I'm puzzled by Espressif's naming here. We had the ESP32-S3, so "S31" sounds like "S3, variant 1," but this part doesn't really look like a simple S3 variant. And then there's an ESP32-E22, but no E21 or even a plain E2 anywhere.

Edit: found an article explaining some of their naming logic, and said that the SoC naming will get its follow-up article, but sadly it never happened. https://developer.espressif.com/blog/2025/03/espressif-part-...

▲

maartin0 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It reminds me a bit of the new STM32s (STM32MP2) which are actually 64 bit, but they kept the name STM32 because everyone knows it

▲

beng-nl 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Didn’t Intel also try to brand the 64bit x86 extensions as ia-32e initially? Seemed like wasting an opportunity to me.

(Disclaimer: I work at Intel but this was way before my tenure.)

	▲	p_l 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It was because IA-64 was a completely different unrelated architecture that until AMD succeeded with K8 was "the plan" for both 64bit intel roadmap and the roadmap to kill off compatible vendors (AMD, VIA)

▲

madduci an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I stopped following the producer logic when Intel went from Pentium 4 to Pentium D