To expand, positional definition of adjectives tends to be a bad marketing scheme.
Nobody knows that pro and max mean specific things.
If AMD needs to create a full cross-product of their hardware feature set, because they intend to have a SKU for every possible combination, they probably need a better scheme.
Say what you want about Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5/i7, but it mostly got the idea across (except on the occasions Intel hijacked it to upbrand SKUs).
Comments
To expand, positional definition of adjectives tends to be a bad marketing scheme.
Nobody knows that pro and max mean specific things.
If AMD needs to create a full cross-product of their hardware feature set, because they intend to have a SKU for every possible combination, they probably need a better scheme.
Say what you want about Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5/i7, but it mostly got the idea across (except on the occasions Intel hijacked it to upbrand SKUs).
So why do so many of major successful product corporations use this kind of naming scheme?
It is possible to be successful in spite of one’s decisions
What other popular products use five separate identifiers in mass market products?
(Ryzen) (AI) (Max+) (Pro) (495)