Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Jun 2009 22:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 369067
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Because Core 2 Quad isn't obvious...
by stabbyjones on Thu 18th Jun 2009 04:52
in reply to "RE: Because Core 2 Quad isn't obvious..."
RE[2]: Because Core 2 Quad isn't obvious...
by Glynser on Thu 18th Jun 2009 06:40
in reply to "RE: Because Core 2 Quad isn't obvious..."
Even worse is that there wasn't just a Core 2 Duo, but also a Core 2 Solo, which was sometimes just called Core 2. This was at a time when the term "Dual Core CPU" was a pretty new one (at least to most people) and thus suggested that a "Core 2" is a dual core CPU. I remember how surprised I was when I read that a plain "Core 2" is a single-core CPU.
RE[3]: Because Core 2 Quad isn't obvious...
by tylerdurden on Sat 20th Jun 2009 04:18
in reply to "RE[2]: Because Core 2 Quad isn't obvious..."





Member since:
2005-06-29
Yes, because not only is Core a brand, but core is also a modifier of that same brand. So you get the weird situation where you have two numbers in one name; the "2" which modifies the processor family (Core 2), and "quad" which modifies the number of... Cores. Basically, it's Core 2 Quad-core.
That's just plain weird. They had two options: drop the Core brand, or remove the core modifier from the name. They opted for the latter.