their inconsistency with mobile/desktop numerology has bugged me since Raven Ridge. Why didn't they call Raven Ridge 1400G?, why were 4000 and 6000 series APU's only?
Ryzen mobile (zen1, first gen, Raven Ridge) launched around the same time or only slightly before the Ryzen 2000 (zen1+, second gen, Pinnacle Ridge) chipsets. If they launched it at 1000 series, they would be releasing products that customers would associate with being old (as in the desktop 1000 series). Customers, for example, looking at AMD Ryzen 2000 desktop might think, I want a laptop with "AMD Ryzen" but I want the latest, so surely I would be looking for a Ryzen 2000 mobile.
TLDR; the out-of-sync timing of AMD's mobile/desktop chipset release cadences is why the naming was a bit messed up.
Furthermore, the 4000 and 6000 happened precisely because AMD wanted to avoid the backlash that having mobile and desktop being out-of-sync in terms of technology despite releasing around the same time had created up until that point.
This allowed AMD to appease the biggest customers in the consumer space - the big OEMs that sell vastly more CPUs than what is used in DIY markets - all the while also not misleading the DIYers.
But now people are complaining that the numbering isn't simple. It's like the classical pick 2 out of 3 situation, options being: 1) simple numbering, 2) informative numbering and 3) OEM-sellable numbering.
I think AMD could have done better. I particularly don't like the suffix. I don't see why they use "HS" when it should just be "M" for "Medium" or "Mobile". Then they can keep "H" for "High power".
AMD also missed an opportunity to just make the Model year reflect what year the CPU was manufactured, and very easily at that. They could have gone straight to 2025='25
The Major market segment, also has some issues in the lower end. Ryzen 3 has models with 2 and 4 cores, but the new naming convention doesn't really reflect the large gap in performance these two will have.
And then, although it hasn't happened yet, what if there was a 12 core Ryzen 9 mobile CPU? What number is it supposed to use under the new numbering scheme?
"M" has been used on the GPU side from time to time - most recently with the RX 6000M series. Especially now with AMD releasing 7000 series on both CPUs and GPUs at the same time, an "M" suffix on mobile CPU would generate massive confusion.
"H" has long been used for ~45W mobile parts. That *used to be* the high power mobile CPU segment and people know what to expect from it so I think it's better to have H fixed at 45W.
Intel uses "HX" for higher power parts these days. I think it's to the benefit of consumers when companies consistently use the same suffix to convey the same meaning.
The HS also undoubtedly works for AMD marketing in conveying that they're H parts binned for efficiency; they are supposed to achieve almost H levels of performance at a lower power level.
People are used to the most significant digit standing for generation/year. If you were to use two digits for a year, you'd end up getting consecutive generations 23xx, 24xx, 25xx. To the uninitiated those would seem like lower end parts of a "2000" generation.
Companies need/want to refresh their consumer-facing product numering schemes periodically.
Even if they don't run out of range on the numbers, the scheme will start seeming stale and old. This will be excerbated by a partically underwhelming product generation or two, or may be prompted by a shift in technology where you want to adopt the latest moniker or invent one ("HD", "RTX").
Future-proofing the numbering by using two digits for year is wasteful; the digit would be better used for anything else, including zero padding since it makes the number easier to remember.
Do you *know* that future Ryzen 3's will have both 2 and 4 core models? The Athlon Gold x2xx and Athlon Silver x1xx seem to me like they would be poised to take all 1 - 2 core variants.
Especially since AMD never seems to produce any (or many units of) Ryzen 3 on the latest architectures these days. They have such good yields and the Ryzen 5 and up models are in such high demand that there is no need to artificially cut any down to R3s. So for Ryzen 3 think Mendocino (budget Zen 2 mobile CPU) with 4 cores, or later Zen 3/+ or Zen 4 low core count respins in a similar fashion.
Traditionally the product segmentation has been different between different power envelopes or use cases: Ryzen 9's on mobile have had 8 cores while on desktop they're 12 or 16.
I hope that now that AMD is bringing 16 cores to mobile (the desktop replacement Dragon Range CPUs, which are repackaged and undervolted desktop CPUs) they reserve the Ryzen 9 name for 12+ core models even on mobile.
Then it could be: - Ryzen 9 7940HX = 16 cores - Ryzen 9 7840HX = 12 cores
Then there is the option of separating the xxx0 and xxx5 variants either by the power and thermal design of the laptop (xxx0 up to a certain wattage, and xxx5 beyond that), or possibly introducing 3D V-Cache models later as xxx5.
They actually have been consistent. The first number is always been about the year that the chip is being marketed, regardless of the architecture.It’s just that the tech followers don’t care what year the chip came out as much as the actual underlying architecture.
so now, it is a little easier to make sure the people who care get the latest architecture. I wish it was a little better, but I’ll take what I can get.
It's common for the first number to be the year, but the second number also needs to reflect the lineup properly. You are not supposed to have 4700G without a 4700x. Apple updates lineup annually. Intel and Nvidia update lineup every two years. Notably the legendary 750Ti was 7th gen but with Maxwell architecture.
AMD's lineup is getting so bloated that 0~9 is not enough digits for "major market segment". There are at least 11 kinds of, say, 15W CPUs for customers to choose from at a given point.
That's okay; in a couple years there will be a followup article about how AMD is switching to hexadecimal digits.
But yes, I was just telling someone yesterday that it really doesn't matter which Ryzen 7 5800+ mobile chip they choose, they're all basically the same with minor clockspeed variations (and the corresponding TDP differences). Whatever other differences the laptop offers are going to be more important.
Well, at least I won't have to be looking up on third-party websites whether a chip is current-gen or not. That's an improvement.
I'd still rather the first digit be architecture, which wouldn't prevent AMD from releasing new products with older architectures, but I'm not an OEM.
Although OEMs don't seem *that* concerned about offering latest-model-year CPUs; even 8 months after release the number of Ryzen Mobile 6000 laptops I see are dwarfed by Ryzen Mobile 5000, and probably still outnumbered by Ryzen Mobile 3000.
Your first point is the biggest improvement over where they are right now. I wish Intel would identify architecture in theirs, but I don't think they really care.
I think the first digit (digits in the case of intel) is purely for marketing/OEM purposes as it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Intel would call it generation, but not every 11th gen for example was created equally (they had 3 architectures between desktop/mobile).
It could still be better than some of the insanity on the Intel side. Like the 6-core 11260H vs. 4-core 11320H and having 4-digit models like the i7-1270P alongside 5-digit models.
What a nightmare for consumers. AMD can and should do better than this. Maybe they need to scrap some of their low end stuff and jump to just current mobile APUs and a simple model numbering system?
Seems like the biggest point of this change is to distinguish between Zen generations, as Ryan hinted to in avoiding "improprieties." That said, burying the most important digit in the middle (3rd digit) seems very confusing. It should be at the end, or make it the second digit, after the yearly designator.
Speaking of the second digit, it seems completely uneccesary, as every model has a prefix that already tells us the same information as the second digit: "Ryzen 3", "Ryzen 5", "Ryzen 7", "Athlon", etc
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
27 Comments
Back to Article
quorm - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Well at least the numbers mean something, I guess.Zepp - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
their inconsistency with mobile/desktop numerology has bugged me since Raven Ridge. Why didn't they call Raven Ridge 1400G?, why were 4000 and 6000 series APU's only?AshlayW - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Ryzen mobile (zen1, first gen, Raven Ridge) launched around the same time or only slightly before the Ryzen 2000 (zen1+, second gen, Pinnacle Ridge) chipsets. If they launched it at 1000 series, they would be releasing products that customers would associate with being old (as in the desktop 1000 series). Customers, for example, looking at AMD Ryzen 2000 desktop might think, I want a laptop with "AMD Ryzen" but I want the latest, so surely I would be looking for a Ryzen 2000 mobile.TLDR; the out-of-sync timing of AMD's mobile/desktop chipset release cadences is why the naming was a bit messed up.
Hul8 - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Furthermore, the 4000 and 6000 happened precisely because AMD wanted to avoid the backlash that having mobile and desktop being out-of-sync in terms of technology despite releasing around the same time had created up until that point.This allowed AMD to appease the biggest customers in the consumer space - the big OEMs that sell vastly more CPUs than what is used in DIY markets - all the while also not misleading the DIYers.
But now people are complaining that the numbering isn't simple. It's like the classical pick 2 out of 3 situation, options being:
1) simple numbering,
2) informative numbering and
3) OEM-sellable numbering.
meacupla - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
I think AMD could have done better.I particularly don't like the suffix. I don't see why they use "HS" when it should just be "M" for "Medium" or "Mobile". Then they can keep "H" for "High power".
AMD also missed an opportunity to just make the Model year reflect what year the CPU was manufactured, and very easily at that.
They could have gone straight to 2025='25
The Major market segment, also has some issues in the lower end.
Ryzen 3 has models with 2 and 4 cores, but the new naming convention doesn't really reflect the large gap in performance these two will have.
And then, although it hasn't happened yet, what if there was a 12 core Ryzen 9 mobile CPU? What number is it supposed to use under the new numbering scheme?
Hul8 - Thursday, September 8, 2022 - link
"M" has been used on the GPU side from time to time - most recently with the RX 6000M series. Especially now with AMD releasing 7000 series on both CPUs and GPUs at the same time, an "M" suffix on mobile CPU would generate massive confusion."H" has long been used for ~45W mobile parts. That *used to be* the high power mobile CPU segment and people know what to expect from it so I think it's better to have H fixed at 45W.
Intel uses "HX" for higher power parts these days. I think it's to the benefit of consumers when companies consistently use the same suffix to convey the same meaning.
The HS also undoubtedly works for AMD marketing in conveying that they're H parts binned for efficiency; they are supposed to achieve almost H levels of performance at a lower power level.
Hul8 - Thursday, September 8, 2022 - link
People are used to the most significant digit standing for generation/year. If you were to use two digits for a year, you'd end up getting consecutive generations 23xx, 24xx, 25xx. To the uninitiated those would seem like lower end parts of a "2000" generation.Companies need/want to refresh their consumer-facing product numering schemes periodically.
Even if they don't run out of range on the numbers, the scheme will start seeming stale and old. This will be excerbated by a partically underwhelming product generation or two, or may be prompted by a shift in technology where you want to adopt the latest moniker or invent one ("HD", "RTX").
Future-proofing the numbering by using two digits for year is wasteful; the digit would be better used for anything else, including zero padding since it makes the number easier to remember.
Hul8 - Thursday, September 8, 2022 - link
Do you *know* that future Ryzen 3's will have both 2 and 4 core models? The Athlon Gold x2xx and Athlon Silver x1xx seem to me like they would be poised to take all 1 - 2 core variants.Especially since AMD never seems to produce any (or many units of) Ryzen 3 on the latest architectures these days. They have such good yields and the Ryzen 5 and up models are in such high demand that there is no need to artificially cut any down to R3s. So for Ryzen 3 think Mendocino (budget Zen 2 mobile CPU) with 4 cores, or later Zen 3/+ or Zen 4 low core count respins in a similar fashion.
Hul8 - Thursday, September 8, 2022 - link
Traditionally the product segmentation has been different between different power envelopes or use cases: Ryzen 9's on mobile have had 8 cores while on desktop they're 12 or 16.I hope that now that AMD is bringing 16 cores to mobile (the desktop replacement Dragon Range CPUs, which are repackaged and undervolted desktop CPUs) they reserve the Ryzen 9 name for 12+ core models even on mobile.
Then it could be:
- Ryzen 9 7940HX = 16 cores
- Ryzen 9 7840HX = 12 cores
Then there is the option of separating the xxx0 and xxx5 variants either by the power and thermal design of the laptop (xxx0 up to a certain wattage, and xxx5 beyond that), or possibly introducing 3D V-Cache models later as xxx5.
Zepp - Thursday, September 8, 2022 - link
that was never a good excuseThe Hardcard - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
They actually have been consistent. The first number is always been about the year that the chip is being marketed, regardless of the architecture.It’s just that the tech followers don’t care what year the chip came out as much as the actual underlying architecture.so now, it is a little easier to make sure the people who care get the latest architecture. I wish it was a little better, but I’ll take what I can get.
grrrgrrr - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
It's common for the first number to be the year, but the second number also needs to reflect the lineup properly. You are not supposed to have 4700G without a 4700x. Apple updates lineup annually. Intel and Nvidia update lineup every two years. Notably the legendary 750Ti was 7th gen but with Maxwell architecture.Tulatin - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
I didn't know AMD made Celerons.erotomania - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Mendocino rides again! We're going backwards this time - Covington, Tualatin, Coppermine, Katmai, Klamathartifex - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Bring back slockets! I miss that nearly effortless and stable coppermine overclocking from... *last century?*ballsystemlord - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Actually, "Athlon" was associated with AMD's high end until just after 64 bit CPUs came out.Previously, they were called "Sempron".
PeachNCream - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
That looks needlessly complicated.grrrgrrr - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
AMD's lineup is getting so bloated that 0~9 is not enough digits for "major market segment". There are at least 11 kinds of, say, 15W CPUs for customers to choose from at a given point.IBM760XL - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
That's okay; in a couple years there will be a followup article about how AMD is switching to hexadecimal digits.But yes, I was just telling someone yesterday that it really doesn't matter which Ryzen 7 5800+ mobile chip they choose, they're all basically the same with minor clockspeed variations (and the corresponding TDP differences). Whatever other differences the laptop offers are going to be more important.
IBM760XL - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Well, at least I won't have to be looking up on third-party websites whether a chip is current-gen or not. That's an improvement.I'd still rather the first digit be architecture, which wouldn't prevent AMD from releasing new products with older architectures, but I'm not an OEM.
Although OEMs don't seem *that* concerned about offering latest-model-year CPUs; even 8 months after release the number of Ryzen Mobile 6000 laptops I see are dwarfed by Ryzen Mobile 5000, and probably still outnumbered by Ryzen Mobile 3000.
thestryker - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
Your first point is the biggest improvement over where they are right now. I wish Intel would identify architecture in theirs, but I don't think they really care.I think the first digit (digits in the case of intel) is purely for marketing/OEM purposes as it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Intel would call it generation, but not every 11th gen for example was created equally (they had 3 architectures between desktop/mobile).
meacupla - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
I take it AMD going to do an Intel in 2026 and use 5 digits?As bad as AMD's current numbering scheme is, I feel that this is worse.
nandnandnand - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
It seems like there could be a Zen 6, 7, and 8, so I could definitely see them going to Ryzen 10000 and up.https://www.anandtech.com/show/17031/anandtech-int...
It could still be better than some of the insanity on the Intel side. Like the 6-core 11260H vs. 4-core 11320H and having 4-digit models like the i7-1270P alongside 5-digit models.
Techie2 - Wednesday, September 7, 2022 - link
What a nightmare for consumers. AMD can and should do better than this. Maybe they need to scrap some of their low end stuff and jump to just current mobile APUs and a simple model numbering system?GeoffreyA - Thursday, September 8, 2022 - link
The decay into complexity.Farfolomew - Thursday, September 15, 2022 - link
Seems like the biggest point of this change is to distinguish between Zen generations, as Ryan hinted to in avoiding "improprieties." That said, burying the most important digit in the middle (3rd digit) seems very confusing. It should be at the end, or make it the second digit, after the yearly designator.Speaking of the second digit, it seems completely uneccesary, as every model has a prefix that already tells us the same information as the second digit: "Ryzen 3", "Ryzen 5", "Ryzen 7", "Athlon", etc
phoenix_rizzen - Thursday, September 15, 2022 - link
Yeah burying the architecture is a bad move. Would be much simpler to use year+architecture+segment+differentiator instead.Now they'll end up with 7720 being worse than 7640, but everyone will think the larger number is better. Or 7630 being worse that 7540.
Much easier to differentiate 7460 vs 7270, or 7450 vs 7360.
They've created a numbering system that can't (easily) be sorted numerically.