Oh no I agree. But at the least the difference is more clear than a single digit in the middle of the naming scheme from AMD. And again, I didn't like what Intel did with ICL and CML as well. I have repeated that numerous times. Which is why I think Ultra is better.There is 0% chance a non-informed user would know which model was newer or better between an xg7-1065z and an xg7-10700.
You don't even need to say that. No one really knows how much better a 9th gen i7 is better than a 9th gen i5. But when people say I got a 9th gen i5 in my laptop, it's much more clear then when people might say there's a 7000 series ryzen 5 in my system. Most people just ignoring the last couple monikers on the processor label. It's just how it is.How much better is an x6-1165 versus an x5-1145? Is an h5-700 better or an l5-500 better? It's meaningless to someone who isn't informed on the underlying technology.
Yes, I agree. But one way causes more harm to the non-hardware inclined person than the other- AMD's method. It's only in theory where everyone understands everything hardware related that AMD's method is better. But that's not the world we live in.Both schemes suck in different ways, that's it.
You are comparing this with different clock speeds too. RPL's advantage only comes from much higher Fmax, and a small IPC uplift in games which is like ~5%, or even less IIRC. An i5, even if it used RPL silicon, would have had an artificial frequency limit in order to ensure higher skus sell. Realistically, the only advantage an i5 using RPL silicon would have gotten is the small IPC benefit from the L2 cache uplift, as well as perhaps slightly better perf/watt from binning.BTW, the difference between RPL and ADL, as I mentioned, isn't always that small. Just look at the gaming difference between the desktop SKUs. Mid-range RPL gave you above top of the line ADL performance. In laptops, RPL could be significantly more efficient as well. But hiding which generation you are getting you say doesn't matter here because it doesn't meet your own personal threshold for performance to justify a clear distinction.
ADL's 1+4's configuration isn't even marketed as part of 12th gen in mobile lol, it's literally marketed as a Pentium CPU. Has a whole different naming scheme too, it's called the 8505. Kinda just blows up your whole argument there.If you look at the bottom of the range (the only place Zen2 is used), do you really think it's an advantage that a 1P4E 13th gen ADL CPU with 1.6/1.2 GHz base frequencies is truly ADL versus a 4C/8T Zen2 with a 2.4 GHz base frequency? I would take the Zen2 every time, despite it being, "old". Maybe you would prefer the 1P4E ADL, that would be your preference but that's all it is.
And I have no problem with Zen 2 being sold, just don't call it part of the 8000 series. Or at least, make the generation number the 2nd digit, rather than the tier being the second digit. That would have made infinitely more sense. It still wouldn't have been as good as Intel making the generation number the 1rst digits, but at least it would be less misleading than what AMD is doing now.
Regardless, 12th gen's features and performance variety is just way more narrow than the perf and feature difference you will see in the 8000 series.
Literally what I said here:There's a reason Intel's slide show was almost universally criticized and it's not because people just want to hate on them, it's because they are pointing a finger at AMD (with reason) but hoping no one notices they are pointing right back at themselves too.
People dislike Intel's marketing about AMD's naming scheme because they are being hypocrites about it, not because AMD's naming scheme is actually good.