Comment by zokier | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zokier | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The hardware itself seems like it will be welcome in the market. But I find AMD GPU launches so frustrating, the branding is all over the place and it feels like there is never any consistent generational series. Instead you get these seemingly random individual product launches that slot somewhere in the market, but you never know what comes next.

In comparison nVidia has had pretty consistent naming since 200 series, with every generation feeling at least somewhat complete. Only major exception was (mostly) skippin 800 series. Not saying they are perfect by any means in this regard, but AMD just feels like a complete mess.

Checking wikipedia, Radeon has recently gone through (in order):

* HD 7000 series

* HD 8000 series

* 200 series

* 300 series

* 400/500 series

* RX Vega

* RX 5000 series

* RX 6000 series

* RX 7000 series

* RX 9000 series

Like what happened to 8000 series? And also isn't it confusing to partially change the naming scheme? Any guesses what the next generation will be called?

AMD seriously needs to fire its marketing team. Think how you would do it if you could introduce a naming schema and think of how to name technical features - it would be very easy to improve on what AMD is doing.

They've got a pretty amazing apu that just came out and competes with the M series macbooks based on early benchmarks. The name of this APU: AMD Ryzen AI MAX 300 "Strix Halo"

I thought it was the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395

grand parent is referencing the "product line" and the "code name" while you're naming one specific model.

> Like what happened to 8000 series? And also isn't it confusing to partially change the naming scheme? Any guesses what the next generation will be called?

I read somewhere that Radeon jumped to 9000-something for this generation to align with current Ryzen 9000 series CPUs (Ryzen 8000 wasn't a thing either, last I checked). Lets see if next gen Radeons match next gen Ryzens.

EDIT: confirmed, found slides from CES posted in articles like these:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/2568373/amds-radeon-rx-9070-...

https://www.techspot.com/news/106208-amd-reveals-rdna4-archi...

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-previews-RDNA-4-with-new-R...

Ryzen 8000 was mostly mobile CPUs like the 8840U (there were a few desktop ones like the 8700G).

Ryzen 6000 series was all mobile.

Marketing department at AMD missed the targets. But honestly, I don’t care about that.

Price is very competitive, and as long as benchmarks and QC are on point. Then this is a massive win for AMD.

NVDA as a “market leader” dropped the ball with the 50 series. So many issues that have turned me away from their products.

The 8000 series are iGPUs, part of the AMD Strix Halo APUs (e.g. AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395). [1]

I do agreed it's confusing though, when they were already using a three digit naming convention for iGPUs (like the Radeon 880M - the M made it clear it was a mobile chip).

[1] https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-8040S-Benchmarks...

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-8040S-Benchmarks...

In this release, AMD has aligned with nVidia naming. It feels like an acknowledgement they've screwed this up and are giving up. So it feels like a genuine improvement. Hopefully they maintain this alignment, but I'm sure they won't.

You forgot a couple too, eg.

The Radeon VII which is really just a RX Vega variant made on TSMC rather than Samsung nodes but has entirely new branding for that model that doesn't mention Vega in the name.

The Radeon R9 Fury, Fury X, R9 Nano and Radeon Pro Duo which are really just 300 series but all of those have entirely new branding just for those models that don't mention the 300 series convention in their names. You also can't tell at a glance which are better.

It is a fucking mess. They cannot for the life of them stick to a convention.

Vega II = VII = Radeon VII

It's like a really dumb Easter egg.

Pretty sure the primary reason for the name was because it was moved to 7nm.

0xA070

Reply on news.ycombinator.com