And an AMD 5700U is older than a 5400U as well. A 3400G is older than a 3100X. 3300X isn't really distinctive from 3100X, both are quad-core configurations (but different CCD/cache configurations, which is of course the name doesn't really disclose to the consumer). It happens, naming is a complex topic and there's a lot of dimensions to a product.
In general, complaining about naming is peak bikeshedding for the tech-aware crowd. There are multiple naming schemes, all of them are reasonable, and everyone hates some of them for completely legitimate reasons (but different for every person). And the resulting bikeshedding is exactly as you'd expect with that.
The underlying problem is that products have multiple dimensions of interest - you've got architecture, big vs small core, core count, TDP, clockrate/binning, cache configuration/CCD configuration, graphics configuration, etc. If you sort them by generation, then an older but higher-spec can beat a newer but lower-spec. If you sort by date then refreshes break the scheme. If you split things out into series (m7 vs i7) to express TDP then some people don't like that there's a bunch of different series. If you put them into the same naming scheme then some people don't like that a 5700U is slower than a 5700X. If you try to express all the variables in a single name, you end up with a name like "i7 1185G7" where it's incomprehensible if you don't understand what each of the parts of the name mean.
(as a power user, I personally think the Ice Lake/Tiger Lake naming is the best of the bunch, it expresses everything you need to know: architecture, core count, power, binning, graphics. But then big.LITTLE had to go and mess everything up! And other people still hated it because it was more complex.)
There are certain ones like AMD's 5000 series or the Intel 10th-gen (Comet Lake 10xxxU) that are just really ghastly because they're deliberately trying to mix-and-match to confuse the consumer (to sell older stuff as being new), but in general when people complain about "not understanding all those Lakes and Coves" it's usually just because they aren't interested in the brand/product and don't want to bother learning the names, and they will eagerly rattle off a list of painters or cities that AMD uses as their codenames.
Like, again, to reiterate here, I literally never have seen anyone raise AMD using painter names as being "opaque to the consumer" in the same way that people repeatedly get upset about lakes. And it's the exact same thing. It's people who know the AMD brand and don't know the Intel brand and think that's some kind of a problem with the branding, as opposed to a reflection of their own personal knowledge.
I fully expect that AMD will release 7000 series desktop processors this year or early next year, and exactly 0 people are going to think that a 7600 being newer than a 7702 is confusing in the way that we get all these aggrieved posts about Intel and NVIDIA. Yes, 7600 and 7702 are different product lines, and that's the exact same as your "but i7 3770 and N3060 are different!" example. It's simply not that confusing, it takes less time to learn than to make a single indignant post on social media about it.
Similarly, the NVIDIA practice of using inventors/compsci people is not particularly confusing either. Basically the same as AMD with the painters/cities.
It's just not that interesting, and it's not worth all the bikeshedding that gets devoted to it.
</soapbox>
Anyway, your example is all messed up though. J3710 and J3060 are both the same gen (Braswell), launched at the same time (Q1 2016), that example is entirely wrong. J4125 vs J4205 is an older but higher specced processor vs a newer but lower spec, it's a 8th gen Pentium vs a 9th gen Celeron, like a 3100X vs a 2700X (zomg 3100X is bigger number but actually slower!). And the J4125 and J4205 are refreshes of the same architecture with legitimately very similar performance classes. i3 and Atom or i7 and Atom are completely different product lines and the naming is not similar at all there, apart from both having 3s as their first number (not even first character, that is different too, just happen to share the first number somewhere in the name).
Again, like with the Tiger Lake 11xxGxx naming, the characters and positions in the name have meaning. You can come up with better examples than that even within the Intel lineup. Just literally picking 3770 and J3060 as being "similar" because they both have 3s in them.
The one I would legitimately agree on is that the Atom lineup is kind of a mess. Braswell, Apollo Lake, Gemini Lake, and Gemini Lake Refresh are all crammed into the "3000/4000" series space, and there is no "generational number" in that scheme either. Braswell is all 3000 series and Gemini Lake/Gemini Lake Refresh is all 4000 series but you've got Apollo Lake sitting in the middle with both 3000 and 4000 series chips. And a J3455 (Apollo Lake 1.5 GHz) is legitimately a better (or at least equal) processor to a J3710 (Braswell 1.6 GHz). Like 5700U vs 5800U, there are some legitimate architectural differences behind hidden behind an opaque number there (and on the Intel it's graphics - Gemini Lake/Gemini Lake Refresh have a much better video block).
(And that's the problem with "performance rating" approaches, even if a 3710 and a 3455 are similar in performance there's still other differences between them. Also, PR naming instantly turns into gamesmanship - what benchmark, what conditions, what TDP, what level of threading? Is an Intel 37000 the same as an AMD 37000?)
yes, it's a bit of a shitshow, as mutually evidenced. unless consumers brush up on such intricate details (most do not), they will inevitably fall into traps such as "i7 is better than i3" e.g. i7-2600 being outperformed by i3-10100 and "quad core is better than dual core". marketing is becoming more focused on generations now which is a prudent move: "10th Gen is better than 2nd Gen" but it will be at least a decade before the shitshow is swept
In general, complaining about naming is peak bikeshedding for the tech-aware crowd. There are multiple naming schemes, all of them are reasonable, and everyone hates some of them for completely legitimate reasons (but different for every person). And the resulting bikeshedding is exactly as you'd expect with that.
The underlying problem is that products have multiple dimensions of interest - you've got architecture, big vs small core, core count, TDP, clockrate/binning, cache configuration/CCD configuration, graphics configuration, etc. If you sort them by generation, then an older but higher-spec can beat a newer but lower-spec. If you sort by date then refreshes break the scheme. If you split things out into series (m7 vs i7) to express TDP then some people don't like that there's a bunch of different series. If you put them into the same naming scheme then some people don't like that a 5700U is slower than a 5700X. If you try to express all the variables in a single name, you end up with a name like "i7 1185G7" where it's incomprehensible if you don't understand what each of the parts of the name mean.
(as a power user, I personally think the Ice Lake/Tiger Lake naming is the best of the bunch, it expresses everything you need to know: architecture, core count, power, binning, graphics. But then big.LITTLE had to go and mess everything up! And other people still hated it because it was more complex.)
There are certain ones like AMD's 5000 series or the Intel 10th-gen (Comet Lake 10xxxU) that are just really ghastly because they're deliberately trying to mix-and-match to confuse the consumer (to sell older stuff as being new), but in general when people complain about "not understanding all those Lakes and Coves" it's usually just because they aren't interested in the brand/product and don't want to bother learning the names, and they will eagerly rattle off a list of painters or cities that AMD uses as their codenames.
Like, again, to reiterate here, I literally never have seen anyone raise AMD using painter names as being "opaque to the consumer" in the same way that people repeatedly get upset about lakes. And it's the exact same thing. It's people who know the AMD brand and don't know the Intel brand and think that's some kind of a problem with the branding, as opposed to a reflection of their own personal knowledge.
I fully expect that AMD will release 7000 series desktop processors this year or early next year, and exactly 0 people are going to think that a 7600 being newer than a 7702 is confusing in the way that we get all these aggrieved posts about Intel and NVIDIA. Yes, 7600 and 7702 are different product lines, and that's the exact same as your "but i7 3770 and N3060 are different!" example. It's simply not that confusing, it takes less time to learn than to make a single indignant post on social media about it.
Similarly, the NVIDIA practice of using inventors/compsci people is not particularly confusing either. Basically the same as AMD with the painters/cities.
It's just not that interesting, and it's not worth all the bikeshedding that gets devoted to it.
</soapbox>
Anyway, your example is all messed up though. J3710 and J3060 are both the same gen (Braswell), launched at the same time (Q1 2016), that example is entirely wrong. J4125 vs J4205 is an older but higher specced processor vs a newer but lower spec, it's a 8th gen Pentium vs a 9th gen Celeron, like a 3100X vs a 2700X (zomg 3100X is bigger number but actually slower!). And the J4125 and J4205 are refreshes of the same architecture with legitimately very similar performance classes. i3 and Atom or i7 and Atom are completely different product lines and the naming is not similar at all there, apart from both having 3s as their first number (not even first character, that is different too, just happen to share the first number somewhere in the name).
Again, like with the Tiger Lake 11xxGxx naming, the characters and positions in the name have meaning. You can come up with better examples than that even within the Intel lineup. Just literally picking 3770 and J3060 as being "similar" because they both have 3s in them.
The one I would legitimately agree on is that the Atom lineup is kind of a mess. Braswell, Apollo Lake, Gemini Lake, and Gemini Lake Refresh are all crammed into the "3000/4000" series space, and there is no "generational number" in that scheme either. Braswell is all 3000 series and Gemini Lake/Gemini Lake Refresh is all 4000 series but you've got Apollo Lake sitting in the middle with both 3000 and 4000 series chips. And a J3455 (Apollo Lake 1.5 GHz) is legitimately a better (or at least equal) processor to a J3710 (Braswell 1.6 GHz). Like 5700U vs 5800U, there are some legitimate architectural differences behind hidden behind an opaque number there (and on the Intel it's graphics - Gemini Lake/Gemini Lake Refresh have a much better video block).
(And that's the problem with "performance rating" approaches, even if a 3710 and a 3455 are similar in performance there's still other differences between them. Also, PR naming instantly turns into gamesmanship - what benchmark, what conditions, what TDP, what level of threading? Is an Intel 37000 the same as an AMD 37000?)