LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited April 2009
PR ratings.. where have I heard this before?
National Semiconductor/Cyrix! They just called it something else. AMD just revived the tactic a few years later, that's all. Guess it's time to dust it off again.
"Let us pause to also consider the interesting thing Intel is not saying with this chart: AMD chips have no stars. The introduction of Intel’s new system puts those poor blue shirts in the unfortunate position of explaining the performance merits of an AMD chip using proof that roughly equates to “the internet says it’s better.†Clever girl, Intel."
Well, here's the thing - AMD hasn't had the performance crown since Intel dropped the C2D bomb on their heads.
I loved AMD as much as the next gamer back in the day, but the simple fact is Intel has utterly dominated in the performance category since they stopped resting on their laurels and began letting their R&D department determine development rather than their marketers.
AMD's great if you're on a sub $150 budget, or if you need something with a small TDP, or if you want to support the underdog and prevent Intel from being a monopoly, but man, they're getting pwned these days.
I long for the halcyon days of Athlon XP and 64 dominance and price awesomeness, but those days are over, Intel's lame processor rating schemes notwithstanding.
Hi, Ryan! Thanks for posting. You and I absolutely agree on the issue that Intel has the speed crown in multiple segments (I argued as much on Mar. 19), but surely you can see that AMD has chips would fit in this structure, even if not perhaps at five stars.
Intel's ploy is clever. Convenient for now, probably a trainwreck in the future, but clever.
Anyone who is going to look at the stars for ratings will have no idea what the numbers of these processors mean. I think the whole thing is silly unless they are talking about putting stars on the desktops they come with. ie. BestBuy now has someone place starts on all the display models in stock.
That's the idea, Liam. This will be an easy way for people to gauge the performance of what's under the hood without knowing any real details. It's meant to be used with OEM or pre-built systems, not for tech heads.
There is something more subtle going on here, and it isn't directed specifically at AMD but rather at Intel's consumer price gouging.
In fact, I think this marketing strategy speaks to the fact that for several years, Intel's chief competition has been themselves. Sadly.
When you are trying to justify a price difference of +500% (Not a typo) between two products, it is easier to point to some simple stars and essentially say, "Look, this one has one star and this one has five," even when the relative performance margin is nowhere near 500% or even 50%, never mind the fact that a huge portion of all computer users could get by with a low-end dual-core processor and never know the difference.
The unspoken line is that five stars is five times more than one. Even ignorant consumers would probably call bullshit if told that a 'five star' processor is five times better for their needs. That's the thing: nobody ever says it. Nobody even thinks critically about it except in disbelief. But subconsciously, the price-relative marketing language helps people justify spending a lot more money on performance they probably have no use for.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
PR ratings.. where have I heard this before?
Well, here's the thing - AMD hasn't had the performance crown since Intel dropped the C2D bomb on their heads.
I loved AMD as much as the next gamer back in the day, but the simple fact is Intel has utterly dominated in the performance category since they stopped resting on their laurels and began letting their R&D department determine development rather than their marketers.
AMD's great if you're on a sub $150 budget, or if you need something with a small TDP, or if you want to support the underdog and prevent Intel from being a monopoly, but man, they're getting pwned these days.
I long for the halcyon days of Athlon XP and 64 dominance and price awesomeness, but those days are over, Intel's lame processor rating schemes notwithstanding.
Intel's ploy is clever. Convenient for now, probably a trainwreck in the future, but clever.
http://brains.intel-brains.com/
In fact, I think this marketing strategy speaks to the fact that for several years, Intel's chief competition has been themselves. Sadly.
When you are trying to justify a price difference of +500% (Not a typo) between two products, it is easier to point to some simple stars and essentially say, "Look, this one has one star and this one has five," even when the relative performance margin is nowhere near 500% or even 50%, never mind the fact that a huge portion of all computer users could get by with a low-end dual-core processor and never know the difference.
The unspoken line is that five stars is five times more than one. Even ignorant consumers would probably call bullshit if told that a 'five star' processor is five times better for their needs. That's the thing: nobody ever says it. Nobody even thinks critically about it except in disbelief. But subconsciously, the price-relative marketing language helps people justify spending a lot more money on performance they probably have no use for.