Hmm this could only make me wonder if Intel is going a similar route with their mobile Cpus for phones and tablets that they are going with their core i series of cpus. Such as the x3 will be a dual core cpu with 4 threads (hyperthreading) the x5 will be a quad-core cpu without hyperthreading and the x7 will be a quad core with 8 threads (hyperthreading). Because I can't see them going the AMD route where the x followed by the number equals the number of cores back during the Phenom II days.

Intel's mobile offerings don't usually follow their desktop offerings. Example, there are dual core i5's, there are dual core i7's. I'm just hoping to see more from Atom, or another low powered x86 chip.

Hmm this could only make me wonder if Intel is going a similar route with their mobile Cpus for phones and tablets that they are going with their core i series of cpus. Such as the x3 will be a dual core cpu with 4 threads (hyperthreading) the x5 will be a quad-core cpu without hyperthreading and the x7 will be a quad core with 8 threads (hyperthreading). Because I can't see them going the AMD route where the x followed by the number equals the number of cores back during the Phenom II days.

Another tech website I visit had an article about this yesterday, and someone made a comment similar to yours. It isn't surprising - you have a very common misconception, and through no fault of your own at all. The different product names are largely based on processor instruction sets and abilities. That's why it's [usually] stupid to get a laptop with an i7 - there are i3s, i5s, and i7s for laptops that are dual cores with HT. The only major differences between them are the GPUs, clock rates, sometimes cache, and instruction sets you're probably never going to use. Sometimes the NB is tweaked a little but on a laptop that hardly ever matters. To the average user, intel's naming scheme is utterly useless. To most enthusiasts, it's still useless, as even you (who I trust is adequately well-informed) didn't get intel's naming scheme right. Note that I am also greatly generalizing. Since intel's products change so much over the years or over different devices, it's kind of hard to explicitly state what is different about each of their products. The way I see it, the x3 will be for phones, x5 will be for phablets, and x7 will be for tablets or netbooks.

Another tech website I visit had an article about this yesterday, and someone made a comment similar to yours. It isn't surprising - you have a very common misconception, and through no fault of your own at all. The different product names are largely based on processor instruction sets and abilities. That's why it's [usually] stupid to get a laptop with an i7 - there are i3s, i5s, and i7s for laptops that are dual cores with HT. The only major differences between them are the GPUs, clock rates, sometimes cache, and instruction sets you're probably never going to use. Sometimes the NB is tweaked a little but on a laptop that hardly ever matters. To the average user, intel's naming scheme is utterly useless. To most enthusiasts, it's still useless, as even you (who I trust is adequately well-informed) didn't get intel's naming scheme right. Note that I am also greatly generalizing. Since intel's products change so much over the years or over different devices, it's kind of hard to explicitly state what is different about each of their products. The way I see it, the x3 will be for phones, x5 will be for phablets, and x7 will be for tablets or netbooks.

Very well said. I was aware of the dual core i7s and i5s in laptops. So it is very possible what you said is correct.

The different product names are largely based on processor instruction sets and abilities. That's why it's [usually] stupid to get a laptop with an i7 - there are i3s, i5s, and i7s for laptops that are dual cores with HT. The only major differences between them are the GPUs, clock rates, sometimes cache, and instruction sets you're probably never going to use. Sometimes the NB is tweaked a little but on a laptop that hardly ever matters.

In laptops, the i5s are dual core without HT. The i7s are dual or quad core with HT. The newer laptop i7s have a Q at the end of the name to designate a quad core. I don't bother with laptop i3s though, so I am not sure what exactly is different between them and the laptop i5s. The naming is still very confusing though. A naming scheme that would be more descriptive would be something like. Multiplier (since base clock is 100) | +number for turbo | cores - S = single, D - Dual, Q - Quad, H - hex, etc | HT for HT and NHT for NO HT | cache |generation | wattage so you could have 37+3QHT15MV4-65W So that would be easily read as. 3.7Ghz with turbo up to 4Ghz Quad core with HT and 15M cache gen4 with a TDP of 65W Why is it so hard to use something that is super easily decoded instead of having to go look at the Intel ARK?

I could be wrong, but I believe all mobile i5's that are dual core have HT, they just have lower cache and a slower and lower IGPU from the mobile i7's. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-2557M-Notebook-Processor.56822.0.html The mobile variants from Intel are confusing. There are all i3, i5, and i7 models floating around that are dual core and have HT, while there are some i5 and i7 models that are quad core. Apparently Intel still thinks the mobile world only needs dual core for mainstream, which in some aspects is kind of true. Edit-After looking at the ARK, dual core mobile i5's do have 2 threads per core. http://ark.intel.com/products/84988/Intel-Core-i5-5287U-Processor-3M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz Edit 2-I actually cannot find a quad core i5 mobile variant, and i7 mobile variants are about 50/50 for dual core versus quad core. So what I'm getting from this is, if you stay the dual core route going from i3 to i7, you get more cache and depending on what you move to a faster igpu.

I agree with others that in the mobile section, the core iX naming scheme falls apart. Seeing how atom cpu's are specifically designed for mobile purposes, I really hope they'll go for the more consistent desktop naming route. It's rather difficult to explain to non-enthusiasts how all mobile i5's and some i7's are basically overclocked i3's, while i7's with specific postfixes are more like underclocked desktop parts, and those with the U postfix have much lower clockspeeds and less power usage than those without. It's just confusing, especially since the sticker on a laptop often only says "Core iX". And while on the subject of those stickers, there is more than enough room on those nVidia GeForce and AMD Radeon stickers for them to actually show the damn part number, instead of basically just saying "well there's some kind of dedicated graphics chip in there, and it's made by us."

In laptops, the i5s are dual core without HT. The i7s are dual or quad core with HT. The newer laptop i7s have a Q at the end of the name to designate a quad core. I don't bother with laptop i3s though, so I am not sure what exactly is different between them and the laptop i5s. The naming is still very confusing though. A naming scheme that would be more descriptive would be something like. Multiplier (since base clock is 100) | +number for turbo | cores - S = single, D - Dual, Q - Quad, H - hex, etc | HT for HT and NHT for NO HT | cache |generation | wattage so you could have 37+3QHT15MV4-65W So that would be easily read as. 3.7Ghz with turbo up to 4Ghz Quad core with HT and 15M cache gen4 with a TDP of 65W Why is it so hard to use something that is super easily decoded instead of having to go look at the Intel ARK?

While you are correct about Q ending of the i7s identifying as a quad-core however you are incorrect about the i5s being a dual core without hyperthreading. The laptop i5s are dual cores with hyperthreading. I know someone that has a dell laptop with an i5 and it has 2 cores and 4 threads indicating hyperthreading.

While you are correct about Q ending of the i7s identifying as a quad-core however you are incorrect about the i5s being a dual core without hyperthreading. The laptop i5s are dual cores with hyperthreading. I know someone that has a dell laptop with an i5 and it has 2 cores and 4 threads indicating hyperthreading.

I too had a laptop with an i5 that was a dual core with HT. Like I said, I've seen i3, i5, and i7 laptop CPUs that were dual cores with HT. There are differences between them but aside from the IGP, most of the time it isn't a noteworthy difference. I personally think an i3 is the perfect balance between CPU performance, GPU performance, power consumption, and price for a laptop.

I agree with others that in the mobile section, the core iX naming scheme falls apart. Seeing how atom cpu's are specifically designed for mobile purposes, I really hope they'll go for the more consistent desktop naming route. It's rather difficult to explain to non-enthusiasts how all mobile i5's and some i7's are basically overclocked i3's, while i7's with specific postfixes are more like underclocked desktop parts, and those with the U postfix have much lower clockspeeds and less power usage than those without. It's just confusing, especially since the sticker on a laptop often only says "Core iX". And while on the subject of those stickers, there is more than enough room on those nVidia GeForce and AMD Radeon stickers for them to actually show the damn part number, instead of basically just saying "well there's some kind of dedicated graphics chip in there, and it's made by us."

The i5's and the i7's do have more cache than the i3. The i3 has 2mb, while i5 has 3mb, and i7 has 4mb.

I7's in laptops have always been useless and over priced imo the igpu will crap out long befor the cpu does so unless u got a dedicated gpu i7 is garbage ide take an a10 any day

Hrmm... I could have sworn that the mobile i5s that I have gotten and/or can order from Dell did not have HT. There mobile line is so stupidly confusing I want to punch the team responsible for the naming in the face an infinite number of times. I am sure the OEMs love it though. They can stick the crappiest version of each chip in their machines and the customers will not have a clue that they are getting taken.

Hrmm... I could have sworn that the mobile i5s that I have gotten and/or can order from Dell did not have HT. There mobile line is so stupidly confusing I want to punch the team responsible for the naming in the face an infinite number of times. I am sure the OEMs love it though. They can stick the crappiest version of each chip in their machines and the customers will not have a clue that they are getting taken.

I have no doubt that there ARE mobile i5s without HT, but from what I've seen, many do have it. Though Intel's mobile CPU naming scheme is absolute garbage, their desktop naming scheme really isn't a whole lot better. i3, i5, and i7 used to actually have a real distinguishable difference to each other. Now, they're just a blur, and it seems Celeron, Pentium, and some Atoms are also blurry. Intel seriously needs to get a new naming scheme going. Quark and Xeon are pretty much the only products intel makes that are very distinguished. What I think intel should do is have 4 different series: e (for embedded devices), m (for mobile devices), d (desktops and workstations) and s (servers). Then they should have an even number representing the number of cores, and then increment the number by 1 if it has HT. So for example, there could be a "core d4" which is basically the modern desktop i5, but then if it were a "core d5" it would be like a modern quad core i7 with HT. Obviously they're not going to do anything like this, but hopefully whenever intel decides to start a fresh new architecture they can do something that will remain relevant for more than 2 years.

Actually, when it comes to mobile the i3, i5, and i7 difference is mostly in features. Sure there is diferences in cache and clock, but that is everywhere and all over the place. if i remember it correctly, steps go -> add WiDi to i3 from Pentium -> add turbo boost and VT -> i7 usually gets highest clock and more cache and better video chip. Now while integrated graphics might not matter to enthusiast i7 desktop chips, in laptops it still matters as platforms are generally non-user upgrade-able and if you are buying a say business laptop with i7 and no dedicated graphics - it will still have more graphical oumph and better overall performance. I could go though all the Intel sales training material, but i think this is what i remember roughly from when i was refreshing my knowledge.

The reason Intel does not go after the high end market is because the real money is in the low end market. Even AMD and Nvidia make more money in the low end over the high end. (GPU $under 140 US) Everything follows a pattern, you and i can not control it... Once you see the pattern do you jump on board or do you swim against the current. First off i am not saying the desktop is dead (or will die any time soon) but right now it is being moved over to on line sales. Yes most of us use NCIX, Newegg or other suppliers to buy anything desktop but the largest group of pc user buy from a big box store and right now it is hard to find desktops in stores (two years ago local Walmarts sold desktops but now none of the ones close to me do). Less profit in desktop but more profit in notebooks (we do live in a capitalist world). So i do not see Intel ever going after the high end GPU market (heck even the high end CPU market is moving a lot slower than it did 10 years ago) Nvidia, AMD Intel are working so hard to get a foothold in the mobile market, because they believe the future is not a big large box but a small, mobile device. We might not like it but it seems to be how things are going right now.