[throw0101a]

> What you are looking for are monotonically increasing version numbers, which code names are definitely not.

They are not, but given that Intel seems to put them in their public information / marketing material, it seems like the "codenames" are being used as version numbers. If they were strictly internal-to-Intel I could see that POV, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

And the Intel's model numbers / SKUs also seem to be created from a random number generator. :)

[barkingcat]

What's wrong with having names that are public that doesn't match with a version number?

Like you said, even model/sku numbers are mostly random. Why the expectation of a monotonically increasing version number if intel has almost never done it before?

[msla]

> Why the expectation of a monotonically increasing version number if intel has almost never done it before?

"Almost never" except for 8086/80286/80386/80486, you mean.

But who remembers those obscurities?

[throw0101a]

Pentium 2/3/4:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium

[msla]

And the "Pentium" itself, arguably, being a "penta-" name coming after the 80486.

But the Pentium broke the numbering scheme to an extent, with the Pentium Pro wedged between the Pentium and Pentium II.

[throw0101a]

> What's wrong with having names that are public that doesn't match with a version number?

Depends if you want to reduce confusion amongst yours customers. Or if you want to put up a smoke screen.

Imagine if instead of the iPhone 8/9/10 or OnePlus 6/7/8 there was the iPhone Xavier/John/Fred: how would people know what they're buying?