Home

News

Forums

Hardware

CPUs

Mainboards

Video

Guides

CPU Prices

Memory Prices

Shop



Sharky Extreme :


Latest News


- Crucial Triples Up With New Three-Channel DDR3 Kits
- OCZ Adds Three New Fatal1ty Power Supplies
- BFG Offers Free AGP to PCI Express Upgrade
- Kanguru's e-Flash Makes the Jump to USB and eSATA
- Gateway Launches New Core i7-powered FX-Series Gaming PCs
News Archives

Features

- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Microsoft's Dan Odell
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with ATI's Terry Makedon
- SharkyExtreme.com: Interview with Seagate's Joni Clark
- Half-Life 2 Review
- DOOM 3 Review

Buyer's Guides

- November Value Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- September Extreme Gaming PC Buyer's Guide
- July High-end Gaming PC Buyer's Guide

HARDWARE

  • CPUs

    - Intel Core i7-965 XE & Core i7-920 Review

  • Motherboards

    - Intel DX48BT2 (X48) Motherboard Review
    - AMD 790GX Chipset Review
    - Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-DS5 Motherboard Review
    - AMD 780G Chipset Review

  • Video Cards






  • Do customers want a machine that sounds faster or one that really is faster? AMD seems to be questioning this; given that they have produced processor after processor that either matched or beat Intel's best offerings at a fraction of the price, who could really blame them? Clock speed, as most enthusiasts already know full well, is no accurate measure of a processor's performance. This is why AMD's 1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird held up against everything Intel had to throw at them until the 2GHz P4 finally bested it (and not by much, nor even in all applications). But general consumers rely more on such measures as megahertz than enthusiasts do, a cross that AMD has had to bear... and a heavy one, at that, considering that general consumers account for far more of their business than enthusiasts do.

    So what's a company like AMD to do? Do they try to educate consumers as to how better to measure the performance of processors and systems? Of course... and AMD has made efforts toward doing so; but they have not managed to effect the cultural change that this would really require. After all, the belief that higher model numbers equal higher value/performance/quality gets beaten into us from the time we buy our first toys to the time we buy our first cars. In a recent meeting with ATI, for example, I was told that it was nice and simple... higher model numbers equal higher performance (with the RADEON 8500 being faster than the RADEON 7500, and so on). And other companies perpetuate this means of product selection, as well, because they know that most consumers want to feel that the buying process is simple, even if it really isn't.

    For every dollar that AMD might spend trying to convince consumers that higher megahertz doesn't equal higher performance, there are ten other companies out there that have taught us that bigger equals better... always. Higher horsepower equals faster car; higher megahertz eqals faster processor. What else are you supposed to base your purchase on when you haven't been reading every review on every enthusiast site for the past few years of your life? At least with cars, you can kick the tires and act like that means something. The folks over at your local Best Buy or CompUSA, however, might not take so kindly to kicking subwoofers... and if you think car salesmen are poor sources of information about cars, wait til you talk to the 17 year old kid working at your nearest retail PC seller.

    So then what's the solution? Well rather than come up with a new way of tackling this challenge, AMD has decided to go back to one that has already been tried with less than spectacular results.





    Copyright © 2002 INT Media Group, Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. About INT Media Group | Press Releases | Privacy Policy | Career Opportunities