I think it's a much more useful metric. At the very basic level, I don't know what 2GHz or 5GHz will mean for my computer aside from bigger is better, but anyone can understand "2x faster."
Beyond that though, processor speed is increasingly useless as a single metric. This thing has eight cores, half high-performance and half high-efficiency; GPUs are everywhere and doing seemingly everything; and RAM is always important. The speed cannot be summarized in Hz, but in standardized tests and "The stuff you care about is way faster now."
Do you really, REALLY think that the marketing pitch is measuring what "you care about" and not cherry picking conditions where the big colorful "X" number on screen is higher?
If the CPUs being compared are of similar generations (e.g. Intel 10th gen vs. Intel 11th gen, etc.), I agree. But trying to compare across distinct generations is a bad idea.
if you hear "3x times faster" would you like to know the baseline or just blindly trust that the metric is correct? if you don't care, they would never show the "3x times faster" metric at all, but they do for a reason
Beyond that though, processor speed is increasingly useless as a single metric. This thing has eight cores, half high-performance and half high-efficiency; GPUs are everywhere and doing seemingly everything; and RAM is always important. The speed cannot be summarized in Hz, but in standardized tests and "The stuff you care about is way faster now."