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

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'