Getting bitten by Intel's poor naming schemes

I work in CPU security and it's the same with microarchitecture. You wanna know if a machine is vulnerable to a certain issue?

- The technical experts (including Intel engineers) will say something like "it affects Blizzard Creek and Windy Bluff models'

- Intel's technical docs will say "if CPUID leaf 0x3aa asserts bit 63 then the CPU is affected". (There is no database for this you can only find it out by actually booting one up).

- The spec sheet for the hardware calls it a "Xeon Osmiridium X36667-IA"

Absolutely none of these forms of naming have any way to correlate between them. They also have different names for the same shit depending on whether it's a consumer or server chip.

Meanwhile, AMD's part numbers contain a digit that increments with each year but is off-by-one with regard to the "Zen" brand version.

Usually I just ask the LLM and accept that it's wrong 20% of the time.

This reminds me of my ASRock motherboard, though this was over a decade ago now. The actual board was one piece of hardware, but the manual it shipped with was for a different piece of hardware. Very similar, but not identical (and worse, not identical where I needed them to be, which, naturally, is both the only reason I noticed and how these things get noticed…), but yet both manual and motherboard had the same model number. ASRock themselves appeared utterly unaware that they had two separate models wandering around bearing the same name, even after it was pointed out to them.

The next motherboard (should RAM ever cease being the tulip du jour) will not be an ASRock, for that and other reasons.

For the love of everything though, just increment the model number.

this is a perfect example of how technically correct specs can still be deeply misleading. Intel reusing FCLGA2011 across incompatible sockets feels like a trap even experienced builders can fall into. Thanks for documenting the failure mode so clearly—this will probably save someone else from buying the same $15 paperweight.

I don't know why, but most tech companies are horrible at naming products.

It has pretty much always been the case that you need to make sure the motherboard supports the specific chip you want to use, and that you can't rely on just the physical socket as an indicator of compatibility (true for AMD as well). For motherboards sold at retail the manufacturer's site will normally have a list, and they may provide some BIOS updates over time that extend compatibility to newer chips. OEM stuff like this can be more of a crapshoot.

All things considered I actually kind of respect the relatively straightforward naming of this and several of Intel's other sockets. LGA to indicate it's land grid array (CPU has flat "lands" on it, pins are on the motherboard), 2011 because it has 2011 pins. FC because it's flip chip packaging.

LGA2011 was an especially cursed era of processors and motherboards.

In addition to all of the slightly different sockets there was ddr3, ddr3 low voltage, the server/ecc counterparts, and then ddr4 came out but it was so expensive (almost more expensive than 4/5 is now compared to what it should be) that there were goofy boards that had DDR3 & DDR4 slots.

By the way it is _never_ worth attempting to use or upgrade anything from this era. Throw it in the fucking dumpster (at the e waste recycling center). The onboard sata controllers are rife with data corruption bugs and the caps from around then have a terrible reputation. Anything that has made it this long without popping is most likely to have done so from sitting around powered off. They will also silently drop PCI-E lanes even at standard BCLK under certain utilization patterns that cause too much of a vdrop.

This is part of why Intel went damn-near scorched earth on the motherboard partners that released boards which broke the contractual agreement and allowed you to increase the multipliers on non-K processors. The lack of validation under these conditions contributed to the aformentioned issues.

In fairness, the author should've known something was up when they thought they could put a multiple year newer chip in an Intel board. That sort of cross-generational compatibility may exist in AMD land but never in Intel.

How dare they accuse Intel of any kind of naming scheme at all. Everyone who’s anyone knows it’s an act of stochastic terrorism.

This isn't that bad if you compare it to the USB naming fiasco... but yeah, definitely a problem in the tech industry for a long time.

How did the title end up wrong on HN (schemes vs scenes) and what's the mechanism to get a mod to fix it?