Idea for new marketing strategy

i have noticed that many people(including myself) do not like the new naming system that amd has come up with. its somewhat decieving to the "know nothing" consumer, and yet does not do their new XP line any justice.

well why not start making benchmarks more public? lets look at cars as an example. from a performance aspect, when looking for a fast car, there are many different stats that come in to play. while a car might have more horsepower, it could be slower than a car with less. this is were more test come in to play such as 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times. well, say you find one that can sprint from 0-60 really well but, how does it handle? mcalaren f1 is the fastest car in the world(top speed) but its not street legal... why? cuz at a certain speed you can no longer steer the car!

anyways, back to my point. if you buy a car review magazine such as car and driver, or road and track, it will list all these different tests and statistics for the car.

why cant amd do this for their processors? i know that there are a lot of variables that come in to play such as platforms, but looking at the benchmarks ive seen, its really not very close between the new xp and p4.

amd could just start advertising their benchmarks. it would probably take quite some time for the average joe consumer to grasp the concept, but the sooner they start, the sooner it would become a common part of the computer market. just like 0-60 times :)

what do you guys think?
6 answers Last reply
More about idea marketing strategy
  1. Ironically, I believe that these benchmarks are thinner than they are broad. Meaning Intel/AMD could race FIA if there was a class. Its just like Ferrari/McLaren Mercedes points race. As nVidia has proven, it’s often a question of drivers, although the factor of budget does come into play.

    Schmide

    I think Ferrari’s budget may be more than Intels.
  2. i agree that drivers have a remarkable impact. but the bottom line is that hardware only has so much potential. i think its just a matter of getting people to be more computer literate.

    as for budget, i agree with that as well. some people may not want a corevette, they might want a kia.
  3. Intel used benchmarks on their brochures since long ago to compare their own processors. AMD and Cyrix regularly put benchmarks in comparison with similar Intel processors in their ads.

    But often companies would put fake or favorable benchmarks, and far from educating the customer, it could mislead the customer that the processor is best among the lot. For example Cyrix is marketing its C3 processors as cool processors and show a benchmark with Intel Celron and a Pentium-III of similar frequencies.

    Apart from the fact that they are fabricated with a 0.15 micron technology and they run cooler *than their earlier versions*, performance is really sloppy as compared with Intel. Even with a FSB od 133 MHz the C3 fails to score over a Celeron with 66 MHz FSB. And yet C3 ads show the C3 bar much larger than the Celeron bar. These I suppose are a few tests that the C3 scored over Celeron. Does that mean the C3 is better than Celeron?

    girish

    <font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
  4. What we need is a single benchmarking standard that measures the overall performance of a chip in all areas and weighs them equally. People can then look at separate portions of the test that they're interested in, or look at the overall benchmark score.

    AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
  5. amd_man, yes! this is exactly what im talking about. probably easier said than done but it makes a lot of sense. i think everyone could benefit from something like that somehow.
  6. that is the best solution, but a bit too idealistic. that is why the opinion of third party revivers carries a lot of weight.

    Perhaps more important than the processor itself, it is the platform, the chipset and the motherboard that contributes almost equally to overall performance of the system. Other parts do their bit too. If you compare a Pentium-III running on a 64 MB system on a i810 motherboard and compare it with a VIA C3 running on a i815EP 256 MB with GF3 64 MB display, and compare their graphics performance it simply isnt fair. the benchmarks will just show the C3 wand way longer than the P-III's! and that will say nothing about the hardware used..!

    More than 20 sites do all kinds of hardware tests. Why cant one gather all their reviews and draw conclusions by comparing all of them together, like averaging out the scores and taking their votes on opinions. It would make the performance indices somewhat closer to real life since the hardware is being tested in a variety of configurations, conditions, applications and platforms. And then they could comment on what <i>platform</i> works ot the best for a particular job!

    you said it garett, easier said than done.

    girish

    <font color=red>No system is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Marketing