I can't wait for the i8 chips!

Cyril, are you kidding? "Less redundant that Core 2 Duo"? That looks like you don't understand the Intel naming architecture "2nd-generation core, two cores" which is the best marketing-to-technical naming scheme yet to date.

Obviously Core 3 Duo/Quad is the appropriate naming convention.

Jeez, just when it seemed like Intel was getting smart in the naming schemes...

who knows where that would leave the Pentium 4 and Itanium?

Shush, we do not speak their names, lest we should call their attention to us. Woe betide the poor soul who must maintain a system of their ilk.

...or, everyone might end up looking like fools after falling prey to a hoax:

Things that may point to the "hoaxedness" of it:

1. The font for "Core" of "Core i7" does not match the font that goes into the original logos for the first "Core" as well as later "Core 2" processors

2. The original Chinese article is actually titled "Nehalem official product name to be 'lovely wife edition'". Which sounds like a joke... The transliteration of how "i7" sounds in Chinese comes out to be "Lovely wife" or "love your wife", depending on context http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2008-08-08/1218182057d9696.html

3. The "i7" logo's background vaguely resembles one of the Mac wallpapers

4. "i7" could be some kind of joke reference to "iMac"

5. Nehalem would not be the 7th generation of Intel 8086 processors- More like tenth - http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6003425&postcount=20

It's the Pentium 7, if Core Duo was the Pentium 5 and Core 2 was the Pentium 6.

But 'cos Pentium is now a low-end naff brand, it's the i7.

The P4 was the i786. The Core Duo was probably different enough to be an i886, Core 2 the i986, so this would be the i1086, which is a bit silly. But i10 wouldn't have been a bad name, IMO.

Interesting that they maybe calling it i7 yet the CPUID instruction still reports it a Family 6, at least on all the screenshots I've seen.

Still, I would definatly welcome anything the helps move us back to calling the chips ix86. I personally much preferred the i286, i386, i486 meaning to silly names like "Pentium".

What is wrong with Core 3 duo/quad? The core 2 duo has gained a good reputation for itself, i don't see why intel wouldn't want to continue the core naming scheme.
i7 sounds just like a cheap apple wannabe, and Intel doesn't need to pretend to be apple.

The term 'i7' was used by an Australian TV network for a pay-TV channel (sport, esp. AFL) which has since disappeared.

Why not call it the Intel Core 2008 for being the new core of the year 2008 AD. The problem is the Q6000, E8000, Q9000 etc. series of Core 2 Duo successors are making it hard for Intel to create model numbers. They flogged the 'Pentium' name to death. They should create a naming system designed for about 10 years. Not predict every CPU design but a framework that can last more than a major design or two as they have done over the last few years. Models numbers should be based on technical attributes and not based on marketing strategies by the PR bunnies (breed like rabbits and only last a few years, the naming system, not the people:).

The current naming systems (Intel, AMD incl.) make it harder to compare processors top to bottom even from the same manufacture and base architecture. I could say more, but Ill leave it for another day.

Who honestly cares? It is just stupid marketing names. When was the last time they made any sense?

Core name is the new performance line, while Pentium name has gone to Celeron duty. XD

I hate Pentium poor naming scheme.

as long as its not called Pentium Powah!

I don't care about the name. All I care is how fast it will be and how low price it will cost. That's it, period.

This ... this is a horrible idea.

According to Intel the P4 was the i1586. The Itanium was i-NULL-86, since it wasn't x86 in any way.

Do they think they're being clever having i7 look kinda like an 'n'

I wonder who creates brand names for intel? it should not matter that much. As long as it performs people will come to appreciate it.

I'm reminded of a somewhat aged Apple commercial in which some poor schmuck is driving home with his brand spanking new "T4" computer and drives past a billboard upon which a guy is rolling on a brand spanking new sign for the brand spanking new "T5."

(Granted, at the time Apple wasn't competitive with PC's then, but that's besides the point. Marketing decided then to move away from numerical nomenclature because it fostered market fatigue. I guess now the pendulum is swinging back from customer confusion. Or maybe they're just trying to save money on ink. :-) )

In related news, Apple sues Intel for naming it i-anything.

Do these have the floating point bug where they can't add 100 to 686, correctly?

Core 3 or Pentium 5 would have been better.
Shame they didn't hold back the "Atom" name for it.

Intel's just acknowledging that the Netbust should never have happened.