They did not, can you explain what do you mean?

For those of us with feebler minds than you or him, the name is just full of qualifiers that make no sense.

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)

To be fair - I'd much rather the name be overwrought but clear (once you know or have the decryption key to translate) than to have to look up an even uglier chart that i have ~no chance of memorizing to go 'ok, the Tiberian has X, Y, Z and Q and the Cyrian has Q, Y, but Z is nerfed'

I’ve not been “plugged in” enough to current-generation hardware for over a decade to know what all that meant.

There’s a place for a “decoder” for this stuff, and that should tell you something.