Does anybody other than me think that Intel should clean up their organization by renaming the Core i5-750 to the Core i7-750?
It shares nothing with the rest of the i5s, but everything with the i7-8xx's. It's 45nm, Socket 1156 w/o built in Memory, 8MB Cache, same bus speed as the i7s, plus it's Quad-Core like the i7's. All the rest of the i5s are 32nm, Socket 1156 w/ onboard video, 4MB Cache, and dual core.
Looks to me as if it really belongs in the i7 group, since it seems to be just a slower variant of the i7-860, and without HT. That also would give room for a new set of 45nm CPUs, like an i7-760 and an i7-770 running at 2.8 and 2.93GHz with the same specs as the i7-750 and thus the i7-860 and i7-870 CPUs. Then they could also introduce an i7-850 which is just an i7-750 with HT.
On an unrelated note, I've also been wondering why there is no i7-930 @ 2.8GHz when the have the i7-920 (2.66GHz), i7-940 (2.93 GHz), i7-950 (3.06GHz), and i7-960 (3.2 GHz)
Also, I was kinda wondering why they didn't keep the i3-530 and i3-540 within the i5 group since they have the same specs, just slower, except for the lack of Turbo boost, which, like I said before, which is why they could be branded the i5-530 and i5-540, setting them a group below the other current i5-6xx's. They also could introduce an i5-550 which would be the same as the i5-650, just without Turbo boost. If they wanted to have an i3 series, they could have it simply be like the i3s are now, just cheaper and without HT.
Intels whole naming scheme is pretty chaotic right now. I could understand taking the i7 to the 1156 socket (though maybe it should have been labeled i6), as it kept most features (quad core with HT). All i7s should have hyperthreading. Relabeling an i5 750 as an i7 750 would make it even worse. Having dual core (w/ HT) i5s was their biggest mistake, imo.
i3s should be dual core with HT
i5s should be quad core w/o HT
i7s should be quad core w/ HT
It seems like Intel is making more and more processors which are all great, and making it increasingly hard to decide between them.
I also wonder why clock speeds are not higher for most of their chips, as they clearly are capable of hitting much higher clocks.
Not really, most of them are capable of 4 GHz or higher, and their biggest Turbo boost right now is 3.73 GHz with most of them being even lower.
But I like what the first guy said.
The i3s are the current i3s and 32nm i5s.
The i5 series is the current i5-750 plus any version of that chip.
The i7 series is exactly what it is now.
Then they save the i9 brand for their hexacores.
Possibly in the future an i1 could be HT Single cores, the i2 HT-less Dual cores, the i4 for a possible fast Triple core without HT, the i6 for the i7-8xx series, and the i8 for Hexacores without HT. But that's all pretty far fetched.
Route 2:: (Fewer groups)
They either scrap the i3 or save it for cheap single cores with HT and cheap dual cores without HT.
The i5 contains the current i3-530 up to the current i5-670. (32nm, integrated graphics)
The i7 contains the i7-7xx series (based on the current i5-750) the current i7-8xx series and the current i7-9xx series, plus the i7-930 @ 2.8 GHz, which should be a CPU unto its own rather than an i7-920 replacement. Also these would be 45nm now, but possibly all replaced by 32nm CPUs of the same architecture later this year. (The i7s are 45nm Quad Cores without Integrated graphics.)
Then they save the i9 for their 32nm Hexacores. My numbering if I was in charge would be the i9-910 at 2.4 GHz, ranging up to the i9-960, at 2.66, 2.8, 2.93, 3.06, and then 3.2 GHz.