Why is processor naming so confusing these days?

[Bizmark13]

It used to be that distinguishing the CPUs of different computers was quite simple. Intel had its Pentium for mainstream stuff and Celeron for budget stuff. Pentium 4 was after Pentium 3 which was after Pentium 2 which was after Pentium. AMD also had its Athlon and Duron brands for mainstream and budget computers, respectively.

A 800MHz Pentium 3 was virtually guaranteed to be better than a 750MHz Pentium 3. A 1GHz Celeron was guaranteed to be better than a 700MHz Celeron, etc.

Nowadays, we have Core i7, i5, i3, Atom, Pentium Dual Core, Celeron, etc. and AMD has Athlon, Phenom, E2, A4, A6, A8, A10, FX, A, E, C series, etc.

And there are also different generations too - all while retaining the same name. How is the average shopper supposed to know that the 3.5GHz Core i5-4670K is actually far superior to the 3.07GHz Core i7 350? Or that the latter is similar in performance to the 3.4GHz Core i3-4130?

And no, average shoppers aren't going to bother with consulting benchmarks or learning about the differences between architectures, pipelines, cache sizes, levels, etc.

The whole thing just seems like one big giant mess.

[dropt]

The average person doesn't care.  If they do care, they do their due diligence or ask someone that they know and trust.

[b!z]

The average consumer does not need to know the difference.
i7 > i5 > i3.
iPhone 6 > iPhone 5 etc.

[BadBear]

Because GHz means very little these days. A 3.6 GHz CPU may not be faster or "better" than a 3.3 GHz due to advances in how they are utilized.

[Bizmark13]

The average consumer does not need to know the difference.
i7 > i5 > i3.
iPhone 6 > iPhone 5 etc.

That hierarchy is mostly correct, but it breaks down when you compare processors of different generations. A third generation i5 might have better performance than a second generation i7, for example.

Because GHz means very little these days. A 3.6 GHz CPU may not be faster or "better" than a 3.3 GHz due to advances in how they are utilized.

This is true, but it is also very confusing for consumers. I remember back in the day when AMD had processors that ran slower than Intel's but had better performance per megahertz. Back then, AMD would give its processors a "performance rating" so that customers wouldn't get confused. Hence, an Athlon 2400 was roughly equivalent to a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 and a Duron 2400 was roughly equivalent to a 2.4GHz Celeron.

Something similar to this system would be nice for today's multi-core processors, e.g. an Intel Core 13000 or AMD 13000 might have similar performance to a hypothetical 13GHz Pentium 4.

Just a thought.

[Slark]

If you think that current processor names and symbols are confusing and hard to understand and remember think twice. For reference look at this "Intel codename list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_codenames

Or Intel Desktop CPU Roadmap:

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/pcw/docs/360/112/html/2.jpg.html

[Lethn]

It is tricky, just recently I bought my first CPU upgrade ever, to get it right, I made absolute sure I had the right one by checking the socket number matched my motherboard and so on I think it's just that computers have progressed so much it's difficult to keep track of it all so naturally you're going to have a much wider variety of components available. In regards to power though that's where benchmarking comes in and just looking at the data available, since there are pretty stupid people out there who will bicker over the slightest differences, in my view from buying an AMD processor it's like seeing people argue about consoles, when you look at the actual maths and what has what in the end there's only a small difference in how they actually work and they're just picking a fight over nothing, or rather, picking a fight over which brand they like the most.

[ndnh]

The average consumer does not need to know the difference.
i7 > i5 > i3.
iPhone 6 > iPhone 5 etc.

That hierarchy is mostly correct, but it breaks down when you compare processors of different generations. A third generation i5 might have better performance than a second generation i7, for example.

Yeah. i7 > i5 > i3 is not correct.

iPhone case is correct though. The average consumer WANTS to know the difference.

[b!z]

The average consumer does not need to know the difference.
i7 > i5 > i3.
iPhone 6 > iPhone 5 etc.

That hierarchy is mostly correct, but it breaks down when you compare processors of different generations. A third generation i5 might have better performance than a second generation i7, for example.

Yeah. i7 > i5 > i3 is not correct.

iPhone case is correct though. The average consumer WANTS to know the difference.

It's not, but would your average Joe know that? Why are do so many of the high end ultrabooks/tablets have i7 processors? Do many people even care for multithreading?

[donseptico]

Feel free to call me cynical... but one of the reasons (the main reason?) that the names are so meaningless is that if they weren't then everybody and anybody would instantly know which was the 'best', what was compatible with what MB, etc, etc... and we can't be having that now, can we!

[Lethn]

Feel free to call me cynical... but one of the reasons (the main reason?) that the names are so meaningless is that if they weren't then everybody and anybody would instantly know which was the 'best', what was compatible with what MB, etc, etc... and we can't be having that now, can we!

Well you can look at that like I did, but that would take intelligence

[Dabangg]

I totally agree with this. I just get the Intel i3 now and call it a day.