[p1necone]

You've touched on the main problem (imo) that seems to happen with large hardware companies adopting consistent naming for performance segments in your comment. Once you've got a sane naming scheme and you've used it for a few generations the incentive to use it to mislead consumers is very high.

Why sell this generations X070 equivalent as an x070 when you can call it an x080 instead and know that a very large chunk of your customer base wont look at the actual specs before paying an extra ~$100 for it? Probably not good in the long term, but who cares about the long term when you can boost sales numbers on a new product now and make shareholders happy.

[gxt]

Let's just adopt an open-sourced hardware naming scheme then.

[gxt]

Not sure I understand all the downvotes and replies.. 5 secs of gpt4 later:

A naming scheme:

Manufacturer Code: A short abbreviation or code for the manufacturer, e.g., 'IN' for Intel, 'AMD' for AMD, 'NV' for NVIDIA, etc.

Component Type: A short abbreviation for the component type, e.g., 'CPU' for Central Processing Unit and 'GPU' for Graphics Processing Unit.

Generation: A two-digit number representing the generation of the component. For instance, '01' for the first generation, '02' for the second generation, and so on.

Performance Tier: A letter representing the performance tier of the component, with 'A' being the highest tier and 'E' being the lowest tier. This can be expanded to include more tiers as needed.

Sub-Tier: A two-digit number representing the sub-tier within the performance tier, with '01' being the highest sub-tier and '99' being the lowest sub-tier.

Examples:

IN-CPU-03-A05: This would represent an Intel third-generation CPU, in the highest performance tier (A), and positioned in the fifth sub-tier within that tier.

NV-GPU-02-C15: This would represent an NVIDIA second-generation GPU, in the middle performance tier (C), and positioned in the fifteenth sub-tier within that tier.

[RealStickman_]

An 01-A part should have the performance of a 02-B part while being less efficient.

[red-iron-pine]

I'm all about the FOSS but I can't see what an "open source naming system" would due for us or how that would work.

How do we account for nuances on AMD, Intel, or Qualcomm chips? Does that apply to other ARM chips?

And then there is the issue of trademark, copyright, and branding, which could get into legal struggles.

[jdiff]

That's kind of a nonsensical suggestion. You can't define this in a way significantly different than it already is that makes sense across devices. You can use metrics like "% of performance vs flagship product," which a lot of people have used to point out that lately the xx80-class-turned-xx70-class cards of today are looking more like xx60 Ti-class cards of yesterday in relative performance, but performance isn't always that simple and there's no way any company will conform to it. Even if they use it, there's no incentive not to break from it the same way they do now.