[opportune]

Exactly, I wish their naming conventions were more literate/descriptive than they are now. The names of two processors tells you almost nothing regarding how they compare to each other. And I mean, marketing actual specs runs the risk of oversimplifying performance but also, as a consumer I don’t want to go to some benchmarking site or load multiple different pages of specs just to understand the difference between two SKUs - having to do that actually makes it harder for intel to market and differentiate their chips because it shifts the job to third parties who will also compare them to AMD, not explain why the benchmark fails to capture that chipX has laptop thermals, etc

Intel’s branding was particularly bad in that i9 usually indicated higher performance than eg i3, but old i9s could be much worse than newer i7s (or even i5/3) and it was hard to distinguish them. And new i3s could be the most performant or efficient choice for some consumers over an i9 sometimes; shitty i3s made the good i3s also look bad.

It seems simple to use a naming convention embedding stuff like node/process/fab provenance, cores, clock, specialization or thermals, version… it’s a lot easier to understand basic differences between an Intel-L7n8c35H.2 (laptop, 7nm, 8 core, 3.5 GHz, version 2) and an Intel-D5n12c38H.1 even if it doesn’t capture every distinction.