new | show | ask | jobs Github

izacus 7 hours ago

They did not, can you explain what do you mean?

▲

VulgarExigency 7 hours ago | parent [-]

For those of us with feebler minds than you or him, the name is just full of qualifiers that make no sense.

▲

ethbr1 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To expand, positional definition of adjectives tends to be a bad marketing scheme.

Nobody knows that pro and max mean specific things.

If AMD needs to create a full cross-product of their hardware feature set, because they intend to have a SKU for every possible combination, they probably need a better scheme.

Say what you want about Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5/i7, but it mostly got the idea across (except on the occasions Intel hijacked it to upbrand SKUs).

▲

izacus 5 hours ago | parent [-]

So why do so many of major successful product corporations use this kind of naming scheme?

	▲	ethbr1 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What other popular products use five separate identifiers in mass market products? (Ryzen) (AI) (Max+) (Pro) (495)
	▲	lebca 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It is possible to be successful in spite of one’s decisions

▲

w0m 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be fair - I'd much rather the name be overwrought but clear (once you know or have the decryption key to translate) than to have to look up an even uglier chart that i have ~no chance of memorizing to go 'ok, the Tiberian has X, Y, Z and Q and the Cyrian has Q, Y, but Z is nerfed'