In my opinion, the only alternative to an encoding naming scheme for processors is a really verbose one. The example, Intel Core i7 1065G7, would become High P

In my opinion, the only alternative to an encoding naming scheme for processors is a really verbose one. The example, Intel Core i7 1065G7, would become High Performance 10th Generation 4-core 1.5-3.9Ghz with Iris Plus Graphics. That's a mouthful and only slightly better if you're trying to help someone know what to look for. Maybe add in 8-thread and/or SMT. Then instead of H you might get Mobile Performance, and U would be Efficient Mobile. The H and U coding is useful on both Ryzen and Core lines if people ask for help finding a workstation/gaming laptop or a laptop that prioritizes battery life. The HQ was useful for a while when I wanted real quad-core laptops when many varieties of the Core were dual-core. The central numbering system is quite messy, especially given the differences in 4, 6, 8 and 10 core chips all having 10 and 11 prefixes. You cannot even guess core count, base clock or turbo clock. Is a 1065 better than a 10750? Why is one four digits and the other five? EDIT: Thought I'd continue my thoughts here. I started upgrading/building computers when I had a CyrixInstead 133Mhz and replaced it with a Pentium MMX 200Mhz. New builds with Pentium II and III were also straight forward. Then my next chip was... an Athlon XP 1700+. The Mhz wars were supposed to be over at this point, and you just had a brand like "Athlon XP" and then some kind of performance number. That was it. Now, CPUs are being made in more variety than ever. Desktop (office, gaming, workstation, server, HPC, etc.), notebook (office, gaming, workstation, convertible, ultra-portable, etc.). It's in Intel and AMD's interest to make just the right chip for each scenario as CPUs are much less "one size fits all" than ever. The i3/i5/i7/i9 designation is less useful now that it is so separated from underlying performance (for example, at one point i3 was dual core, i5 was quad, and i7 was quad with SMT enabled) and as underlying architectures can shift performance (sometimes an i5 is better than a previous generation i7, but other times it is not). Perhaps chips really need names that better reflect their use case, and then model numbers within each product line. Core Ultrabook 520. Ryzen Gaming Notebook 460. Pentium Office Desktop 250. At least then you'd know to look for a specific line of CPUs and then could likely compare the numbers which could be better adjusted to relative performance (regardless of architecture and clock speed.)