How to name a product?

[Bouzoo]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

-snip-

i3, i5 and i7, imo, on their own are not bad ideas, for instance like Audi categories (apples to oranges sure, but as an example), the problem is that they got more complicated than Intel probably initially thought.

I would do a new category called the i9, which many people have proposed. i3 would be only 2/4 (we need 4/4 finally and so on for other lines, but I'll ignore that for now), i5 would be 4/4, i7 4/8, and i9 would be x99 (those can have 6, 8, 10 cores, it's not for the average joe as it is, and that one can be more complicated as far as I'm concerned). The important thing is that the letter i would be for desktop only. Want a laptop CPU? Those would be m3, 5 and 7. M as in mobility, instead of current 6700HQ, 7820HK, 3630QM and so on, even though some are dying and ULVs are replacing them. e3, 5, 7 would be for ULV CPUS, and I would literally kill the i7 ULV. What does e stand for? Efficiency. The high efficient CPUs. 

What about the letter after the name? Those can be much more simplified, and Intel is over complicating things with them (as in they have too many letters imo), and they shouldn't even have them in many scenarios. The letters after them would be K for OC models (current K), R for replaceable in laptops (current QM), and few others that they might need. No need for 2 letters, and stuff like 6600T. 

 

Few examples of my logic:

Desktop i3 6100, i5 6600, i7 6700K, i9 6900K

Laptop m3 (can't remember the last time I saw this model), m5 6300R, m7 7820K (current HK, can OC, and it's mobility)

Ultrabook e3 6100, e5 6200, e7 7500 (can call this line even u3, 5 and 7 because u for ULV, and there should be only one line here since they are all 2/4).

 

Something similar to that could make things less complicating, and you would know if you have an i7, i7 ULV, or laptop i7. A customer could go "I need this and that", and still get a response like "Yes, a laptop with m7 would be enough". About the numbers themselves, no problem with 4 digits. 

 

As far as BMW goes, I stand by my initial statement. 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Just take this as an example.

If I say I have a BMW 1 series then you will have no idea which car I own, because BMW has two version of the 1 series. 5-door hatchback and 3-door hatchback. But not only that, you need an additional number to indicate which engine you got, because for each 1 series car, there are 12 different engines you can have (that are currently produced, they have had more if you just go back a few years). Oh and since a lot of them have the same names even after they get updated, they need to add the year after as well.

So you'd have to say "I have a BMW 1 series. The 2016 116d EfficientDynamics Edition". Just rolls of the tongue doesn't it? Can you honestly tell me what the 116d stands for? The product name is a whole sentence by itself, not to mention that it gives no indication of what other things the car has, such as optional extras.

You forgot the 1M as well which is coupe.  

The gen number is not important for cars as much for PCs, and that's why CPUs would have 4 digits, instead of BMW 2/3 digits. 

For instance, let's take 320 and i7 6700K.

3 is the model/line, 2.0 is the engine (non diesel). Simple right? 

7 is the line, 6 is the gen, 7 means it's the highest tier, 00 shows us which revision it is. 

I didn't mean literally like BMW, but more like BMW can combine numbers and they have perfect sense, are much easier for PCs than Audi or Mercedes, for most people that is, and it's much closer as well when you think about it. 

 

Also you said it yourself regarding the upper quote.

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I think the problem is that you are trying to derive technical information from a name that is only meant for marketing and easy brand recognition.

Same goes for your BMW example.

Their naming scheme gives you the two most important info to people. If you want more info, it will take time. Like your clocks, cache, etc.

I agree about the 3/5 door, it is complicating, but that's why additional words help (which I don't think BMW even has for differentiating 3 from 5 doors). They were able to separate 3 into 3/4 series, but we already have 2 series. Should use a word like Audi has sportback. If it's an Audi A3, it's a 3 door, if it's Audi A3 Sportback, it has 5 doors. 

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

Personally this is how I would name CPUs:

[Manufacturer][Brand][Generation][Core count][GHz][Suffix]

 

E.g. AMD Zen 1430K

 

That to me should indicate a 4 core Zen product which clocks in at 3.0GHz and is overclockable.

There we have a problem, 1700 and 1800.

Both are 8 cores, so only their GHz would change in your naming scheme, while 1700 and 1800 will be different obviously. 

 

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

Personally this is how I would name GPUs:

 

[Manufacturer][Brand][Generation][SMs/CUs Enabled][GHz][Revision]

 

E.g. AMD Radeon 136120

 

That to me should indicate it is a Generation 1 AMD GPU which has 36 CUs at 1.2GHz and is the original version.

 

(what an RX 480 should be called imh)

There is a limit how many numbers we should use due to remembering, and 6 is way too much. Imo, we shouldn't even need to put CUs in name because barely anyone knows what CUs are, and you can probably OC your GPU, so what's the point of having a 1.2 GHz RX 480 if you can push it to 1.4 GHz. And furthermore, why the name should not have GHz in it,  since AIBs will OC it, and people might think it's a different card. 

[Kick]

Naming schemes are important, but just like writing it is almost more important to think of your audience first. I have had to draft name schemes at work, create ugly diagrams like this:

 

But that was necessary for the audience: engineers. 

 

When it comes to marketing, oh god that's a whole other shitbucket. You need to be able to distinguish between generations or releases, as well as tiers, and anything special or out-of-the-ordinary. I think Intel has done a good job for their Core i Series and Xeon E Series. However I'm likely heavily biased as I barely even look at AMD CPUs now so I've accepted that I have to understand all the little idiosyncrasies of Intel's naming scheme. And yeah, I'm starting to get irritated with the versions they've been adding lately (v4 omfg). 

 

I don't think it's an easy "problem" to fix, though, and I would love to see @LinusTech make a video on it as proposed in the latest WAN Show. The way I see it, we (as consumers) would appreciate a system that includes:

• Brand
• Product line
• Release / Generation 
• Specific ID
• Modifier IDs (stuff like Low Power, Unlocked, etc.)

I think a good model that the market could follow would be power supplies. Sure, they try to brand them nicely, but it's clear what you're getting most of the time. Albeit that's a simpler product, but still, lessons can be learned. 

 

Edit: Perhaps we could learn from RAM product naming, as well, they tend to get the important details across quickly. Unless it's just Cosair Dominator Platinum 16GB. I forget how they name them, maybe i'm just used to how they show up when I go to shop for them... ehhh

[divito]

Keeping a good scheme for internal staff and engineers is hard enough, let alone developing something easy for consumers and marketing, as Kick pointed out above. It's a complex problem that deserves attention, but not enough that anyone has really put serious thought into it just yet. There are always going to be exceptions and forks in your products that weren't necessarily accounted for.

[themightyjuan1]

I quite like Nvidia's naming scheme, every new generation the first number is incremented (660, then 760) (although for some reason they missed out 8) then the next number is the Iteration (950, 960, 970) plus a ti if its a revised or better version of that iteration

 

Saying that the titan cards don't lend themselves to this seemingly foolproof naming scheme, although the consumers buying these will probably have done some research beforehand

[Okjoek]

15 hours ago, deXxterlab97 said:

What if there's more than 9 iterations? There are 4 cores 4 threads cpu and as well as 4 cores 8 threads cpu for example so that could be a bit conflicting

Who said you cannot use double digit numbers in that place?   As for threads I honestly would leave that to a product description rather than a placeholder in the name.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

i3, i5 and i7, imo, on their own are not bad ideas, for instance like Audi categories (apples to oranges sure, but as an example), the problem is that they got more complicated than Intel probably initially thought.

They didn't get more complicated at all. The problem is that people like you are trying to use the i3, i5 and i7 to extract technical information from, which is why you end up with "why is it called an i5 if it has hyperthreading" and other "inconsistencies" in their naming scheme. People like you have been making up their own definitions of what i3, i5 and i7 mean, which is why we end up with so many "exceptions" to the rules, and people like Linus getting mad for "breaking the naming scheme" when the entire naming scheme logic is something he made up.

 

Quote

With the release of the Nehalem microarchitecture in November 2008, Intel introduced a new naming scheme for its Core processors. There are three variants, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7, but the names no longer correspond to specific technical features like the number of cores. Instead, the brand is now divided from low-level (i3), through mid-range (i5) to high-end performance (i7), which correspond to three, four and five stars in Intel's Intel Processor Rating following on from the entry-level Celeron (one star) and Pentium (two stars) processors.

 

Seriously, people like you and Linus are doing more harm than good by trying to assign technical specifications to the i3, i5 and i7 naming. The i3, i5 and i7 mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT THE DIFFERENT TIERS OF PERFORMANCE.

 

It was literally made so that people at for example BestBuy could tell customers "the i5 is faster than the i3", and that is where the information behind the name ends. There is absolutely nothing more to extract from the name, and anyone who tries to do so will just end up running into inconsistencies.

 

I repeat:

i3, i5 and i7 are just arbitrary terms which has absolutely nothing to do with technical specifications, except the i3 is the slowest, the i5 is the middle of the road and the i7 is the fastest category.

 

As soon as you realize this, and accept it, then all of a sudden all "inconsistency" in their naming will be resolved and everything makes perfect sense.

 

 

 

6 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

I would do a new category called the i9, which many people have proposed. i3 would be only 2/4 (we need 4/4 finally and so on for other lines, but I'll ignore that for now), i5 would be 4/4, i7 4/8, and i9 would be x99 (those can have 6, 8, 10 cores, it's not for the average joe as it is, and that one can be more complicated as far as I'm concerned). The important thing is that the letter i would be for desktop only. Want a laptop CPU? Those would be m3, 5 and 7. M as in mobility, instead of current 6700HQ, 7820HK, 3630QM and so on, even though some are dying and ULVs are replacing them. e3, 5, 7 would be for ULV CPUS, and I would literally kill the i7 ULV. What does e stand for? Efficiency. The high efficient CPUs. 

This is an absolutely atrocious idea because it creates a very rigid naming scheme with 0 flexibility.

What if Intel wants to add more cores to their products? So that their lowest end is a quad core, and their highest end mainstream is a 6 core. All of a sudden they have to throw their entire naming scheme out the window, which will just cause massive confusion.

 

With your proposed naming scheme each segment would need their own branding and marketing as well. It would also create massive confusion. Teaching consumer that and i5 is faster than an i3 is hard enough. Now imagine also having to teach them about the differences between the i3 and m3. The good thing about having their current i3, i5 and i7 branding is that they only have to market it once, and customers who understand it will understand it across multiple product categories. Your suggestion ruins that. And what do we gain with your suggestion? We are moving some of the more technical details from the suffixes to the prefix, which is meant to appeal to the non-techsavvy people. Why try and force technical information into the mainstream marketing?

 

I find it hard to explain why this is such a terrible idea, but it really is from every single point of view. It just creates confusion for the average Joe, and the more technically minded will not get anything out of it either.

 

 

6 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

What about the letter after the name? Those can be much more simplified, and Intel is over complicating things with them (as in they have too many letters imo), and they shouldn't even have them in many scenarios. The letters after them would be K for OC models (current K), R for replaceable in laptops (current QM), and few others that they might need. No need for 2 letters, and stuff like 6600T. 

QM does not stand for replaceable. It stands for quadcore-mobile.

It is needed because very few mobile processors are quad cores, so they have added QM to make it easy to spot.

And yes, they do need two letters for some specific things, because we have both HQ (quad core with higher end graphics) and MQ (the regular mobile quad core).

The Q stands for quad-core, and the H or M indicates which GPU it has.

 

What do you mean with "stuff like 6600T"? The T indicates low power.U and Y stands for that as well, but different levels. Intel doesn't just have two tiers of power consumption.

By keeping the desktop and laptop suffixes different they also make it easier to quickly see what is a desktop part, and what is a laptop part. They could probably make this a bit more clear (like having D or M in all product names to indicate desktop or mobile), but in my opinion this isn't that big of a deal. The average Joe isn't meant to be reading those things anyway, and if you can't learn the naming scheme then chances are you should stick with the simple "5 is higher than 3 so therefore it is better" naming.

 

 

6 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

BMW can combine numbers and they have perfect sense

That's because you know their naming scheme, but you don't know Intel's.

By the way, Intel has waaaaaaay more products than BMW.

Skylake alone consists of 66 different processor models, and that's not counting Xeon stuff based on Skylake.

If BMW released something like 80 cars each year, then chances are they would need a fairly complicated naming scheme as well.

 

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

I would like names to be meaningful, i.e., to convey information. From that point of view, AMD was on the right track with the FX series, and it could be improved to something like this (I think I posted this in some other thread):

 

Archtiecture - cores - iteration - Baseclock

 

So, they could release Zen as 

Zen 8134 -> 8 cores, first iteration, 3.4GHz

Zen 4138 -> 4 cores, firs iteration, 3.8GHz

 

Probably you could complain that each iteration makes a difference, so it should be more salient. I could concede and propose

 

Z8-134

Z4-138

 

So the "first number" works as in Intel's naming scheme (this is literally the only part of Intel's scheme that has any meaning, other than the K at the end. The 3,5,7, the 600, 700, etc after the generation number, and so on are completely arbitrary).

 

 

While I would love companies to do that, ultimately that should be irrelevant for anyone naming a product: they should do market research and choose whatever maximizes their profits.

So probably the correct answer looks something like:

 

AMD Ryzen Gaming Ultimate Plus 5

Intel MindBlower Pro Enhanced

LG PerfectView SuperInterlaced HD

 

And so on  

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

So, they could release Zen as 

Zen 8134 -> 8 cores, first iteration, 3.4GHz

Zen 4138 -> 4 cores, firs iteration, 3.8GHz

Try saying it out loud. It sounds terrible.

Zen forty-one thirty-eight.

Zen forty-one thirty sounds way better.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

Try saying it out loud. It sounds terrible.

Zen forty-one thirty-eight.

Zen forty-one thirty sounds way better.

I don't care. I get the information i want from the 4138 version.

 

I also said no one should please me and expect commercial success  

[HelplmChoking]

On 2/12/2017 at 9:50 AM, Okjoek said:

This is something I constantly see getting thrown around on WAN and other LTT content where they mock the naming and model numbering done to products by their producers. Notably companies like Razor, but more recently Intel and AMD with CPUs.

 

How would you name a CPU or other electronic product like Razor's laptops? Personally I'm a fan of acronyms with some numbers, but as few as possible.

 

 

 

 

So for a CPU, I'll use the 6700 as an example I'd go with i7 6435.

So the i7 indicates hyperthreading, 6 is the generation, 4 for the core count and 35 for the clock speed. Sort of similar to how Ferrari does it, where there 458 stand for 4.5L V8. 

[NumLock21]

I always wonder does the number on that product mean something or it's just there to make it sound awesome?

e.g.

Chop Master 9000

 

 

 

[Okjoek]

22 hours ago, wrathoftheturkey said:

Sounds like you need some legal rite-aid

That new profile pic made me chuckle.

50 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

I always wonder does the number on that product mean something or it's just there to make it sound awesome?

e.g.

Chop Master 9000

 

 

 

I hate that too. Sort of brings me to my hate for the XBox naming scheme. Why would they have an "XBox One" if it isn't the first iteration?!

 

But I can make an acception for something like BF1 since it's a reference to the theme the game bases itself on.

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

That new profile pic made me chuckle.

I hate that too. Sort of brings me to my hate for the XBox naming scheme. Why would they have an "XBox One if it isn't the first iteration?!

I hate when then shorten Xbox One to XBone. What is XBone?! X-Bone? Sound like some energy treat or drink for your dog.

[Okjoek]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

I hate when then shorten Xbox One to XBone. What is XBone?! X-Bone? Sound like some energy treat or drink for your dog.

Never heard of that one.

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

Never heard of that one.

Seen it plenty of times.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xbone

 

[Bouzoo]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

They didn't get more complicated at all. The problem is that people like you are trying to use the i3, i5 and i7 to extract technical information from, which is why you end up with "why is it called an i5 if it has hyperthreading" and other "inconsistencies" in their naming scheme. People like you have been making up their own definitions of what i3, i5 and i7 mean, which is why we end up with so many "exceptions" to the rules, and people like Linus getting mad for "breaking the naming scheme" when the entire naming scheme logic is something he made up.

Seriously, people like you and Linus are doing more harm than good by trying to assign technical specifications to the i3, i5 and i7 naming. The i3, i5 and i7 mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXCEPT THE DIFFERENT TIERS OF PERFORMANCE.

It was literally made so that people at for example BestBuy could tell customers "the i5 is faster than the i3", and that is where the information behind the name ends. There is absolutely nothing more to extract from the name, and anyone who tries to do so will just end up running into inconsistencies.

The number of cores in each generation is closely related to its performance after all, so assigning cores to a line actually wouldn't be wrong. If they decide do redo the whole core count, well so be it. 

And that's why we have people saying "Yeah, I've got an i7 and it's the best there is, it will smoke any i5", when in reality the have 7500U. Or "I have an i5 5200U, take that i3 4330". Because that is so much better. 

Also I'm not sure why all the attacks and "people like you are doing more harm". How dare I have an idea. How dare I think differently for a second. 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

I repeat:

i3, i5 and i7 are just arbitrary terms which has absolutely nothing to do with technical specifications, except the i3 is the slowest, the i5 is the middle of the road and the i7 is the fastest category.

 

As soon as you realize this, and accept it, then all of a sudden all "inconsistency" in their naming will be resolved and everything makes perfect sense.

 

Then tell me how na i7 7500U is worse than 7700HQ, and worse than i5 7300HQ. There are many more examples. All from the same gens mind you. 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

This is an absolutely atrocious idea because it creates a very rigid naming scheme with 0 flexibility.

What if Intel wants to add more cores to their products? So that their lowest end is a quad core, and their highest end mainstream is a 6 core. All of a sudden they have to throw their entire naming scheme out the window, which will just cause massive confusion.

 

That already kind of happened, with some i3 only having 2C/2T, 2C/4T i5s, and i7 having all their combos. If it were to change, it would be different for one gen, then it would be the same until the next big update. Worth it imo.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

With your proposed naming scheme each segment would need their own branding and marketing as well. It would also create massive confusion. Teaching consumer that and i5 is faster than an i3 is hard enough. Now imagine also having to teach them about the differences between the i3 and m3. The good thing about having their current i3, i5 and i7 branding is that they only have to market it once, and customers who understand it will understand it across multiple product categories. Your suggestion ruins that. And what do we gain with your suggestion? We are moving some of the more technical details from the suffixes to the prefix, which is meant to appeal to the non-techsavvy people. Why try and force technical information into the mainstream marketing?

I find it hard to explain why this is such a terrible idea, but it really is from every single point of view. It just creates confusion for the average Joe, and the more technically minded will not get anything out of it either.

 

The non tech savy people (or however you write that), will always be non tech savy people, and every naming scheme will confuse them. What I suggested is differentiating CPUs immediately, and not having them all grouped up since the differences in performance are beyond huge (desktop, mobile, and so on). The 6700HQ is much slower all together than 6700K (I remember reading in some review it all adds up to 40% difference, I will search tomorrow for source after my exam), yet due to the same name prefix people think it's the same thing.

 

I could argue, again, that it could immediately differentiate types of CPUs, and even the tech savy people here get confused by some CPU names. I will agree, it would make other problems, but we all have our opinions on what is better.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

QM does not stand for replaceable. It stands for quadcore-mobile.

It is needed because very few mobile processors are quad cores, so they have added QM to make it easy to spot.

And yes, they do need two letters for some specific things, because we have both HQ (quad core with higher end graphics) and MQ (the regular mobile quad core).

The Q stands for quad-core, and the H or M indicates which GPU it has.

 

 

A bit of my bad wording. QM doesn't stand for replaceable yes, that part is the bad wording, but the difference between HQ and MQ (that I'm going for) is that HQ are soldered, while you can replace QM with another CPU with same socket (that might depend on the manufacturer however), and yes I mean in laptops. Many people have done it here as well a matter of fact. The difference between H and M is that H stands for soldered and M for socketed (replaceable). Examples, 4200M and 4200H. Same story with 4700HQ and 4700MQ. Same HD4600 in all of them. Here is a guy who swapped his i7 3520M if I'm not wrong for a i7 3820QM. Here is another link that might help. 

And as you say, we have very few QC, but then why name the i7 4500U an i7 for instance, when it was worse than stuff like i5 4200M at the time. Needless to say that we still have i7 7500U with mobile QC i5 finally.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

What do you mean with "stuff like 6600T"? The T indicates low power.U and Y stands for that as well, but different levels. Intel doesn't just have two tiers of power consumption.

By keeping the desktop and laptop suffixes different they also make it easier to quickly see what is a desktop part, and what is a laptop part. They could probably make this a bit more clear (like having D or M in all product names to indicate desktop or mobile), but in my opinion this isn't that big of a deal. The average Joe isn't meant to be reading those things anyway, and if you can't learn the naming scheme then chances are you should stick with the simple "5 is higher than 3 so therefore it is better" naming.

 

Actually, that's kind of what I meant. They have U, Y and T for low power. I'd bet you a million pounds that 1/4 of the forum here doesn't know what Y stands for. I'm sure there can be a better naming scheme for three types of low power consumption instead of 3 unrelated letters. 

And yes, ty, D and M would help a lot imo. 

Now don't get me wrong, I know Intel has hundreds (thousands) of models, and only 1 way of naming them all is more than complicating (read: impossible) but you can't seriously say that their current naming is good as it is. That's why I went with different "platforms".

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

That's because you know their naming scheme, but you don't know Intel's.

By the way, Intel has waaaaaaay more products than BMW.

Skylake alone consists of 66 different processor models, and that's not counting Xeon stuff based on Skylake.

If BMW released something like 80 cars each year, then chances are they would need a fairly complicated naming scheme as well.

And that's why having 5 digits (if we count the i number and BMWs first digit), instead of BMWs 3 helps. 

[Okjoek]

19 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

 

Then tell me how na i7 7500U is worse than 7700HQ, and worse than i5 7300HQ. There are many more examples. All from the same gens mind you. 

 

That's one thing that it took time to wrap my head around. i7 6700T for example is a lower power, lower performance i7, but it's the "i7" of the "T" CPUs.

 

I wouldn't use that sort of classification and I would dump the "i3/5/7" thing, but as far as the 4 numbers go I can agree with the first number being the generation number because it makes people's lives easier. After that I would put the number of cores followed by an iteration number.

 

For example I would call an i7 7700K:

Intel CPU 7401K Any specific information beyond that isn't really necessary to have in the name IMO.

[Bouzoo]

1 minute ago, Okjoek said:

That's one thing that it took time to wrap my head around. i7 7600T for example is a lower power, lower performance i7, but it's the "i7" of the "T" CPUs.

Did you mean i7 7700T? Because 7600T is an i5, and 7700T is a full 4C/8T. 

[Okjoek]

1 minute ago, Bouzoo said:

Did you mean i7 7700T? Because 7600T is an i5, and 7700T is a full 4C/8T. 

Whoops I meant 6700T. I was thinking last gen.

[Bouzoo]

6 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

Whoops I meant 6700T. I was thinking last gen.

Well there is a huge difference here. 6700T is also a full 4C/8T CPU, but a 7500U is a 2C/4T CPU, which is heavily misleading for people that think that they have a full i7. This started with 4500U iirc, which, as I mentioned, was worse than some i5s of the time (which were also 2C/4T, because reasons again). 6700T is not worse than any i5 (not even 6600K I'm pretty sure). 

[Okjoek]

3 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

Well there is a huge difference here. 6700T is also a full 4C/8T CPU, but a 7500U is a 2C/4T CPU, which is heavily misleading for people that think that they have a full i7. This started with 4500U iirc, which, as I mentioned, was worse than some i5s of the time (which were also 2C/4T, because reasons again). 6700T is not worse than any i5 (not even 6600K I'm pretty sure). 

Actually I think I could try again with the naming for i7 7700K:

 

i4 7801K

 

Put the core count instead of the stupid 3,5 and 7, and put the number of threads after the generation. I think that's a bit better than what I said before unless you think having cache or clock speeds is also necessary.