Qualcomm is Updating Its Snapdragon Branding To Try and Simplify Its Chip Names (theverge.com) 14
Qualcomm has announced some key changes to how it brands its Snapdragon chips, including a shift away from the three-digit numbering system it's been using to differentiate between its products for years. From a report: To start, Snapdragon will now exist as a standalone brand, separate from the "Qualcomm" brand (which won't be showing up as much on its chips). It's a direction the company has started moving in earlier this year (the Snapdragon 888 Plus badge, for example, notably lacked the word "Qualcomm"), but today's news solidifies that plan going forward. But the biggest change might be in how the company handles actually naming its semiconductor products.
For years, Qualcomm has labeled its chips with three-digit names, like the Snapdragon 480, Snapdragon 765, or Snapdragon 888. The first number broadly informed customers how powerful the chip was (with the 8-series chips serving as flagships, while 4-series models were for entry-level products). The second number typically indicated annual generational releases (going from a Snapdragon 865 to an 875), while changes in the third number generally showed more minor updates (like the Snapdragon 765G to the Snapdragon 768G). The problem, though, is that in addition to being slightly jargony and confusing to keep track of, Qualcomm is also simply running out of numbers in its naming scheme. The 8-series lineup hit Snapdragon 888 last year, the 7-series is already at Snapdragon 780, and the 6-series is already on the brink with the Snapdragon 695. Going forward, though, Qualcomm says that it'll be shifting to "a single-digit series and generation number, aligning with other product categories," starting with the upcoming announcement of its next 8-series flagship (which had previously been expected to be called the Snapdragon 898, based on Qualcomm's old pattern).
For years, Qualcomm has labeled its chips with three-digit names, like the Snapdragon 480, Snapdragon 765, or Snapdragon 888. The first number broadly informed customers how powerful the chip was (with the 8-series chips serving as flagships, while 4-series models were for entry-level products). The second number typically indicated annual generational releases (going from a Snapdragon 865 to an 875), while changes in the third number generally showed more minor updates (like the Snapdragon 765G to the Snapdragon 768G). The problem, though, is that in addition to being slightly jargony and confusing to keep track of, Qualcomm is also simply running out of numbers in its naming scheme. The 8-series lineup hit Snapdragon 888 last year, the 7-series is already at Snapdragon 780, and the 6-series is already on the brink with the Snapdragon 695. Going forward, though, Qualcomm says that it'll be shifting to "a single-digit series and generation number, aligning with other product categories," starting with the upcoming announcement of its next 8-series flagship (which had previously been expected to be called the Snapdragon 898, based on Qualcomm's old pattern).
rename them to 'slightly faster' (Score:1)
Perhaps just rename them to 'slightly faster' - then the general public will know what is what?
Re: (Score:2)
Or with flavors, like Cool Ranch or Jalapeno ...
Re: (Score:2)
Centaur already did that in the Cyrix days:
https://www.cpushack.com/CIC/a... [cpushack.com]
All hail the Cyrix M3 Jalapeno!
Oh no, running out of numbers! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or... they could have switched from base10 numbers to base16 or 36 ...
Chip number confusion (Score:3)
One really annoying thing was the 3-digit number had no relation to the actual number on the chip.
Like if you dealt with say, the Snapdragon 800 back in the day, the actual ship was the apq8x74 or msm8x74. Or the 810 (8x94),
The new 888 and such also have oddball part numbers that escape me at the moment, but it's almost impossible to tell which part goes with which family, something that happens a lot when you're dealing with multiple Snapdragon chips.
Hopefully their new chips will have chip numbers that reflect their actual part numbers.
Huh? (Score:2)
The were running out of numbers so they reduced the number of possible digits? How does that work? Did my kindergarten teacher teach me wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
People really don't know how to name shite, whether from the first day or decades later.
Windows proves this. Billions of dollars and they can't get a consistent naming scheme, and even the underlying version numbering scheme is a crock because "oh, people test against this number really poorly so we have to preserve that idiocy" (which is why Windows 10 is really Windows 10 and not Windows 9).
Raspberry Pi did it. Apple did it (from Mac OS 9 to X to various variations after the X using names). Car manufac
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
You are saying they should just ignore what their marketing team says is "the latest naming scheme". Probably too simple for most companies to just tell marketing to shove it.
Use 4 digits? (Score:2)
Hire me.
F*** Everything (Score:2)
We're doing five digits.
Re: F*** Everything (Score:2)
888.
8-9-8
8-10-8
8-11-8
8-12-8
And so on.
Too complex?
Try And (Score:2)
Looks awkward, but I guess it's OK.
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]