Rebranding and new editions: old technology with a new name – (when) is that legitimate?

Since the beginning of hardware, manufacturers have sometimes reissued products under updated names. The scope of the associated advantages and disadvantages can vary greatly – so is rebranding okay to a limited extent? Or does the community categorically think nothing of it?

Table of contents

1. Reissues of older technology are nothing new
   1. GCN and Kepler didn't want to die
   2. Old cores in new processors
2. Are you okay with rebranding?

< li>Participation is expressly desired

1. Overview of the last ten Sunday questions
2. Motivation and data usage

New editions of older technology are nothing new

From the point of view of a manufacturer, it can sometimes have many advantages to actually put older hardware in a supposedly new product. For example, development and production costs can be saved and logistical, economic or even ecological advantages often result from a corresponding bundling of the offer: If an identical or at least similar product has been produced over a long period of time and in larger quantities, it will be available quickly positive economies of scale.

GCN and Kepler didn't want to die

Graphics cards provide an example. While both AMD and Nvidia in the high-end sector are always trying to be able to sell the advantages of new technology as quickly as possible, the cheaper graphics accelerators of a new generation are often a long time coming – or are not available at all. After all, the lower level of performance is already being served by the previous generation, whose production is established and has become cheaper over time. That suits the manufacturers.

There is only one problem with marketing: customers usually prefer to buy new products. The solution is obvious; the proven hardware gets a new name. At AMD, for example, the long-serving GCN graphics architecture was dragged along almost unchanged over several generations up to the RX 550 and RX 560, while Nvidia ran almost the entire Kepler architecture in two generations. Or who remembers the Radeon HD 8000 series for OEMs?

Old cores in new processors

And there are examples in the present as well. For example, there is the recently released Core i5-13400F (test), which according to the name belongs to the Rocket Lake generation, but in which Intel uses the Golden Cove cores of the Alder Lake architecture. With 6 P and 4 E cores, the 13400F ultimately corresponds to a Core i5-12600K with a lower clock, but is sold more expensively as a “new” CPU.

And at CES AMD presented Ryzen 7000 Mobile earlier this year. And the name makes one think of Zen 4, but in fact Zen 3+, Zen 3 and Zen 2 are also installed. The new naming scheme introduced by AMD in the 4th quarter of 2022 enlightens those who know about it, but the architectural hodgepodge of the iGPU is just as large; RDNA 3, RDNA 2 as well as the veteran Vega architecture are used here and that doesn't explain the naming scheme.

The editors Jan and Fabian took the said CPUs as an occasion to talk about the sense and nonsense of such rebrands in the 4th episode 2023 of “CB-Funk – der ComputerBase-Podcast”, which was released on Wednesday, and also contribute their own opinion on the subject.

CB radio can not only be played via the embedded Podigee player, but can also be conveniently listened to in podcast apps. Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Deezer are already available. CB radio can already be integrated into other podcast players via RSS. The corresponding URL is: https://computerbase.podigee.io/feed/mp3.

Are you okay with rebranding?

But the question was already raised in the podcast: What does the community think of it? Old hardware with a new name – fundamentally an absurdity or actually perfectly acceptable if a few things are considered?

Is the rebranding of older hardware okay with you?

• Yes, I see no problem with that.
• Yes, but only under certain conditions.
• No, in my opinion this is categorically an absurdity.
• Abstain (Show result)

Please log in to vote!

The second survey now asks those readers for whom such new editions are not per se a knockout criterion: Under what conditions is a rebranding legitimate for you? Is there a specific sticking point or do several facets play a role? If there are aspects that are not available as possible answers, the editors would appreciate comments.

When is the rebranding of older hardware acceptable to you?

• The manufacturer must clearly indicate that a new product contains old technology, even though the name suggests a new generation.
• The product in question must fit attractively into the manufacturer's range in terms of price and performance – which technology is used for this purpose plays a subordinate role.
• The affected product may differ in performance, but not in the basic feature set of models of the same generation.
• Rebranding older tech is not a problem as long as it's limited to the low-end or budget segment.
• A product relaunched under a current name should offer advantages over the original in at least one aspect to justify the relaunch.
• I have no reservations; Names are smoke and mirrors. The manufacturer can ultimately name his products whatever he wants.
• Abstain (Show result)

Please log in to vote!

One aspect that has already been mentioned is communication: Is it helpful if manufacturers openly inform when and where older technology will be sold under a new name, as AMD is trying to do with Ryzen 7000 Mobile, for example? Or is this just an attempt to prevent accusations and the information and awareness of potential consequences ultimately does not reach the buyers for whom the affected products are relevant?

Is open communication helpful with rebranding?

• Yes – if a manufacturer states in the specifications that it is older technology, that's fine.
• No, because in the end experienced users and enthusiasts are informed, but technical laypeople are ultimately not brought closer to the differences.
• Abstain (Show result)

Please log in to vote!

Finally, there is the question of whether you only bought new hardware yourself, which – perhaps even contrary to your knowledge – contained older technology. And if yes; what products were they? The editors are looking forward to comments and your specific assessment of why the rebranding was (not) okay in this case.

Have you ever owned a new product with old technology?

• Yes, I made a conscious decision in favor of the product and knew beforehand that, contrary to the newer name, older technology was used.
• Yes, but at the time of purchase I assumed that new technology would be used.
• No.
• Abstain (Show result)

Please log in to vote!

Participation is expressly desired

As always, the editors are happy to receive well-founded and detailed reasons for your decisions in the comments on the current Sunday question. If you have completely different views that are not covered by the polls in the article, please post them in the comments. Ideas and suggestions for additions to the content of the current or future surveys are also welcome.

Readers who have not yet taken part in the past Sunday questions are welcome to do so – the surveys always run for a period of 30 days and the only requirement for participation is a free ComputerBase account. In particular, there are still exciting discussions going on in the ComputerBase forum about the last Sunday questions.

Overview of the last ten Sunday questions

• TV and video streaming: Which streaming services do you use and how much does it cost?
• The perfect PC screen: What does your display setup look like on the PC (in a dream)?

< li>The CES 2023 in retrospect: What are your highlights and lowlights from Las Vegas?

• Luxury good gaming PC: Is a high-end computer still acceptable in 2023?
• Christmas question: What technology is under your tree (in your dreams)?
• Nvidia vs. AMD: How do you feel about the launch of GeForce RTX 4000 and Radeon RX 7000?
• Upstream, downstream, ping: how good is your internet connection at home?
• Are you still using SMS? And if so, how?
• How, when and where do you buy new games?
• What does the community think about ray tracing in games?

Motivation and data use

The data collected as part of the Sunday questions are used solely to describe the mood within the To make the community and the hardware and software preferences of the readers and their development more visible. There is no financial or advertising background and there is no evaluation for market research purposes or the data is not transmitted to third parties.

This article was interesting , helpful or both? The editors are happy about any support by ComputerBase Pro and disabled ad blockers. More about ads on ComputerBase.