Why Intel Stopped Using Processor Numbers [Byte Size] | Nostalgia Nerd

[@Nostalgianerd]

FIRST Boiiiiiiiii

[@Sithhy]

*noice*

[@TheLinkoln18]

Nostalgia Nerd 🔔 end

[@CountryRoadist]

Some say the the 586 resides in the same mythical place as Kim Justice's ball sack.

[@SianaGearz]

Cheater!

[@apostolosfilippos]

Pentagon actually means a shape with 5 corners. keep the good videos coming !

[@irridiastarfire]

Thankfully Intel continued with their simple, easy to understand product naming scheme like the "Intel Core i7 10710U 25W"

[@squelchedotter]

and it's gotten worse lol

[@MadameSomnambule]

@@squelchedotter Can confirm. It's made looking for a good cpu for an upgraded rig very confusing and draining. I ended up just looking for a list of compatible ones that had the same clock speed and luckily ended up getting one with more cores than my current one. Lucked out there. But the weird numbering could've ended in me getting something mediocre or something if I was cheaping out.

[@freddan6fly]

Look at GN when Steve and the Intel Marketing staff tries to say the name of the new processors like i7-1068NG7 Processor.

[@RetroGameSpacko]

and it is now gotten completely useless when sometime tells you he has an i7.

[@AndrewTSq]

AMD was even worse cause a cpu what you think is a new gen, could be a Zen+ architecture lol . No thanks!.

[@lauratiso]

Here in Brazil was pretty common some vendors calling his Pentium PCs as 586. Mostly because people used to call Pentium this way. But with Pentium MMX and Pentium II, people started to call this processor by it's name.

[@raven4k998]

why stop with number cause names like pentium sound better🤣

[@lauratiso]

@@raven4k998 just because you said it, I found an old magazine with "686 computers" ad, referring to Pentium II. It never made any sense, lol.

[@AndrewTSq]

Cyrix had a 586 cpu!.

[@lauratiso]

@@AndrewTSq and AMD too. But people used to call Intel Pentium processors 586 here at the time.

[@BlackDragon-xn2ww]

I really liked the beginning where you went into the numbering systems of microprocessors they didn't even mention it at school rather talking up who invented this and that good video mate keep up the good work from the other side of the pond :)

[@the4thviewer28]

Wasn't the old joke they tried adding 100 to 486 and it came out 585.99999999999999R?

[@MrHyeson]

Yes, but that happens only every 27k years.

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

Yep, "Intel inside, and still can't divide". There, coincidentally, was a bug in the pentium's math co-processor section, of the initial release of that chip.

[@rich1051414]

Open your calculator and do 4,195,835 / 3,145,727. If your answer isn't precisely 1.333820449136241 then you have FPU issues :)

[@rashidisw]

I'm actually kinda disappointed that excel refuses to answer: 4,195,835 / 3,145,727 as 1.333820449136241002477328770106242531535635482672208999700228277....

[@martinda7446]

@@rashidisw Just to be a wanker, 585.9999R IS mathematically 586 and not an approximation or error.

[@MOS-MHz]

Congrats on the 100k+ subscribers NN. Also i like the quality of your video's, it shows you actually put alot of effort and time in

[@RetroMMA]

I am Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated.

[@robsemail]

Indeed, and always beware of the Middle Eastern terror known as Al Gebra.

[@LaikaLycanthrope]

I remember that being a very popular tagline in messages managed by the Blue Wave Mail system.

[@proximity037]

@@robsemail beware algorithm

[@timblake5844]

Wonder if there any prototypes of the i586 floating around...?

[@minignoux4566]

the cyrix 5x86 are based on the 486 if i remember well it's not legit intel product but it's close

[@laynesamba]

A great video for those who claim to be interested in retro computer history but don't know the roots of x86! Great job!

[@delmonti]

another great, informative and well edited video. Top marks.

[@TheRetroRaven]

But they didn't stop using the numbers - they're right back at it now ... Example .. Core i7-4710, Core-i7-6700 etc. etc. The reason however, for going away from the number system ,was so they could register the names as trademarks, hence the 80586 was named Pentium. Today we have Core-M , Core i-3, Core i5, Core i7 and Xeon processors, and frankly I'm pretty sure they still use the Pentium and Celeron names from time to time, besides the Atom ofc. And it can be a little dificult from time to time to figure out if a Core i5 has more power than a Core i7 (not necessarily within the same generation, and it also depends on the tools utilizing the CPUs). I miss the "good old days" - back then, I knew that a 486DX2 was better than a 486DX, and a 486DX2-66MHz had a frontsidebus running 33MHz, where as the DX4-100MHz had a FSB running at only 25MHz , and then there was AMDs Am80486-DX4 120MHz .....

[@ToriRocksAmos]

Ofcourse they still use Celeron and Pentium - for their low end desktop hardware. The Pentium G4560 was actually so popular with gamers on a budget recently, they increased the price by 50% a couple of months after release.

[@getxyzzy]

Oxygenic yup, they couldn't trademark numbers, and since at the time amd, cyrix and a few other long-gone chip makers were happily making sound-alike chips that were often both cheaper and faster, Intel decided that something had to be done. This meant Intel had to brand their chips with a name so amd et al were locked out. Their brand suffered, but amd at the time were the real innovators, building the x86_64 instruction set that still sets the standard now.

[@theALFEST]

DX4-100 had FSB running at 33MHz actually (multiplier was 3).

[@TheRetroRaven]

theALFEST sorry mate, multiplier was 4,not 3,as 3x33MHz is 99, not 100. That's why the DX2-66 in certain cases was faster than the DX4.

[@theALFEST]

Multiplier in intel DX4 cpu was 3. So FSB was 33 in DX4-100 and 25 in DX4-75. That's why DX2-66 in certain cases was faster than DX4-75. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_DX4

[@anthonyberent4611]

There may have been another, much simpler, reason; Intel already had a chip called the 80586! In the mid 80's I worked on a project developing networking equipment. This used an 80188 processor, and an 80586 ethernet controller. I remember thinking when the 80386 came out that they would have naming problems in a couple of generations. Sadly I can't find a datasheet or any other details on the web for the 80586 ethernet controller.

[@eg1885]

A bonus fact to this vid should've been where the intel jingle came from

[@RetroGamingMuseum]

You are the British LGR. Love it ! Or he is the US Nostalgia Nerd. Either way.. you two are my go to guy´s when watching youtube retro gaming stuff

[@MOS-MHz]

NN was inspired by LGR so he said in a video, so yeah the British LGR. Both are really relaxed yet have a professional approach to their videos, possibly my two favorite youtubes

[@tomtalk24]

Nostalgia Nerd is rarely original. Even Byte Size is a play on the BBCs Bitesize. His good radio voice is the only thing really going imo. He only started 4 years ago, LGR 11. LGR legend.

[@Foebane72]

Just don't any of you bother with Steve Benway, he banned me for no reason, the arrogant snob.

[@v3xman]

At first i actually thought these are the same person with Nostalgia Nerd being a separate series channel by LGR :D

[@Exavolt]

Can you please do an episode on the history of ATI? I'd love to see that, miss all the old big red ATI boxes with the ironically named second party Sapphire distribution.

[@gunma747j]

Kobrakai is sharp x68000 a Stu or a atx?

[@madgino9725]

Good job as usual. very informative. Thank you very much

[@JerryLoffelbein]

I never associated the Penta prefix of Pentium being related to 586 until now, and feel really stupid

[@MrGeekGamer]

Could you shed any light on the AMD numbering schemes of the mid-00's? It seemed to be like they gave CPU's names that suggested a clock speed, but the actual speed was much lower.

[@Neffers_UK]

From what I heard, it was a cheeky stab, an Intel equivalent clock speed. For example say the AMD Athlon XP 3800+, had a lower clock speed but was equivalent to an Intel P4 running at that clock speed.

[@evknucklehead]

Nevermind the fact that they never released an XP 3800+. Didn't make that jump until the Athlon 64 era. The Athlon XP series only went up to 3200+. Interestingly enough, the Duron line, which was the budget version of the main Athlon line up until the release of the Semprons, kept using the actual speed as the basis of the model number.

[@sbrazenor2]

When you really think about it, Intel is still using a number system. i3, i5, i7 and i9, along with the 4-digit model number and a modifier (K,U,X, etx). It's simple to follow, but a little funky if you're not familiar with it. That being said, their 'lake' names are a little silly after a while. They should eventually retire that.

[@DaFinkingOrk]

SeanFromPVD Yeah the problem people have with the Intel system is the i3/5/7 bit is pretty meaningless and sometimes outright misleading, but the 4-digit number and letter after it is logical and consistent I agree. That's what really matters, the iX part can be ignored tbh. E.g. i5-7200u is a low power i3-7200 for laptops but given i5 label because it's relatively mid-range for a laptop.

[@RuruFIN]

The comment is from two years ago and there's still more Lakes coming from Intel. :D

[@nimrodlevy]

From where you acquire all these info. You byte sizes are brilliant thanks for the efforts for these enriching magnificent flicks. Thank lad!

[@bepaque]

4:07 iconic GreatScott music

[@j1mmy69]

Hearing this I was expecting to see some incredibly neat hand drawn schematics... Sadly this was not the case.

[@Daniel15au]

Wow, I only just realised that "Pentium" contains "Pent" (5). :o

[@Toys_in_the_Attic]

As a Greek, I was very proud of the use of the greek word "πέντε" in Intel's Pentium processors, especially when these were first introduced/released in the 90s and were the top microprocessors anyone could buy, haha!

[@buddyclem7328]

Unfortunately, PEN15 was already taken.

[@LaikaLycanthrope]

@@Toys_in_the_Attic The way anglophones transliterate Greek must drive you mad most of the time, though. When I realized just how fucked up it was, I felt genuinely embarrassed.

[@shrimpfry880]

this is exactly what i was thinking about

[@thecianinator]

🤯

[@AgnostosGnostos]

For the ordinary PC user the first popular Intel CPU was the 286 during 80's with IBM PC clones. The Intel 286 was used with MS DOS which nowadays seems difficult but it wasn't so hard during 80's and early 90's. The 286, 386, 486 were CPUs of the MS DOS era. The Windows 3.11 were easy but for installing any hardware some DOS knowledge was required. The revolution came with Intel Pentium and Windows 95. Pentium was introduced before windows 95 in 1993 at 50Mhz. During that time Pentium was extremely expensive and ordinary PC users were preferring the affordable Intel 486 CPU and Windows 3.11. However after 1995 and Windows 95 the Pentium was affordable for anyone. With Windows 95 the computers were easy for nearly everyone and the sales of the Pentium CPUs were skyrocketed. That helped the drop of Pentium prices. My first Pentimum was the 150MHz without MMX in 1996. I could use Photoshop, 3D studio MAX, Cool edit Pro audio processing, Adobe Premiere, Macromedia shockwave and other multimedia programs efficiently and fast. During the same period there was the Pentium Pro which was very expensive and powerful and was preferred only by professionals. The 486 and Pentium CPUs could be used on many motherboards which could accept other cheaper CPUs with similar architecture from AMD and Cyrix. That was very nice for PC users but Intel didn't like it. After the Pentium II, an Intel CPU couldn't be replaced with any AMD or Cyrix CPU on the same motherboard. Parallel to the Pentium II, the Intel Celeron was introduced which was actually a cheaper Pentium II with less cache memory for users who weren't interested with complex demanding multimedia software and wanted something cheaper. Until Pentium IV nothing very special happened. The Pentium IV reached the ceiling of 4 GHz a CPU can operate without serious thermal issues. The solution was multi cores at lower speeds with Intel core duo in 2006 and Intel core 2 quad with four cores in 2008. However most programs neither Windows XP could exploit the parallel processing efficiently. Single core CPUs with very higher frequency could perform better with specific programs. After Windows 7 in 2009 the parallel processing was fully supported by the OS and most popular programs. The Intel core i7 was introduced in 2008, the Intel core i5 in 2009 and Intel core i3 in 2007. The i7 was typically much more expensive than i5 and the i5 much more expensive than i3. With i7, i5 and i3 the CPU frequencies were directly indicative of the CPU performance. That until know is confusing consumers and very few check benchmarks in internet in order to compare performances.

[@dreammfyre]

Damn these Pentiums. I was stuck with a Dx2 while my friends were playing Quake on their P100s.

[@B3NN10N]

A Roadie I was thinking similar. Quake on the smallest window on my 486dx266!

[@craigperry3779]

A Roadie my 11 year old self feels you, I had a 486/dx4100 that wouldn't keep up with doom like a Pentium could

[@GraveUypo]

i could have bought a pentium 100mhz but i CHOOSE to buy a dx4 100mhz. it was only a 10% difference in price. my mom allowed me to pick. i went with the cheaper one. they were both "100mhz" after all. it's something i regret to this day, because that pentium was about twice as fast. fucking huge mistake. funfact: a 486dx4 100mhz gets 7.6fps on quake1 timedemo on demo1, and a pentium 100mhz gets 15.3 fps. do you remember your pc being THAT terrible? i remember it was bad even for my low standards (played quake on a tiny window at what i assume was 15 fps), but damn.

[@Ningyo42]

I have a complaint. I work at a hotel, and hotels do not look at all like what you showed in your video! ;) Seriously, great vid. A simple answer, but the history was great to learn. Thanks!! :)

[@manickn6819]

Ah good info. I always wondered this but always at times when I was discussing with friends so it wasn't convenient to try searching online for it. Many years later ...... curiosity satisfied.

[@Automatik234]

Why do you make so many great videos!

[@carbunky6098]

Anyone got the music list?

[@gavinexe7012]

the 86 line technically continued because when i try to run feren os on a 32 bit pentium it says that it needs an x86 or x64 processor while i have an i686 processor

[@hakemon]

Typo in the description: 80806. :P

[@allthegearnoidea6752]

Very interesting thanks for sharing

[@Electricmemerat]

4:04 GreatScott music starts playing

[@Gottgum]

I never told you this before, but here it is: I fucking love your videos 😝 keep it up! 🙌✌👌👍

[@skeletorrobo]

So what '86 are they up to now?

[@tjockiskatten]

Thank you! I always wondered that as a kid.

[@Megatog615]

is there a video on why IBM chose Intel chips over other processors like the z80 or 6502 or etc?

[@WhatHoSnorkers]

Perfect length to watch while my boil in the bag rice cooks! IBM PC for the win (and compatible)!

[@KOTYAR0]

Hey, does the ending music has a name or a track? I dig it, it ls pretty cool

[@nneeerrrd]

4004 - Nibble Size 8008, 8085 - Byte Size 8086, 80186, 80286 - Word Size 80386, ... - Dword Size Athlon 64, ... - Qword Size

[@dowekeller]

It all depends an how many bits are in your word.

[@nneeerrrd]

Dowe Keller in Intel world there is only one option

[@dowekeller]

Clearly an 80386 has a 32-bit word length, calling its half-word a word and its word a double-word is perverse..

[@nneeerrrd]

Dowe Keller nope dude. you'd better not argue with programmer who started coding in Intel assembler since 12 yo, or educate yourself first. you may want to start with googling 'word ptr' and 'dword ptr', then RTFM.

[@nneeerrrd]

And btw, self-liking your own comment don't add credibility to it :p

[@patlab555]

3:26 In the same hotel at the same time... what are the odds? But a wrong delivery too... seriously? I don't believe in that level of odds!

[@rickyyoung]

Love that bit of Music

[@WeeComputeUK]

Anything on the intel i960 risk chip? It's a bit of a curiosity with an interesting story - apparently still used today in new kit by the Indian military.

[@zzco]

RISC. You don't kompute,

[@Zoyx]

What happened to the 186?

[@rorysparshott4223]

Also, if you look at the logo for the i386 and i486, the i is actually an 8

[@deathdoor]

3:40 this CAN'T be true!

[@ebridgewater]

It's definitely not.

[@arupian666]

I think it's just a good story... an urban myth so ingrained that it's now "true"...

[@abigailpatridge2948]

It really is hard to say. AMD DID claim it. I don't know if it was ever proven... Given the even worse things Intel has done over the years, it wouldn't surprise me if they had pulled a corporate espionage stunt.

[@watcherzero5256]

AMD argued that it was too unbelievable and that Intel had deliberately put someone with the same name in the hotel to intercept the package as corporate espionage.

[@SpaceBearEngineer]

The fact that it sounds like a major player of the current oligopoly pulling corporate espionage...makes me think it's probably true.

[@TheArcaneBrony]

Debian 9 refers to dual core 32bit intel cpus as 686

[@chip1gray]

i have a 586 ??? lol it says that its a pentium 100 but the lable on the front reads 586 lol

[@CattoRayTube]

"No mishaps or confusion..." R3, R5, R7 haha

[@HR-wd6cw]

I'm glad the abandoned the older number scheme (like Pentium 4 3.06 GHz and went with the newer model numbers like Core i3 9100). Granted it doesn't tell you much about the processor speed (you have to usually look that up) but it does give you a sense of where processors fall within the same class (like an i3 9100 is slower than an i3 9500 for example, if that exists). Whereas clock speed alone is not a very good benchmark of performance (because things like bus-speed and L1/L2--and on future processors, L3---cache would also play a role in overall performance).

[@devjock]

>Be me in my schooldays >Played so many tetris on my ti-83 against classmates that I completely knackered the linkport >Piece of junk connector port was 2.5mm anyway. >One soldering iron and dremel session later, got a real headphone jack in there >Plug in headphones just for the lulz >Start wondering if there's prgm's that use the linkport as audio output >Lo and behold prgmINTEL >Send(9prgmINTEL > "teng TENG teng TENG!" >got on the floor and did the dinosaur

[@danielhn93]

devjock the hell, this isn't 4chan, get your green text wishin ass outta here lol

[@devjock]

the ">" are for storytime purposes, and thus completely adequate. The idea was that it conveyed a message. I was succesful in that attempt, because you got it :)

[@thewassock]

I can recall Intel producing a server grade Ethernet card named the PC586, which was based on an Intel 82586 Ethernet controller chip. This would have been several years prior to the introduction of the Pentium processor.

[@Modenut]

Aaaaw, that "Time For A Change" cartoon is so adorably 90s. =D

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

I still can't say "intel without playing that jingle afterwards. *Dadum da dummmmm*

[@3800S1]

Mine goes Dunng! ding derll, Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrlllllll! like its moldy and always dies in the ass.

[@JerikkaBenton]

Because when Intel added 100 to 486, they got 585.999999964

[@PradeepPurple]

What 8xx86 generation are we in now?

[@HR-wd6cw]

Was there really an Intel 186? I sort of thought it went from the original 8086 to the 286...? And the 586 was short lived... quickly replaced by the first Pentium processors... Of course I remember the first Pentium computer my family had... a huge Dell desktop computer with (3) 5.25" drive bays, sound card, 4x CD-ROM drive I believe, and a 14.4k modem (and came pre-installed with Windows 3.1 and CompuServe "internet", back when they were in business). Of course I think one of the big advantages of the Pentium class processors was that the math co-processor was now part of the CPU itself, where as in older designs (the 386 and 486) the math co-processor (usually for floating-point math) was a separate chip on the motherboard and the computer had to come with it from the factory as it was soldered onboard if I recall correctly). This co-processor helped computers do more advanced mathematical things and run CAD software more efficiently (and faster), etc.

[@craigjensen6853]

It was around but it was incredibly lame.

[@BlackDragon-xn2ww]

Of course when I was in school they were just coming out with 8088 and 6800 cpu's I recall think man I got into this way too early so gave it a rest for 10yrs to let the cpu advance to a more useful state with more power they simply could do what I was expecting until at least 95 and even then it was taxing the system to overload and lets not forget prices not very useful till they fell.

[@TheInsanemonkeyboy]

It's All About The Pentiums baby! kzbin.info/www/bejne/p6Gwp4ZnhpampdU

[@user-pi5xz5je4y]

I thought about that song while watching this.

[@cakeisamadeupdrug6134]

20 years later and AMD are giving all of their chipsets the same numbers or incredibly similar ones to Intel's, in the hope that they will confuse consumers into accidentally buying their products. Some things never change.

[@no-prophet]

Yeah, right. Like someone would think a Ryzen or Threadripper is piss poor i7 or i9.

[@pelgervampireduck]

these days I'm confused by processors, I wish they went back to name things 886 986 or pentium 6, pentium 7, pentium 8. I lost count after pentium 4 (786). is core 2 886/pentium 5 and i3 986/pentium 6? what is i5? 1086/pentium 7? and i7? or are i3 i5 and i7 the same generation but faster? in what pentium/x86 number are we these days??!! I NEED TO KNOW!!!

[@MOS-MHz]

So the ignorant buy their old stock, then wonder why his Core i5 isn't as fast as his mates Core i5... Kinda have to know what you're looking for otherwise buying new-old-stock

[@BetaAthe]

Yes, now it's harder, but for info, a 7700k is read as, first 7 = generation, second 7 = lowest tier i7 for that generation (ranges are 1-3 = i3, 4-6 = i5 and 7-9 = i7), then the 00 is for "better approximate the tier" as 6900 is high but 6950 is higher. The final K means overclock unlocked but letters like T (low consumption) or HK can appear instead.

[@samiraperi467]

Then there's the fact that mobile CPU lines have wildly different specs from desktop ones within the same apparent product line.

[@DaFinkingOrk]

Samira Peri Most laptops I've seen with i5s use the i5-7200u which is dual core with hyperthreading... Wait, isn't that what an i3 is supposed to be? This laptop i5 is like a (massively) underclocked desktop i3. The "2" gives it away here but most people don't know that and can't be expected to when they just wanna buy a laptop that works as they expect. I really wish they'd use a different branding scheme for mobile processors than full scale ones. But the selling power of the i5 and especially i7 brands as to making people think "this is guaranteed to be fast and powerful" is incredibly strong. I'm hoping AMD uses a different branding scheme from Ryzen when they release mobile Zen processors, hints are that they will (yay!) as these will be APUs and so probably fall under the AX (A6, A10 etc) branding. Also to show it's Zen heaven not Bulldozer hell, put a 2 before or extra zeros after every number, or use a different letter (M for mobile, Z for Zen, G or V for graphics/video, or go more salestastic and use S with X for top-tier because it sounds cool). There must be a simple letter/number scheme that sounds good *that is not R*. AMD please don't help confuse these new APUs with Bulldozer or Ryzen. Unfortunately the iX Intel branding being kept across desktops and mobile has helped Intel shift a ton of Pentium/i3-like chips on the back of the high-end reputation and branding of the i5 and even i7 (yes, dual core i7s existed on laptops, not sure if they still do). It works to confuse the less-informed majority of laptop and prebuilt shoppers into buying lower-end stuff at higher price like lipstick on a pig. Many people think their 7200u is going to work like a 7600 and many don't even know that there is more than one model of each brand. Laptop and desktop processors are so vastly different they shouldn't be branded the same. Ah the days when the number of cores was clear in the name and mobile products had different brand names or clearly stated "mobile" in the name. At least GPUs aren't too bad currently - the GTX number system is ok, they don't hide behind tiers and the "M" is made clear on mobile products. Side note I'm really hoping the Zen APUs shake up the crappy mobile CPU market, Zen looks able to make killer APUs with It's high efficiency / low TDP and memory characteristics - have high-speed memory like HBM2 on-chip serving CPU and GPU and Zen will love it (on high-end chips at least, it would be expensive but could potentially whoop these mobile "i5/i7s" so badly.

[@oldtwins]

Well, if you take the traditional approach that each n86 where n=generation, then we would have something like: 586 = Pentium 1 686 = Pentium 2 The Pentium 3 was largely based on the Pentium 2 and therefore would have been a 686 derivative label i.e. 686-II; Pentium 3 label was purely marketing. 786 = Pentium 4 886 = Core 2 (and earlier Pentium M) 986 = Modern First Generation Core i3/i5/i7 Here's where it gets clouded because each generation of the subsequent core wouldn't necessarily warrant a new generation numbering, even if it's stated to be so in the marketing literature. My guess is the new 8th generation would be something like the 1286.

[@raafmaat]

The most baffling thing they did i think was naming the i3 - i7. If you look at benchmarks they all overlap results-wise, many i5s easily beat i7s, so what is the reason behind the ix naming? when looking purely at the specs of some random i5s and i7s especially, it seems completely random, where some are dual core, others are quad core or even more, but nothing i can find in the specs really seems to corelate to the i5 or i7 name?

[@videogamepolak0]

cause the wannabe poser computer geeks go by i3 i5 and i7 in terms of the numbers..it goes like this..What do you have Oh I have the i3? Oh that sucks I got the better i5...whatever number is higher is better to them. Specs does not matter to them, its model and superficial numbers only...you think I might be trolling or joking, but im not.

[@JackBandicootsBunker]

Except on Mobile. There the i5 and i7 are identical in # of cores and threads, except on the HQ variants.

[@videogamepolak0]

but when your a wanna be poser like some of these nerds your logic becomes i7>i5 cause 7>5 ...thats it..no spec sheet...other than the more you pay for something the better it is(or should be). LOL reminds me of stuff that went on when I was in gradeschool... I remember asking some dudes about their graphics card and they just give me the model number..im like whats the specs im not familiar with the models..well its better then "XYZ" model...I go bro listen Im not familiar with those models whats the speeds and specification numbers so I can gauge....Couldnt give it to me off the top of their heads..but they knew by heart the model number. Back in the 90s/early 2k we always said the specs outright..Oh its the Voodoo 8mb card...the western digital caviar 50gb...pentium 4, 1 ghz...now its all model numbers...I have the i3...I have the GT 2550...

[@raafmaat]

yeah polak, but i am just wondering about Intels reasoning behind naming the cpus i3, i5 and i7. But sure you are right, its especially noticable on twitch or steam pages where people post their PC specs, they always just list the ammount of Ram, instead of also including the speed of the ram... but for a videocard just the name is enough, since they are easy names like gtx1070, and all pc gamers know what that is :P

[@videogamepolak0]

LOL I dont know them, I have to google everything to bring up a spec sheet...then when I inquire about speed/specific numbers I get told more superficial stuff that numbers dont matter... I just looked at "system requirements" for games searching google and now they are doing it, so i guess thats where it stems from. Use to be minimum/req specs (EX:) 2ghz processor, 3 gb of ram...1-2gb video card or better etc etc and they may specify a model name..now it just lists models...LOLOL so Ram and HD they give specific numbers...think it boils down to a brand war..aka specific models/brands are giving so you buy that exact piece of equipment instead of finding something else. I guess im being too anal as if you compare models you can notice obviously ok 1070 versus 1075 (just another example) obv 1075 > 1070 so I know its probably got better specs.

[@mikesmith1290]

It was a smart move on Intel's part to name their new CPU Pentium. It imeadeatly obsoleted any 586, 686, etc naming convention

[@CamdenBloke]

I've definitely heard of the Pentium referred to as a 586.

[@metatechnologist]

You forgot the 8-bit 8080 which was the soul of every CP/M machine which really was the first microcomputer, but neither which made it in the IBM pc!

[@evknucklehead]

Are you sure you're not confusing it with Zilog's Z80 processor? The vast majority of CP/M machines ran on one of those. Edit: I guess we're both partially right. It didn't even occur to me that the Z80 was essentially an improved clone of the 8080.

[@gaeshows1938]

it's all about the Pentium!

[@ehsnils]

Because Altos 586 already existed. It was an 8086 processor equipped computer and using 586 would have created confusion.

[@kevreeduk222]

If I recall correctly, the joke doing the rounds at the time was that Pentium was an acronym for: P - produces E - erroneous N - numbers T - through I - incorrectly U - understanding M - mathematics

[@stonent]

As far as I know, AMD never made any graphics hardware themselves, they purchased ATI and inherited it.

[@DaFinkingOrk]

Ricky Young True they did but that's not graphics architecture. GPUs use a very different architecture to CPUs to the point where terms like x86, AMD64, even (I believe) 32-bit and 64-bit, don't make sense applied to it. GPUs are a kind of simplified RISC architecture like found in smartphones, but massively parellelised and specialised with very many "cores" and then extra units added in to speed up specific things, like video decoders. Even the term core doesn't make full sense applied to GPUs, as there are different things inside them that you could consider cores but nothing fully equivalent to a CPU x86/x64 core. Fun fact; Intel never truly made their own graphics architecture either, for their integrated "Intel HD graphics", they licenced a very basic version of nVidia's architecture and developed from there.

[@rickyyoung]

This isn't the comment i wanted to reply to, sorry

[@draketungsten74]

It's all about the Pentiums!

[@Goldenhordemilo]

cyrsus had a 6x86 & 5x86 with ibm

[@oldtwinsna8347]

And they both stunk. Fake-o performance numbers. Well, to its credit, at least the 5x86 immune from the branch prediction vulnerability since it had that function turned off due to to it being buggy on release, yet the 5x86 advertised performance ratings would take it with branch prediction on. Shady stuff with Cyrix's marketing.

[@LellePrinter82]

Makes me wonder why 32-bit software is called x86 when intel stopped the "x86" thing after 486? 486 isn't 32-bit as far as I know.

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

386 and up are 32-bit.

[@logicalfundy]

. . . and now we have several generations of i3, i5, and i7 with cutsey names that I can't really keep track of anymore. Not to mention the Pentium and Celron brands are still alive, even though they have moved to the Core architecture. It's worse than ever now trying to keep track of them. I like how the automobile manufacturers do it: Year, Make, and model. 2017 Ford Focus. Why not that?

[@BilisNegra]

2:10 What? Silicon Valley was already a thing in the sixties? Most interesting thing I've learnt this week, I guess.

[@MinoTheShow]

Holy crap, what are the statistical odds of that hotel story occurring..

[@GeoNeilUK]

Are you saying that AMD always had a relationship with ATI?

[@We_Are_I_Am]

And now with 11th gen Intel CPU's, they went right back to the confusing names. 1185G7E, 11375H, etc.

[@SirKenchalot]

Do you also remember when AMD named their processors with the suffix "XP" during the early days of Windows XP? I think they also attached numbers that were not related to but looked like they could be clock speeds and I don't know for certain but I think Microsoft and various advertising standards orgs told them to stop.

[@GraveUypo]

performance indexes. they named their cpus on what they felt would be the frequency of an equivalent pentium 4

[@monty9373]

The performance indexes were, in fact, also a multi-company standard (or at least an attempted one). AMD is just the most famous example. It was also used by Cyrix and others.

[@oldtwins]

I'm glad they dropped that nonsense. The indexes were lab-created, best interest of the retail manufacturer to slant in the way they wanted in some non-real world measure. Cyrix was the worst offender, and I was surprised AMD marched on for a while with the same. Probably costed AMD quite bit in reputation points and ultimately money lost.

[@tankermottind]

I doubt it, I suspect the performance indices only went away because with the advent of mutli-core processors and the 4 GHz barrier, clock speeds no longer mattered much.

[@djurazivanovic9578]

lots of informations but missed point. The real difference between ixxx and Pentium is generaly changes in processors transistors mode. The iXXX were working in transistor switching mode where 0Volts were 0 and 5Volts were I binary. in Pentium and further transistor swithing in semiconductor mode where binary 0 were at 3Volts and binary I were 4.5Volts. alltrough in needed more cooling as the processors transistors are ALWAYS ON. So it work that way since today.

[@LastofAvari]

Cuz it's hard to TM numbers.

[@rickyyoung]

Tell that to Peugeot, they've TMed every number with a zero in the middle for use on domestic cars. That's why the Original Porsche 901 became the 911

[@pqrstzxerty1296]

Correct, trademark names... look at the ToyRus issues with reversed R, and tne nightmares that had in law.

[@CB3ROB-CyberBunker]

80806 ? lol. basically 2 reasons: 1 numbers are not trademarkable, 2: they gave a license to some other company to clone 'any xxx86 cpu' back in the 8086 days to fulfill some military contracts, ofcourse that kinda becake a pain in the ass by the time the 586 came around so they simply gave it another name to make the license invalid for those.

[@SThomas1972]

They changed to names. Because the lost a lawsuit on the copyrighting numbers

[@somethingelse4878]

OK getting too old to bother with the hardware hype What CPU should I get to replace my i7 4790k gtx1080ti 1050w PSU I'm getting about a 20% ish bottleneck as I moved from a gtx980 Say there's a way to keep my mobo lol I bet there isn't... Hammer ?

[@MichaelMolli]

Do new Intel CPUs still carry over some old unwanted legacies from the past generations?

[@evknucklehead]

There are a few floating around in the depths, but for the most part the majority of the problematic ones have either been fixed or reduced to a minimal impact. What I find interesting is that while the Pentiums were first being ridiculed for the division problems, processors from other manufacturers were also having math issues of their own. For example, if you use the calculator desk accessory in System 7.x on a 68k-based Mac, if you added and subtracted decimal values that caused the result to go back and forth across 0, it would start to introduce very tiny errors in the calculation. Somewhere in the magnitude of 1x10^-80, which means you'd only notice if you ended the chain right at 0. Then again, it's not easy interpreting floating point math on a processor designed primarily for working with integer values. I first encountered this bug on a Mac IIci running System 7.5.5, but I also encountered the same bug in a TI-30 series scientific calculator. Not sure what chip the calculator was running on, and can't remember the specific model, though.

[@solaerwig]

5:16 Why can’t I get away from BFDI Assets. They’re everywhere now

[@TheBlueArcher]

Thought it was weird and a little disappointed that the Pentium II wasn't called Hexium.

[@Fetrovsky]

Did you skip 8088 and 80188?

[@Fetrovsky]

No, they weren't: 1:40.

[@evknucklehead]

They were probably omitted because they were a side line to the x86 line, being 8/16 bit hybrid models. He also skipped the 8080 and its successor the 8085, which were both fully 8-bit chips, though the instruction set of the 8086 was heavily based on the 8080 and 8085. (Can't run programs made for one line directly on the other line, though.)

[@Vexxel256]

How much is an intel 4004 worth

[@justinm2037]

i lived through it an i think there was a lawsuit against amd and the court said you cant trademark a number

[@BIGGIEDEVIL]

"3" "8" "6" I've always heard it called "3" "86"

[@Patrick_AUBRY]

BIGGIEDEVIL It's spelled that way in french.

[@arupian666]

I've commonly heard both. I typically said "3 8 6" but "3 86" was acceptable.

[@Locutus]

It's UK English V American English. For example, Boeing's aircraft are pronounced 7-3-7 or 7-4-7, or 7-8-7, *not* 7-37 or 7-47, or 7-87 as they would be in American. Why the difference? Not sure to be honest. As I am British, I do find the American numbering system confusing. But there is a good video talking about the differences in UK numbering and American numbering. The number 5300, would you say five thousand three hundred, or fifty three hundred? All talked about in this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3PFc5WPadaprJY Then if you like that video, there is another good video about what is actually a million, a billion, or trillion... kzbin.info/www/bejne/eV6YY3R_lNSdr7M

[@rameynoodles152]

I'm pretty sure the difference comes from accent. Some things may be interchangable depending on the previous and next words to be said, such as "zero" or "oh". Most people would say 102 as "one oh two", but if the number is 080, then most people would say "zero eight zero". This is simply because "oh eight oh" doesn't roll off the tongue as well, and "one zero two" is an extra syllable longer to say than "one oh two".

[@arupian666]

I'd say 102 as "hundred and two"... and 080 as "oh-eighty" - 80286 would be "eight-oh 2 8 6"

[@silentkiller-nh8rz]

Wat bout the ibn 5100 thou

[@geraldsyta6890]

U made me Remeber those days 1994

[@AntonioPetrelli]

80806?

[@proxy1035]

you're literally the only person on the entire planet that pronounces the numbers of the Chips sperately noone else does it. it's 80-88 not 8-0-8-8 same with every other Chip... why do you do this... it sounds so strange and needs so much time to pronounce and there you suddently do it right 1:43

[@johnmiller0000]

No - he's not the only one. I do it. But not for instruction sets - for x86 I say ex-eighty-six. But zeD-eighty for its legendary cousin. There's no logic to English, especially when you throw proper vs. US Englishes into the mix :)

[@proxy1035]

@@johnmiller0000 english is a mess i know but without the proper pronounciation of the numbers the names just sound way too long and wrong. for example noone is gonna say they have a GTX 1-0-8-0, it's a GTX 10-80. same with basically every CPU name that uses numbers like that. whenever possible model/version numbers like that are always pronounced in chunks of 2 digits. (with some exceptions where there is an uneven amount of numbers, like 80-1-86)

[@alx8439]

And the worst part is - when previously you knew that 386 is better than 286, 486 is better than both, with current processors you don't know anything. Today's intel chips can easily loose the performance battle to last year chips, but win the "performance per dollar" or "performance per watt". So to make an educated decision you need to search for additional info of side-by-side comparisons, or benchmarks. I miss good old years

[@IkanGelamaKuning]

in 95 & 96, 486 pc still common in Malaysia than Pentium

[@DeadReckon]

Funny enough, the Pentium D would often register as a "Pentium 5" in Windows XP

[@massos2745]

i3, i5, i7, i9, g4560, e5450, right they stopped using numbers.

[@AnonymousFreakYT]

They stopped. Then they went back.

[@kd1s]

Interestingly even today if you run Linux and do a cat of /proc/cpuinfo it's a 586.

[@LocoMe4u]

em core i7 7700 isnt a number?

[@Emptiness_Machine_2001]

Just being that character who lives under a bridge Core i7 isnt just a gemeric number

[@Emophiliac2]

And then there is part of the reason for the split between Intel and AMD - tied to AMD giving bare die versions of the 80286 to HP for use in emulators. Intel wanted that market for themselves and were ticked off by that. I've got a bare 80286 chip stuck to the back of my HP name badge from that time.