Why does Intel try to deceive people with it's mobile CPU naming schemes?

[crashtech]

Mobile i7's with a "Q" in the name are quad cores, I think, usually, maybe... Ah, hell, I look up the part number every single time, since they can't be trusted to stick with any kind of coherent naming convention.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's been the industry standard for intel, nvidia and AMD for many years now.

Mobile part numbers do not match up with desktop part numbers. They are separate. Accept it and move on.

 

[kwalkingcraze]

Pentium Bronze, Pentium Silver, and Pentium Gold coming up...

 

[Phynaz]

I find it egregious that they label dual core parts as i7's.

Dual core's are, and always have been i3's.

It goes Dual core = i3, quad core without hyperthreading = i5, and quad core with hyperthreading = i7

Oh no, now there's quad core i3's. Intel is really trying to trick people now!!

And those hex core i7 CPUs...My hair is standing on end over the egregious tricks Intel in playing on consumers.

Oh my gosh, there's BMW 6 Series that have less horsepower than BMW 4 series too! It must be a conspiracy!!

 

[Arachnotronic]

Remember that Intel's biggest customers aren't individuals, they're OEMs. Keeping the customer happy means making OEMs able to sell laptops. Same logic behind branding Kaby Lake Refresh as "Gen 8", even though it's fundamentally the same silicon as Gen 6.

It's not the same silicon, though Media engine is new, process is significantly changed, and physical layout of KBL/KBL-R and CFL are different from the original SKL.

Virtually the same micro-architecture though

 

[crashtech]

It's been the industry standard for intel, nvidia and AMD for many years now.

Mobile part numbers do not match up with desktop part numbers. They are separate. Accept it and move on.

Yeah, but the irritant for me lies in the fact that they refuse to be consistent even within their mobile or desktop ranges. But as said, looking up the part number doesn't take that long, too bad the average consumer will continue to be bamboozled as always.

 

[deathBOB]

Even worse, you have to go to Intel's own website to look it up! https://ark.intel.com What is Intel hiding?! Wake up Sheeple!

 

[NTMBK]

Even worse, you have to go to Intel's own website to look it up! https://ark.intel.com What is Intel hiding?! Wake up Sheeple!

Yes, because average consumers in PC World are going to do that

 

[Dufus]

Average consumer doesn't know the difference between 32-bit and 64-bit let alone how many cores he needs. Hopefully they approach a salesman or someone for advice and hopefully they get good advice.

Here's a comparison of my mobile i7-4600m dual core and the i3 dual cores
https://ark.intel.com/compare/75104,76346,76349

Highest clock for the i3's is 2.5GHz base, no turbo. i7 is 4GHz with the additional bins it comes with, it can even be fully unlocked but that's another story. Some more cache and features for the i7 too. Now it may be the buyer doesn't need that premium performance and the cost effective i3 is all he or she needs but if looking for the highest dual core performance then i7 is the way to go.

 

[Ranulf]

Says who? You?

Who are you to decide that intel is "trying to deceive people"?

I don't see anything deceitful about their CPU naming.

They name cpu's according to performance in a given TDP, not some notion of how "it goes".

Oh please. Then they should advertise by tdp. Is a 2010 i7 1.6ghz quadcore better than a 2010 dual core i5 (with HT) at 2.4ghz? If it costs more, it is right? Is that an actual Pentium or an Atom named as a Pentium? Their naming/spec sheets have been a nightmare for years. They all do it but Intel is the big cheese in mobile and deserves the brunt of it.

 

[Dufus]

Well if we go by the OP's argument then a i7 quad core with HT at 1.0GHz, 1.2GHz turbo with 512k of L3 cache would be better than an i3 dual core with base clock of 4GHz and 4MB of L3 cache.

Sounds like the OP's argument is irrational to me and making excuses for his wrong assumptions.

 

[antihelten]

Yes, because average consumers in PC World are going to do that

Average consumers in PC World aren't even going to look at the CPU name in the first place though, so there's nothing for them to get confused over.

 

[NTMBK]

Average consumers in PC World aren't even going to look at the CPU name in the first place though, so there's nothing for them to get confused over.

Of course they are. They want a rough idea of "Is this computer faster than that computer?".

 

[Topweasel]

Of course they are. They want a rough idea of "Is this computer faster than that computer?".

That's been a good point and why naming systems exist and why Intel wanted to switch to a m designation instead of i for the laptops.

It's not just for customers but even the sales people would have a hard time pointing out the difference between 6700HQ, 6820HQ, and a 6920HQ and what the actual value (outside upselling to the most expensive because sales person) to the customer is. But at least they have the designation with the i7, i5, and m3. Someone says they need the best they can get, they know to look at i7 systems, or if they want a machine that will last but doesn't break the bank, i5, or cheap but still good m3.

That said I do think it is disingenuous to include a 6600U and a 6700HQ in the same i7 tier. We know why they did. But we also know that the difference between a non U i5 and the I7 U is much smaller than the difference between the i7 U and the i7HQ. Outside cheaper chassis and other components there is almost no reason to get a i7 U over an i3/m3 (even with a clock disadvantage).

 

[jpiniero]

Outside cheaper chassis and other components there is almost no reason to get a i7 U over an i3/m3 (even with a clock disadvantage).

The turbo clock difference is rather large though; the 7600U's turbo boost is 3.9 Ghz whereas the i3 7100U is 2.4 Ghz.

 

[Topweasel]

The turbo clock difference is rather large though; the 7600U's turbo boost is 3.9 Ghz whereas the i3 7100U is 2.4 Ghz.

Eh its a bit of a big gulf sure. Probably a little more than noticeable. But honestly I think people tend to over value clockspeed from the days of single cores and applications that hogged as much processing power as ever. It's kind of funny between the complaints of overhead on OS's, virus scanners, the advent of netbooks, and smartphones, SSD's, more memory. Things generally run about as quick as they are coded for and all but even semi pro use those extra Mhz are not going to help too much. The tasks that someone is going to use the extra MHz for probably would be better suited to not being strapped to a two core system.

 

[jpiniero]

The tasks that someone is going to use the extra MHz for probably would be better suited to not being strapped to a two core system.

Google's made some progress on this with Chrome but pretty much apps that consumers use are lightly threaded at best. Games are the best threaded apps people will use. Extra cores are nice most of the time it'll just stay unused whereas higher clocks/ST will immediately help.

 

[Topweasel]

Google's made some progress on this with Chrome but pretty much apps that consumers use are lightly threaded at best. Games are the best threaded apps people will use. Extra cores are nice most of the time it'll just stay unused whereas higher clocks/ST will immediately help.

In terms of benchmarks. But decent home and business use isn't about multi core usage through a single app it's about running several apps at once. Some of them doing some work some times but generally all are pretty low impact. No one is going to notice the 5 extra ms it would take for a page to load, or the extra 1.5 for workbooks pro to open. But what they will notice is on the two core machine when using yahoo and the java plugin shoots up in core usage as they are loading up workbooks pro to compare to their online banking. This isn't about being quick to idle, this about a 2 core machine being crippled at the slightest hiccup. Even a 1GHz isn't going to help out much there.

I say this as someone who wouldn't get an i3 two core machine even if the best I could get was a 2c i7 (S4P for example). But like I said there is difference in recognizing the clock difference and feeling it. What the i7 has that gives it the extra value is having HT, without it a spec race and not much of an actual performance uplift.

 

[slashy16]

It's called marketing. It's what every company does. Nearly anyone buying a laptop knows the I5 in a laptop is not the same as an I5 in a desktop. I mean seriously, why would anyone ever buy a desktop if that were true?

I'm not sure why this even matters. when I am looking for a laptop for myself or anyone else the following list is all that matters

SIZE/WEIGHT
NOT INTEL ATOM PROCESSOR YES
SSD YES
SSD SIZE>256+
MEMORY>8GB+
SCREEN RESOLUTION->1080p+
Nvidia grapics required? NO/YES

Processor speed hasn't even been a factor since the core series came out. I mean seriously Intel iWhatever or Mobile Ryzen or.. doesn't matter for a laptop. This is even true for Business Laptops now. Processor just doesn't matter anymore. Need CAD? great run it from AWS.

 

[jpiniero]

Java applets are single threaded, y'know. Workbooks, probably as well. Mobile i3 U does have HT, btw, so you would have something for the crapware but that would only get used so often.

 

[crashtech]

...Nearly anyone buying a laptop knows the I5 in a laptop is not the same as an I5 in a desktop...

Who is this everyone? Everyone here in the forum? Yeah, almost everyone for sure. Everyone as in the average laptop buyer? Not by a mile, no way. I deal with these people, they know nothing. They're lucky if they don't end up with a tablet CPU in their shiny new POS, and I don't mean point of sale.

 

[ZGR]

Well if we go by the OP's argument then a i7 quad core with HT at 1.0GHz, 1.2GHz turbo with 512k of L3 cache would be better than an i3 dual core with base clock of 4GHz and 4MB of L3 cache.

Sounds like the OP's argument is irrational to me and making excuses for his wrong assumptions.

Intel's 1.6-1.8 Ghz Quad Cores all could boost well past 2.5 GHz and easily sustain it as well.

 

[Topweasel]

Java applets are single threaded, y'know. Workbooks, probably as well. Mobile i3 U does have HT, btw, so you would have something for the crapware but that would only get used so often.

I didn't say Java applets were multi core and I bring it up because its something I run into at work all the time specifically because the ones I have issues with specifically cause one "thread" but really one core to run at 100% while it's also testing out how much memory it can take. All of a sudden you get into a scenario where it becomes an io battle to use anything else because one legitimate (more then a couple cycles of processing) workload turns the machine into a horrible slugfest.

This is a legitimate issue on 2 core i7's in my office. More MHz doesn't help. The HT on the non-threadlocked core doesn't help. Under these circumstances now that I realize you are right on the mobile i3's tending to have HT, there wouldn't be a difference to these users whether the CPU was titled an i7 or an i3.

Again I do understand that in stopwatch situations, especially ones where you are compiling code, encoding video, doing photoshop work or other tasks that can take time there would be a great difference in the performance of an i3 and a 2 core i7. But these jobs are so ill suited for a 2 core machine, that it would be a bad purchase for the user.

 

[Dufus]

Everyone as in the average laptop buyer? Not by a mile, no way. I deal with these people, they know nothing. They're lucky if they don't end up with a tablet CPU in their shiny new POS, and I don't mean point of sale.

FWIW that's my general experience as a third party entity with average laptop buyers too. I remember one guy telling me he just bought the latest laptop and how great it was. Asked what processor and he didn't know so looked in the properties and it was an older generation CPU that had been superseded for nearly a year already. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything as he was genuinely ecstatic with it until that point. :/

Intel's 1.6-1.8 Ghz Quad Cores all could boost well past 2.5 GHz and easily sustain it as well.

Your missing the point that a quad core isn't necessarily better than a dual core.

For instance some Cinebench R15 multi thread and single thread comparisons between mobile quad core and mobile dual core

N4200 - Quad core ST 52, MT 162

N3450 - Quad core ST 44, MT 143

i7-7600U - Dual core ST 156, MT 343

In this example the mobile dual core is twice as fast in multi thread and three times faster in single thread and the OP would have the dual core described as i3 and the quad core as i5 so how would this analogy even be useful.

Just as with desktop CPU's the server side also uses 3,5 and 7 with E3, E5 and E7 where the numbers also have nothing to do with number of cores however where 3 means cost effective it would not be unreasonable to see more lower cores in that category but that does not make 3 mean dual core.

 

[bononos]

Sandy Bridge
Ivy Bridge
Haswell

The naming on those T-series models were also deceitful. Intel getting away with being Intel again.