Regarding your paranoia of "what if they don't know?" and explaining things, you could always take the tl;dr philosophy and put the charts and lists at the top and the 'farther reading' below it in a spoiler tag or something (assuming this forum ever supports spoiler tags).
Also, I personally think that product line + architecture is a good compromise between being too generic and being too specific. In particular, that would allow you to do things like separate nehalem and haswell while still showing the difference between an i7 and a celeron.
Nintendo Maniac 64 Wrote:assuming this forum ever supports spoiler tags
It does. Hell I even used them in this thread!
Edit:
Also I think part of the reason is I like writing about different designs way more than pouring over application data and just organizing/listing it.
NaturalViolence, why are you so reluctant to add at least the code names (like you've been suggested many times by now) to the list? It would help things a lot.
That was supposed to say "assuming this forum eve
n supports spoiler tags". That's what happens when I rely too much on spell-check. >_>
(09-23-2013, 06:56 AM)Garteal Wrote: [ -> ]NaturalViolence, why are you so reluctant to add at least the code names (like you've been suggested many times by now) to the list? It would help things a lot.
Well for one thing, CPU architectures aren't advertised on product boxes. However, AFAIK, all new architectures that use previously-existing branding will have a different model numbering system, so such product number range (like FX-x3xx for Vishera or i5/i7-2xxxK for unlocked Sandy Bridge) could be mentioned in-place of CPU code names.
Garteal Wrote:NaturalViolence, why are you so reluctant to add at least the code names (like you've been suggested many times by now) to the list? It would help things a lot.
Most of this thread consists of me repeatedly answering that question. Which begins on page 2. I believe I have adequately stated my reasoning at this point.
(09-23-2013, 07:11 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Most of this thread consists of me repeatedly answering that question. Which begins on page 2. 吾 believe 吾 have adequately stated my reasoning at this point.
I did not see anything against at least using CPU model-number ranges (such as the above-mentioned i5/i7-2xxxK). Perhaps I missed it?
That's even more specific than going by microarchitecture. It carries the exact same burdens.
(09-23-2013, 07:29 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]That's even more specific than going by microarchitecture. It carries the exact same burdens.
Isn't one of the largest burdens for using microarchitecture is that it's not usually advertised on things like the product boxes? Model numbers pretty much always are and are even reported via "System" in the Windows control panel.
>Making me read my own thread
>Making me do more work to improve my thread
![[Image: ban-button-smiley-emoticon.gif]](http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/1/ban-button-smiley-emoticon.gif)
I have a hard time getting users to find their model numbers on a regular basis. Besides it still increases complexity to an unecessary level.
IF I were to do this it would have to be done in an extremely minimal way and a section would have to be added on how to find your cpu model number. And I promise that even after doing that people would still ask.
(09-23-2013, 08:51 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]And 吾 promise that even after doing that people would still ask.
Wouldn't those be the same people that ask even with how this thread currently is?