[Chyzwar]

2xxx,3xxx,4xxx,5xxx,6xxx,7xxx I do not see a problem with this naming convention.

Each generation have code name like Caby Lake etc.. but also corresponding number. You know that if computer have i7 6700 it is roughly 5-15% faster than previous generation i7 5700.

Just because Apple tend to hide this detail it is not Intel to blame.

[slantyyz]

Ok, just grabbing some scores off Passmark [1]

Intel Core i5 6440HQ -- 6390 Intel Core i5 7200U -- 4856 Intel Core i7 6650U -- 4857 Intel Core i7 6700HQ -- 8023

By looking at the numbers in the name alone, there's a wide variability in how fast they are. That's pretty confusing to someone who doesn't keep track of CPUs.

[1] http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

[Chyzwar]

Yeah if you compare 2 core vs 4 core you will have these results. You keep comparing different models. Sure there low voltage or mobile versions but core tech is the same in all models from given generation.

Intel Core i5-7200U vs.Intel Core i5-6200U difference is what you will expect - 10-15% in most benchmarks

There is some variation but naming convention is better than Qualcomm where 820 vs 821 do not give you any information. AMD naming conventions is also useless when they release the same chip multiple times. nVidia sometimes release new generation of chips where low end models are in fact previous generation with different names. ARM naming convention is useless as well... Intel compared to rest in industry have in fact good naming conventions.

I am not Intel fanboy, they cut huge premium on theirs chips, still have crappy drivers in Linux and release buggy chips.

[slantyyz]

I get that but I'm speaking in terms of --consumer-- perception. I can't tell you how many people tell me they think an ultrabook with an i7 must be super fast just because the ad says i7.