No doubt it involved an entire marketing team coming up with different names, taking them into consideration and presenting them to the test audience. However, I have no use for it (yet). Personally I would delete things like “core Ultra”. This might sound cool again in ten years, but right now it reminds me more of the turn of the century when people say “2000” or “3000”.

They definitely want to capitalize on the “ultra” names (ehem, Galaxy Sxx Ultra, iPhone Pro Max), because the more “ultra” in a name, the more people will think it’s good.

Behind the product names. I would also prohibit the “brand level” and simply indicate in numbers directly the number of P and E cores present in the relevant processor.

I don’t think consumers want to know how many P and E cores there are in a CPU. They just want to know if the CPU is suitable for their use. They really don’t pass Intel Arc Look up the CPU in question to see how many P&E cores it has. For us, it is important to give good advice. In addition to the P&E cores, the number of threads is also different, as you can no longer do the x2 trick with the new CPUs. This way you can often find out that a quad-core CPU has 8 threads. Additionally, I think Intel should stick with the old naming convention, because then you can see at a quick glance which gene it was.

In short, they just want to profit from using the Ultra name, despite the fact that a product cannot always be considered Ultra by definition.