AMD Wants Less Focus on Tech Specs

22

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

dgrmouse

I'm flabbergasted by AMD's stance on this.  Things were a lot more simple when clock speeds were clearly stated.  We know enough about chip families to grade a 486DX at 66 MHz versus a Pentium at 75 MHz - it's trivial compared to sussing out the difference between three different chips all labeled with ambiguous and identical "performance ratings", like 3200+.  They started the nonsense, and Intel is about the only player left (AMD, ATI, NVidia) yet to succumb to the same shenanigans.

avatar

QUINTIX256

Is this an excuse to not adjust the price of the 965 to reflect its position relative to the core i5?

You can have your recession. I'm not participating.

avatar

Mr.Pooney

It makes sens that amd would like to have a simple way of quantifying ther cpu's performance eg like others have mentioned car hp or mpg. there cpu are often cheaper then intels and you can trade off a few less hp for a few bucks less but i dont think that would help. most home users wanna surf the net store edit print pictures IM and email.... i have a dosen old Pentium III's in my basement that could do that so if you say you need a fictional  power index of 12 points to do what you want (eg email im pic word excel) and all the model your looking at have 100+ points your just gonna help the under powerd cpu market eg atom. We need the stupid comsumer with a fat wad of cash buying the big rig that he'll never fully use to move stock and keep things rolling. i often compaire it to ppl buying supercars and never taking them on the road and never going over 50kph. If your confused, trust the store cleark. If the cleark dosent answer your question or you dont feel comfortable with him change stores! PC Stores are a dime a dosen! trust your local small repair store! they might be a few bucks more but if you find the right one you'll get hundres of $ worth of service for free! I should know im a trusty small pc repair shop tech! I build em I sell em I fix em! 

 

avatar

ElderJefferson

For the love of marketing, what has taken Intel and AMD so long with this idea? You think maybe it might be a good idea to speak the language of most consumers - you know, the people who have the money and are looking to buy? Just maybe?

What's so hard about marketing a product for both sides of the fence - the power users and the common consumers? The common users could reference the "watered down" specs to determine its functionality while the power user would reference the tech specs. Have both options available on every product. Marketing 101.

avatar

Fiercedeity

Because putting both versions would only serve the purpose of confusing the consumer even more. You do one or the other depending on who the product is marketed too, not both at the same time. That's Marketing 101.

 Bottom line is though, that this idea from AMD is just a cope out. They don't want to compete based on specs because they'll lose. Plain and simple. It's not about protecting the consumer on any level whatsoever. And this is really a bad trend for those of us who do want to know the tech specs. What happens when they eventually stop publishing the specs at all in favor of buzz words that don't even mean anything? That's what AMD wants to do. 

How will we know what we are really buying? Is the Super Duper Fast® computer really faster than the Super Fast® model next to it? Do I need Lots of Space®, or is Plenty of Space® enough for me? The solution is not to dumb down the terminology, but to educate the consumer as to what the specs mean. And as more and more people grow up with computers, this will become less and less of an issue.

avatar

WFUJay

Who cares if the specs aren't listed on the boxes in the stores?  You will ALWAYS be able to find them on Intel's/AMD's websites.

avatar

Fiercedeity

1) Yeah specs are available online.... right now. The entire point of the article is that AMD wants to do away with that. Not entirely, but if they had their way, they would avoid posting them anywhere, even online. We are talking about what it would be like if AMD got thier way, not how it actually is right now. Try to keep up.

2) Not having specs "on the box" is an incredibly annoying and totally unnecessary inconvenience. Just because you cannot think of ways it would a bad idea, doesn't mean it isn't.

2) If companies officially began to use trademarks instead of specs (which is what AMD is saying between the lines), what makes you think that the specs would be available online? They could, quite conceivably, not even publish the specs to anyone but manufactures under NDA.

avatar

Devo85x

Mainly because I was shoping around for laptops (just looking, finding the best places) and when I was on dell's website, I got one of those survey popups (legit, dont worry... and I was in linux so w/e about viruses) so I filled it out, the funny thing is it asked "how would you improve the site"  I told them they needed to have (or at least have the option to see) more specs on the hardware in a computer.  I was tired at looking at RAM and not knowing the timings, looking at desktops and not knowing what the heck was on the mobo... (not that I would ever buy a Dell desktop... just looking :)

avatar

AndyYankee17

the solution is simple I think, have one standard, non biased group, like IEEE, use a standard to test FLOPS, or drey/whetstones, something that shows how much "work" is done in a second doesn't cover other CPU instructions but it's a start. also, I like AMD's naming scheme, it describes the number of cores and a number that "compares performance among other processors in it's family", now that number just has to be used across the boards

avatar

VaMage

It's funny how every time AMD comes up short in the CPU war they start talking about objective this, or real world that, and of course confusing consumers. This isn't the first time I've heard this rhetoric, and not just from AMD, ATI loves to pull the same rabbits out every now and then.

Does any one else remember when clocks were down played in favor of cores, not that this was a bad thing, but now we're back to clocks...

If memory serves, and I know it does, whenever AMD holds the performance crown all this talk suddenly disappears.

Though I would bet Nvidia and Intel would do the same if either ATI or AMD could ever take and hold that crown long enough to really matter.

 

VaMage

American by Birth, But Southern by the Grace of God.

avatar

Devo85x

You probibly noticed that ATI does the same thing because ATI is owned by AMD.....

I agree with everything else :)

avatar

firesoul1

Intel and NV just always seem to throw money into massive R&D reaserch to come out on top.

What i love about AMD is they stick with the buget minded strategy but i want to see them a bit more aggressive in the cpu arms race. 

As for myself, i don't overclock, i don't buy the cream of the crop graphics card, but my most important concern is whether the money i invested will play my games smoothly. I build and future-proof my system in accordance to my needs instead of my wants.

avatar

mesiah

Maybe its time for a standard unit of measure for cpus and computers in general. Car manufacturers have to report horse power, gas mileage, etc. all based on standards. Personally I hate the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong, but cpu architectures have gotten to the point where stating clock speeds and bus frequencies really don't equate to much. I think a third party should be appointed, or even a panel created with input from all manufacturers. They can come up with a couple synthetic or real world tests and every cpu or computer system you purchase must openly display those numbers on the packaging.

For example:

CPU speed: 95

Multitasking: 145

Graphics: 73

Overall: 104

 

It wouldn't be a "be all end all" of course, just because a car has 300hp doesn't mean its going to hit 60mph faster than a car with 275hp, there are many factors involved. But a normalized scale of average overall performance values would make purchasing a computer for the average Joe six pack a far less daunting task. Things like drive space and amount of ram are easily quantifiable and don't really need standards, just like the government doesn't need to mandate how car manufacturers measure the size of the gas tank or how comfortable the seats are. But for actual performance, the days of going by clock speed are long gone, and manufacturers have just reverted to big long meaningless part names. Betty the soccer mom doesn't know what an Intel Core2 quad Q9400 or AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE is, Hell, it gets confusing to me and I see it every day. She just buys what the salesman tells her to, and hopes he didn't lead her astray.

avatar

firesoul1

If you're trying to advert a product, simplity equals to better understaing to the masses.

Here is my example, AMD > (name of product) > X.XX GHz > (amount of cores) > cpu/processor.

Listing the model number brings no incentive as to what the product does or why should you buy it.  

avatar

1337Goose

We're talking about consumers that confuse Gigahertz with Gigabytes.

For power users, you're absolutely right. A name that provides all the key information is critical. 

How do you suggest getting information about the core architecture out there to consumers. There are people out there who don't know the significant difference between an Atom and an i7.

I like your "AMD > (name of product) > X.XX GHz > (amount of cores) > cpu/processor" idea. However, I think that "cpu/processor" should have some sort of indication as to where the chip lies on the line. For example, C processors are faster than B processors which are faster than A processors. Then we only have mobile to worry about.

~Goose

avatar

firesoul1

Intel is the worst offender (in my opinion) with the centrino line of cpus, "Centrino V2 PRO" oookk???

AMD's problem is that they leave the model number in (as shown above). 

As for GHz and GB's a simple labeling should do the trick.

Insted of X amount of GB Hard Drive why not X amount of GB Storage Drive or "of space"

One problem ive had before is explaining the difference memoy (RAM) and storage (Hard Drive).

What pisses me off is that retailers fail to properly educate the customer. e.x. more memory = faster, thats true  but the customer doesn't know what is memory and what devive really saves all your information.

I love it when i go to best buy or walmart and piss them off that im doing a better job at pulling of a sale better than their employees.

avatar

firesoul1

lag

avatar

sparkey247

would u like some cheese with that whine sobon? firesoul said it right

avatar

1337Goose

There's too much that goes into a CPU to create one all-encompassing numerical value to rate the performance of a CPU. You can't really quantify the performance improvement provided by a new core architecture.

One might argue that a benchmark tells all, but before you know it Intel and AMD will be gaming the benchmarks to gain dominance in the consumer's eye.

However, I do understand that prominently displaying the clock-speed of a CPU is a bit misleading to consumers. I've had friends call me countless times to ask if they should get the "3.2GHz or the 2.8GHz". It may be clear to MaxPC readers that higher clock speeds are not always better, but it's not always obvious to the average Joe Blow. 

~Goose

avatar

firesoul1

Thing is, people usually WANT the fastest speed which does not equal "what are my NEEDS".

It is also part of the consumers duty to research a product instead of blindly going to a store.

Making a balanced decision of your wants and needs is more cost effective than to compare who has

the best specs.

 

avatar

Caboose

 How many consumers do you know, actually do research before buying a product? (not including geeks)

 

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

avatar

1337Goose

That's correct.

So what does this mean? Names like "AMD Surf the net" vs "AMD encode media". That could work, except it would piss the hell out of every power user out there. 

~Goose

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.