I mean imagine if CPUs were named this way... oh wait, they are now.
I'm not sure which is worst, Intel's Mhz-driven marketing, or AMD's model-number marchitecture, that is easily distorted. At least Mhz was a real, quantifiable entity, even if it wasn't the "last word" on real-world performance. Now with AMD's model-number scheme, and what they are doing with their Sempr0ns, things are going to get even more confusing, IMHO. It is certainly possible, that with particular workloads, a CPU with a lower "PR rating" will actually perform better than one with a higher rating. Almost like the ATI Radeon 8500/9000/9100/9200 thing all over again.
Let's fact it, your average technology consumer is easily confused by "Computer terms". Educated buyers have an advantage over uneducated ones, and these confusing model-naming schemes only serve to attempt to confuse and prevent buyers from being properly educated, thus giving the sellers of these products an unfair advantage. (Case in point: Sapphire's 128-bit Radeon 9800 "Pro" card.)
Perhaps we actually need some sort of federal regulations, a sort of "truth in advertising for technology", almost like nutrition and vitamin labels, maybe standardized ones for each class of technology product?? Although the industry moves pretty fast, it's possible that by the time that some sort of agreeable regulations for standardized labeling were worked out, that that entire technology category might be obsolete.
OTOH, even requiring a clear disclosure of the "technology component breakdown" used in the product, is no guarantee than any particular consumer might be able to understand them. (Heck, I still puzzle over some of the various charges on my phone bill, for example. I think that Verizon is trying to pull a "Superman II", on a grand scale, with their subscriber base. If you know what I mean.)