[citation][nom]yubngvbgm[/nom]they don't do it correctly and it's confuseIt's the opposite of what intel for example does for cpu's, they over do it and make it confuse.[/citation]
What are you going on? Celeron, Pentium, i3, i5, i7. Seems simple enough to me. Celeron is dual/single core, Pentium is dual core, i3 is dual core w/HTT, i5 is quad core, i7 is quad core w/ HTT. Seems simple enough to me. Yes, Super WiFi is causing some confusion, but I never got why Intel's lineup does. It seems simple, Celeron is slower than Pentium and once you go to i3, higher numbers means faster overall. This shouldn't be so confusing.
For a non-techy, pretty much any processor naming model could confuse. AMD's isn't really any better, some of the Phenom II 8xxs are faster than some 9xxs. I like the naming scheme on the Bulldozer FXs, but it's not that much better. i3 is a dual core with Hyper-Threading, FX-4xx is a quad core. i5 is a quad core, FX-6xxx is a six core. i7 is a quad core with Hyper-Threading, FX-8xxx is an eight core.
Then Intel's Celerons and Pentiums compete not with FX, but with Llano/Sempron/Athlon II/Phenom II dual and tri cores CPUs and none of them have Hyper-Threading.
They both seem rather simple, it's just that Intel has Hyper-Threading also defined by the name of the CPU so it has more than core count, architecture, and clock frequency to look into. Intel also has different cache sizes, but they aren't game-changers for performance.
Seems to me that like Intel has a simple enough naming convention and that it isn't confusing to anyone who just reads this comment. Does anyone think it is too oversimplified after reading this? If so, then I guarantee that I can come up with a less simplified convention and it won't be any better.