is also interesting because of another reason. Usually only one memory module with an capacity of one GiByte is used for world record attempt, but Corsair was able to reach the results with three 2 GiByte modules. What kind of cooling solution was used or the applied voltage has not been revealed by Corsair, but it is estimated that the recently introduced memory water cooler was used to deal with the increased heat.


AMD Readies “Thuban” Six-Core Desktop Processor


Advanced Micro Devices is preparing a desktop processor with six processing engines, sources familiar with the company’s plans revealed. The new central processing units (CPUs) will not be available this year, but are likely to boost performance of AMD’s desktop platforms sometime in 2010.

AMD’s processor code-named Thuban is the company’s first desktop processor with six processing engines. The microprocessors will be compatible with socket AM3 infrastructure and will have integrated dual-channel PC3-10600 (DDR3 1333MHz) memory controller. It is very likely that Thuban processors will retain AMD Phenom II brand name as well as design of the code-named Istanbul chips for servers, thus, will feature 3MB L2 cache (512KB per core) and 6MB of L3 cache. The chips will be made using 45nm SOI fabrication process.

Thuban is a star in the constellation of Draco and it also means “dragon” in Arabian language. The new six-core chip should be compatible with existing AM3 infrastructure (and, quite possibly, even with AM2+ infrastructure with split power plane), it remains to be seen whether Thuban becomes a part of AMD’s current high-end desktop platform called Dragon, or will power the company’s next-generation Leo platform.

AMD’s Leo platform will be based on the AMD 890FX and 890GX core-logic sets. The new chipsets will offer better performance and functionality, e.g., they will support Serial ATA-600, 14 Serial ATA 2.0 ports and so on, but both will only hit mass production in April, 2010, and will be formally released in May next year, according to market sources.

Provided that AMD has its Thuban processors ready before May 2010, the company is likely to start shipping them as soon as possible so that to be able to compete for the high-end desktop segment. In fact, it is somewhat surprising that AMD will only be able to offer six-core desktop chip about a year after it started to ship six-core chips for servers. Nevertheless, based on currently available information, AMD Thuban is due only in Q3 2010.

At present AMD does not position its six-core Opteron processors even for single-socket workstations and recommends its customers among makers of dual-socket workstations to stick to quad-core chips due to their higher clock-speeds compared to existing six-core central processing units. At present AMD’s highest-performance six-core chips operate at 2.80GHz, meanwhile, the fastest quad-core CPUs function at 3.40GHz.

With six physical cores AMD will be able to demonstrate rather high performance in multi-tasking and applications that need to execute numerous threads at once. Moreover, as future video games that rely on DirectX 11 start to arrive, the advantages provided by six-core Thuban and Istanbul processors will be even more apparent.

Intel Corp., the larger rival of AMD, plans to unveil its six-core code-named Gulftown chips for desktops in Q2 2010.

(http://www.xbitlabs.com)

Intel Reveals Core i3, i5, i7 CPU Naming System


Lynnfield, Clarksfield, Arrandale, Clarkdale – all codenames for upcoming Intel chips based on the latest architecture and all very confusing.

Today we know that the “Core” family for the performance segment goes mainly from Core 2 Duo to Core 2 Quad all the way to the top with Core i7. But with Core 2 on the way out to be replaced by new CPUs later this year, Intel needs to sort out its naming and branding conventions to that consumers will be able to figure out what they’re buying.

Intel corporate communications manager Bill Calder wrote in a blog post, “Today the Intel Core brand has a mind boggling array of derivatives (such as Core2 Duo and Core 2 Quad, etc). Over time those will go away and in its place will be a simplified family of Core processors spanning multiple levels: Intel Core i3 processor, Intel Core i5 processor, and Intel Core i7 processors.”

“Core i3 and Core i5 are new modifiers and join the previously announced Intel Core i7 to round out the family structure. It is important to note that these are not brands but modifiers to the Intel Core brand that signal different features and benefits,” Calder added.

The new Core line will be naturally be position from bottom to top Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7. The odd-numbers convention makes sense with the possibility that some consumers may confused Core 2 Duo and Quad with 2 and 4.

The desktop processors codenamed Lynnfield, which are due this fall, will marketed as both Core i5 or Core i7, depending upon the feature set and capability. Interestingly, all Clarksfield mobile chips will have the Core i7 name.

The lower-cost line will remain mostly unchanged with the Celeron being the entry point, the Pentium for basic computing and the Atom doing what it’s been doing to the netbook and MID segment.

“For PC purchasing, think in terms of good-better-best with Celeron being good, Pentium better, and the Intel Core family representing the best we have to offer,” said Calder. “This will be an evolutionary process taking place over time, and we acknowledge that multiple brands will be in the market next year including older ones, as we make the transition. But overall this is a good thing, designed to make it easier and more rational over the long run.”

Source : Tom's Hardware US